For a few years, as a small startup, we didn’t do any kind of formal efficiency critiques. As a substitute, we did common one-to-one conferences between managers and teammates, often on a weekly foundation. We additionally gave suggestions to one another brazenly and commonly. (We even experimented with doing suggestions transparently, however we went away from that observe — one of many few instances we’ve scaled again a transparency experiment!) And lastly, each teammate had a daily mastermind with one other group member, which frequently helped me course-correct or hear one thing that I in any other case wasn’t noticing about my efficiency. This felt completely adequate for a few years, and we cherished the open, free-flowing communication in our small group. It will have felt foolish to do one thing that felt “company” and pointless, like a proper efficiency overview course of.
Over time, nevertheless, and particularly as we grew, our system of open, frequent communication slowly stopped being sufficient. Teammates began to ask managers for a extra formal overview of their strengths and areas of progress.
Moreover, we began to wish a system for promotions that was extra equitable for teammates, and, ideally, one that may be extra predictable for the Finance group. As a gaggle, we started to crave a extra systematic strategy to these conversations to scale back the danger of bias. We have been already utilizing our components strategy to salaries, however there may be nonetheless a subjective component to it, and that’s the extent of expertise and seniority of the individual. If some teammates advocated for themselves and others didn’t, that would lead to some preventable inequities throughout the group. The way in which to fight this was to systematically overview everybody on the group, on the identical time and with the identical measurements.
Thus, the twice-annual efficiency overview was born at Buffer. We now do official efficiency critiques twice a 12 months. Throughout this course of (which lasts a few month), every teammate does a self-review, after which each supervisor critiques each individual on their group. The teammate and their supervisor have a one-to-one over Zoom to debate it stay, after which the overview is full.
We usually do efficiency critiques twice a 12 months, in Could and November. (The timing is designed to keep away from main holidays, heavy trip seasons, and the start and finish of quarters.)
Everybody at Buffer completes a self-review and receives a overview from their supervisor besides new teammates who’re nonetheless of their first 90 days of onboarding. The opposite exceptions are teammates who shall be on household depart or sabbatical for the overview season; we strategy these on a case-by-case foundation and both skip the overview season that one time, or plan to do the method early or late, relying on the teammate’s wants and the supervisor’s recommendation.
We now have teammates full a self-review first (we’ll share the questions under) earlier than their managers full a overview with the identical query prompts. We ask managers to jot down their teammate overview earlier than studying the teammate’s self-review in order that they aren’t influenced by the teammate’s personal evaluation. As soon as that’s accomplished, earlier than submitting their written overview to the teammate, the supervisor is welcome to overview the teammate’s self-review simply to verify nothing main was missed.
This 12 months, we launched two meeting-free days in the course of the first two weeks of overview season to assist carve out the time essential to mirror and write. This had blended success because of the timing of a function launch that was arising quickly. We’ll do this once more subsequent time!
How our critiques are formatted
The overview boils down to 3 primary areas:
- How is the teammate’s efficiency in relation to the expectations for the function and stage? (That is rated on a scale, extra on that under.)
- Areas of celebration and gratitude
- Suggestions and areas to work on
Right here is the dimensions we use for the “expectations” query:
- Lacking expectations: efficiency or function match is a priority.
- Typically misses expectations: [teammate] isn’t constantly delivering the efficiency or having the influence anticipated for the function or stage.
- Meets expectations: [teammate] is succeeding and thriving of their function!
- Exceeds Expectations: [teammate] is attaining improbable, above-average ends in a number of areas of labor, and contributing above and past what is anticipated for his or her stage.
The questions in our critiques: *Notice, that is the model that teammates fill out, however the model for managers is nearly the identical, and it says “this teammate” as a substitute of “you.”
- How would you assess your efficiency, specializing in the previous ~6 months? (This covers day-to-day duties, assembly deadlines and finishing work, in addition to your demeanor, communication, collaboration, demonstration of values, and general drive.) [Multiple choice, optional text box]
Lacking expectations: efficiency or function match is a priority.
Typically lacking expectations: I’m not constantly delivering the efficiency or having the influence anticipated for the function or stage.
Assembly expectations: I’m succeeding and thriving in my function!
Exceeding expectations: I’m attaining improbable, above-average ends in a number of areas of labor, and contributing above and past what is anticipated for my stage.
