For a few years, as a small startup, we didn’t do any kind 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 brazenly and usually. (We even experimented with doing feedback transparently, however we went away from that follow — one of many few occasions we’ve scaled again a transparency experiment!) And lastly, each teammate had an everyday mastermind with one other group member, which regularly helped me course-correct or hear one thing that I in any other case wasn’t noticing about my efficiency. This felt completely enough for a few years, and we cherished the open, free-flowing communication in our small group. It could have felt foolish to do one thing that felt “company” and pointless, like a proper efficiency assessment course of.
Over time, nonetheless, and particularly as we grew, our system of open, frequent communication slowly stopped being sufficient. Teammates began to ask managers for a extra formal assessment 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 might be extra predictable for the Finance group. As a bunch, we started to crave a extra systematic method to these conversations to cut back the chance of bias. We have been already utilizing our system method to salaries, however there’s nonetheless a subjective factor 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 lead to some preventable inequities throughout the group. The best way to fight this was to systematically assessment everybody on the group, on the identical time and with the identical measurements.
Thus, the twice-annual efficiency assessment 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 group. The teammate and their supervisor have a one-to-one over Zoom to debate it reside, after which the assessment is full.
We usually do efficiency critiques twice a yr, 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 assessment 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 go away or sabbatical for the assessment season; we method these on a case-by-case foundation and both skip the assessment 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 assessment with the identical query prompts. We ask managers to write down their teammate assessment 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 finished, earlier than submitting their written assessment to the teammate, the supervisor is welcome to assessment the teammate’s self-review simply to ensure nothing main was missed.
This yr, we launched two meeting-free days in the course of the first two weeks of assessment season to assist carve out the time essential to replicate and write. This had combined success as a result of timing of a characteristic launch that was arising quickly. We’ll do this once more subsequent time!
How our critiques are formatted
The assessment boils down to 3 principal areas:
How is the teammate’s efficiency in relation to the expectations for the position and degree? (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 size we use for the “expectations” query:
Lacking expectations: efficiency or position match is a priority.
Typically misses expectations: [teammate] shouldn’t be constantly delivering the efficiency or having the affect anticipated for the position or degree.
Meets expectations: [teammate] is succeeding and thriving of their position!
Exceeds Expectations: [teammate] is reaching 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: *Notice, 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 position match is a priority.
Typically lacking expectations: I’m not constantly delivering the efficiency or having the affect anticipated for the position or degree.
Assembly expectations: I’m succeeding and thriving in my position!
Exceeding expectations: I’m reaching 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 just weren’t capable of? What blockers or challenges did you face? What are the areas or abilities by which you’d like to enhance or develop within the subsequent 3-6 months? [Text box]
For managers: Based mostly on this assessment, are you recommending a step change? [Multiple choice yes/no]
Optionally available for teammates: Please use this area to share any feedback in your degree throughout the profession framework, if relevant. [Text box]
Optionally available for teammates: What, if something, would enable you be more practical? [Text box]
Optionally available: 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 upfront). Managers have three weeks to write down and submit their critiques.
As a part of the method of writing assessment for his or her teammates, managers in greater groups like Engineering and Buyer Advocacy do “calibrations” with a view to ensure that teammates are being evaluated and promoted constantly throughout the realm. This format remains to be evolving, however the concept is that managers get along with the realm result in focus on, and usually attain consensus on, that group’s promotions. That is one other follow with the purpose of fairness and consistency in promotions. In the end, the top 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 reside 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 sincere that I nonetheless really feel a bit squeamish about this course of; I’ve by no means absolutely let go of my hesitations. I’m absolutely 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 method promotions extra equitably.
Teammates (and managers, too) can benefit from the peace of thoughts that comes with realizing that every part 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 assessment season comes round, you will discover 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 assessment course of:
1. It feels helpful and necessary 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 clients. After all we imagine that this course of will assist us serve clients higher in the long run, however that may be arduous 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 group setup! We’ve tried 360 critiques, by which each teammate is reviewed by their friends, however that’s an excellent greater burden for the group by way of time away from different work. In consequence, we normally keep on with only a assessment from the supervisor. (In circumstances the place a teammate works most carefully with a lead who shouldn’t be their direct supervisor, that lead will contribute to the assessment. One instance of that state of affairs 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 strains of communication open in just a few circumstances 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 seen much less free-flowing suggestions lately. It’s doubtless that teammates are counting on the supervisor to offer suggestions as an alternative of feeling an obligation to share recommendation with one another as brazenly as prior to now. We’re engaged on constructing again this tradition of open suggestions.
Regardless of my hesitations, I definitely admire the nice issues that come from efficiency critiques, too. I really like that we now have a team-wide course of for managers to rejoice achievements and vocalize what they admire about their teammates. I worth that we take the time mandatory to cut 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 mandatory conversations, which is necessary for us as a small enterprise. In the end, these advantages outweigh the prices for us.
Nevertheless, you’ll most likely 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 solutions or suggestions to make this course of more practical or environment friendly, please remark under, or I’m @carokopp on Twitter!