Which statement is accurate about extending due dates for performance review steps?

The statement regarding the due date of a step needing to be later than the due date of the preceding step in the workflow is correct because performance review processes are structured in a sequential manner. Each step in the performance evaluation workflow builds upon the previous one, which ensures that the review process is logical and coherent. This sequencing is critical for maintaining the integrity of the evaluation, as it ensures that all necessary evaluations and approvals occur in the correct order.

If the due date of a current step were to be earlier than or the same as that of its predecessor, it could lead to confusion and gaps in the evaluation process. For instance, if a manager is expected to conduct a review after an employee has submitted self-evaluations, it would not make sense for the manager’s review due date to precede the employee's submission date. By establishing that each step's due date must follow the preceding one, the process maintains its flow and facilitates timely feedback and decisions.

The other options presented do not align with the structured nature of workflow management in performance reviews, as they either suggest illogical sequencing or randomness that undermines the systematic approach necessary in performance evaluations.