- What deliverables, accomplishments, and cultural contributions are you most pleased with up to now six months? [Text box]
- What do you want you achieved that you simply weren’t in a position to? What blockers or challenges did you face? What are the areas or expertise by which you’d like to enhance or develop within the subsequent 3-6 months? [Text box]
- For managers: Based mostly on this overview, are you recommending a step change? [Multiple choice yes/no]
- Non-obligatory for teammates: Please use this area to share any feedback in your stage throughout the profession framework, if relevant. [Text box]
- Non-obligatory for teammates: What, if something, would enable you be simpler? [Text box]
- Non-obligatory: Anything to share? [Text box]
How lengthy efficiency critiques take
We give teammates one week to submit their self-reviews (they’re given discover for when this week shall be and what the questions are prematurely). Managers have three weeks to jot down and submit their critiques.
As a part of the method of writing overview for his or her teammates, managers in larger groups like Engineering and Buyer Advocacy do “calibrations” in an effort to ensure that teammates are being evaluated and promoted constantly throughout the realm. This format continues to be evolving, however the concept is that managers get along with the realm result in talk about, and usually attain consensus on, that group’s promotions. That is one other observe with the aim of fairness and consistency in promotions. Finally, the pinnacle of the division makes the ultimate resolution. Managers submit their critiques as soon as this course of is full.
By the fourth week after opening critiques, managers and teammates ought to have a stay name to debate the critiques. That is the chance to ask questions, elaborate, and usually attain alignment.
After that, managers submit promotions to the Finance group, and these go into impact roughly two weeks or one pay interval later.
The entire course of takes roughly 4 to 5 weeks relying on the group and holidays.
I’ll be trustworthy that I nonetheless really feel a bit squeamish about this course of; I’ve by no means totally let go of my hesitations. I’m totally purchased in on the advantages of this course of, corresponding to:
- The supervisor and their group attain full alignment on efficiency expectations and outcomes.
- We strategy promotions extra equitably.
- Teammates (and managers, too) can benefit from the peace of thoughts that comes with understanding that the whole lot associated to efficiency has been shared, and documented.
Nevertheless, there are some drawbacks to this course of, too. Efficiency critiques take an enormous quantity of effort and time throughout the group and thus could be a distraction from day by day work. Maybe most unpleasantly, the method feels very hierarchical and reinforces a top-down mannequin of accountability.
Each time overview season comes round, you will see me Googling to see if different fashionable corporations have cracked this but. (Brief reply: not that I’ve discovered.)
In additional element, these are my greatest complaints with the efficiency overview course of:
1. It feels helpful and essential for teammates to place time and a spotlight into this course of, but it surely all the time feels a bit painful to take that point away from serving clients. In fact we consider that this course of will assist us serve clients higher in the long run, however that may be laborious to carry onto within the second.
2. The supervisor’s perspective is just one view right into a teammate’s contributions, and it’s generally not even essentially the most knowledgeable one, relying on the group setup! We’ve tried 360 critiques, by which each teammate is reviewed by their friends, however that’s a good larger burden for the group when it comes to time away from different work. In consequence, we often keep on with only a overview from the supervisor. (In instances the place a teammate works most carefully with a lead who isn’t their direct supervisor, that lead will contribute to the overview. One instance of that scenario is our Advertising Engineer. His supervisor is on the Engineering group, however the individuals closest to his day-to-day work are on Advertising. So we simply hold traces of communication open in a number of instances like this.)
3. We rent proficient, hard-working people who find themselves intrinsically motivated to do nice work on a group. The type of “top-down accountability” that comes from critiques usually feels at odds with that. We’ve observed much less free-flowing suggestions in recent times. It’s seemingly that teammates are counting on the supervisor to present suggestions as a substitute of feeling an obligation to share recommendation with one another as brazenly as up to now. We’re engaged on constructing again this tradition of open suggestions.
Regardless of my hesitations, I definitely admire the great issues that come from efficiency critiques, too. I really like that we now have a team-wide course of for managers to have fun achievements and vocalize what they admire about their teammates. I worth that we take the time essential to scale back bias in promotions throughout the group. These seasons are additionally alternatives for managers and teammates to get on the identical web page unequivocally about efficiency and expectations; this can be a format for generally uncomfortable however essential conversations, which is essential for us as a small enterprise. Finally, these advantages outweigh the prices for us.
Nevertheless, you’ll most likely all the time see us tinkering with the method to attempt to tackle the challenges, whereas nonetheless capturing a lot of what makes efficiency critiques so helpful. When you have any options or suggestions to make this course of simpler or environment friendly, please remark under, or I’m @carokopp on Twitter!
