For a few years, as a small startup, we didn’t do any form of formal efficiency critiques. As an alternative, we did common one-to-one conferences between managers and teammates, normally on a weekly foundation. We additionally gave suggestions to one another overtly and often. (We even experimented with doing suggestions transparently, however we went away from that observe — one of many few occasions we’ve scaled again a transparency experiment!) And lastly, each teammate had an everyday mastermind with one other workforce 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 workforce. 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 development.
Moreover, we began to wish a system for promotions that was extra equitable for teammates, and, ideally, one that will be extra predictable for the Finance workforce. As a gaggle, we started to crave a extra systematic strategy to these conversations to cut back the chance of bias. We have been already utilizing our method strategy to salaries, however there’s nonetheless a subjective ingredient 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 might end in some preventable inequities throughout the workforce. The best way to fight this was to systematically overview everybody on the workforce, on the similar time and with the identical measurements.
Thus, the twice-annual efficiency overview was born at Buffer. We now do official efficiency critiques twice a yr. Throughout this course of (which lasts a couple of month), every teammate does a self-review, after which each supervisor critiques each individual on their workforce. 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 yr, in Might 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 will likely be on household go away 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’ve teammates full a self-review first (we’ll share the questions beneath) earlier than their managers full a overview with the identical query prompts. We ask managers to write down their teammate overview earlier than studying the teammate’s self-review in order that they don’t seem to be influenced by the teammate’s personal evaluation. As soon as that’s completed, earlier than submitting their written overview to the teammate, the supervisor is welcome to overview the teammate’s self-review simply to ensure nothing main was missed.
This yr, we launched two meeting-free days throughout the first two weeks of overview season to assist carve out the time essential to replicate 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 a few important areas:
- How is the teammate’s efficiency in relation to the expectations for the function and degree? (That is rated on a scale, extra on that beneath.)
- Areas of celebration and gratitude
- Suggestions and areas to work on
Right here is the size we use for the “expectations” query:
- Lacking expectations: efficiency or function match is a priority.
- Generally misses expectations: [teammate] just isn’t persistently delivering the efficiency or having the impression anticipated for the function or degree.
- Meets expectations: [teammate] is succeeding and thriving of their function!
- Exceeds Expectations: [teammate] is attaining implausible, above-average leads to a number of areas of labor, and contributing above and past what is anticipated for his or her degree.
The questions in our critiques: *Be aware, that is the model that teammates fill out, however the model for managers is sort of the identical, and it says “this teammate” as an alternative 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.
Generally lacking expectations: I’m not persistently delivering the efficiency or having the impression anticipated for the function or degree.
Assembly expectations: I’m succeeding and thriving in my function!
Exceeding expectations: I’m attaining implausible, above-average leads to a number of areas of labor, and contributing above and past what is anticipated for my degree.
- What deliverables, accomplishments, and cultural contributions are you most pleased with prior 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 abilities during which you’d like to enhance or develop within the subsequent 3-6 months? [Text box]
- For managers: Primarily based on this overview, are you recommending a step change? [Multiple choice yes/no]
- Non-obligatory for teammates: Please use this house to share any feedback in your degree throughout the profession framework, if relevant. [Text box]
- Non-obligatory for teammates: What, if something, would allow you to 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 will likely be and what the questions are upfront). Managers have three weeks to write down and submit their critiques.
As a part of the method of writing overview for his or her teammates, managers in greater groups like Engineering and Buyer Advocacy do “calibrations” in an effort to be sure that teammates are being evaluated and promoted persistently throughout the world. This format remains to be evolving, however the thought is that managers get along with the world result in talk about, and customarily attain consensus on, that group’s promotions. That is one other observe with the aim of fairness and consistency in promotions. In the end, the pinnacle of the division makes the ultimate determination. 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 customarily attain alignment.
After that, managers submit promotions to the Finance workforce, 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 workforce 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, comparable to:
- The supervisor and their workforce 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 figuring out that all the pieces associated to efficiency has been shared, and documented.
Nonetheless, there are some drawbacks to this course of, too. Efficiency critiques take an enormous quantity of effort and time throughout the workforce and thus generally is a distraction from every day work. Maybe most unpleasantly, the method feels very hierarchical and reinforces a top-down mannequin of accountability.
Each time overview season comes round, one can find me Googling to see if different fashionable firms have cracked this but. (Quick 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 focus into this course of, but it surely all the time feels a bit painful to take that point away from serving prospects. After all we imagine that this course of will assist us serve prospects 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 probably the most knowledgeable one, relying on the workforce setup! We’ve tried 360 critiques, during which each teammate is reviewed by their friends, however that’s a good greater burden for the workforce when it comes to time away from different work. Because of this, we normally follow only a overview from the supervisor. (In instances the place a teammate works most carefully with a lead who just isn’t their direct supervisor, that lead will contribute to the overview. One instance of that state of affairs is our Advertising and marketing Engineer. His supervisor is on the Engineering workforce, however the individuals closest to his day-to-day work are on Advertising and marketing. 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 workforce. 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 provide suggestions as an alternative of feeling an obligation to share recommendation with one another as overtly as prior to now. We’re engaged on constructing again this tradition of open suggestions.
Regardless of my hesitations, I definitely respect the great issues that come from efficiency critiques, too. I really like that we have now a team-wide course of for managers to have fun achievements and vocalize what they respect about their teammates. I worth that we take the time obligatory to cut back bias in promotions throughout the workforce. 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 obligatory conversations, which is essential for us as a small enterprise. In the end, these advantages outweigh the prices for us.
Nonetheless, you’ll in all probability all the time see us tinkering with the method to attempt to deal with the challenges, whereas nonetheless capturing a lot of what makes efficiency critiques so helpful. When you’ve got any ideas or suggestions to make this course of simpler or environment friendly, please remark beneath, or I’m @carokopp on Twitter!
