--- name: performance-reviews description: Manage performance review cycles including mid-year and annual reviews, self-assessments, manager reviews, 360-degree feedback collection, calibration sessions, and review outcome documentation. Use when kicking off a review cycle, collecting feedback, running calibration meetings, documenting performance ratings, or generating review summaries. Triggers on phrases like "performance review", "annual review", "mid-year review", "evaluate employee performance", "calibration meeting", "360 feedback", "rating cycle", "performance assessment". --- # Performance Reviews Run structured, fair, and actionable performance review cycles. ## Workflow 1. Kick off the review cycle: announce timeline, send guides to employees and managers, configure system. 2. **Self-assessment phase** (Week 1–2): Employees complete self-review against goals set at last cycle, highlight achievements, document challenges. 3. **Manager review phase** (Week 3–4): Managers rate direct reports, write narrative feedback, compare against goals and competency framework. 4. **360-degree feedback collection** (Week 3–4, parallel): Collect anonymous feedback from peers, cross-functional partners, and direct reports (for managers). 5. **Preliminary 1:1 reviews** (Week 5): Manager and employee discuss ratings and feedback in a structured conversation. 6. **Calibration sessions** (Week 6): Cross-manager meetings to align ratings, reduce bias, ensure distribution fairness. 7. **Final review conversations** (Week 7): Post-calibration 1:1 with final ratings, development plans, and compensation implications. 8. **Documentation and follow-up** (Week 8): Store completed reviews, generate analytics, set new goals for next cycle. ## Rating Scale Use a 5-point scale with clear behavioral anchors — avoid forced distribution unless legally required. | Rating | Label | Behavior | Approx. % | |--------|-------|----------|-----------| | 5 | Exceptional | Consistently exceeds all expectations; role model for peers; impact beyond scope | ~10% | | 4 | Exceeds Expectations | Regularly goes beyond role requirements; high-quality output with minimal guidance | ~20% | | 3 | Meets Expectations | Solidly performs all core responsibilities; reliable contributor | ~45% | | 2 | Needs Improvement | Gaps in key areas; requires additional support or coaching | ~15% | | 1 | Unsatisfactory | Fails to meet core requirements; formal improvement plan needed | ~5–10% | **Note:** Percentages are guidelines, not quotas. Do not force a bell curve — calibrate to actual performance. ## Review Components ### Component 1: Goal Achievement Rate against goals set at the start of the review period: ``` Goal: [Specific, measurable goal from last cycle] Status: □ Exceeded □ Achieved □ Partially Achieved □ Not Achieved Evidence: [Specific examples, metrics, project outcomes] Manager notes: [Context, challenges, external factors] ``` ### Component 2: Competency Assessment Rate core competencies. Customize per role level: | Competency | Individual Contributor | Manager | Director+ | |------------|----------------------|---------|-----------| | Technical/Functional Excellence | Core rating | Rated + strategic impact | Strategic vision | | Communication | Clear, effective | Influential, persuasive | Executive presence | | Collaboration | Team player | Cross-functional leader | Org-wide alignment | | Initiative & Ownership | Self-directed | Drives team outcomes | Drives org outcomes | | Growth & Learning | Continuously improves | Develops others | Builds talent pipeline | ### Component 3: Narrative Feedback **Structure manager narrative using SBI model:** ``` Situation: "During the Q3 product launch..." Behavior: "...you re-prioritized the backlog without consulting the team..." Impact: "...which caused 2 engineers to work weekends and missed the internal QA deadline." Follow with: - What worked well (specific strengths observed) - Areas for growth (specific, actionable) - Overall impression ``` ### Component 4: 360-Degree Feedback Collect from 4–8 raters per employee: ``` Rater types: - Peer (same team): 2–3 raters - Cross-functional partner: 1–2 raters - Direct report (if manager): 2–3 raters - Manager: 1 rater (weighted higher) Questions per rater: 1. Rate overall effectiveness (1–5) 2. Top strength observed: [free text] 3. One area for improvement: [free text] 4. Would you willingly work with this person again? Yes/No Aggregation: → Average rating across all raters (manager rating weighted 2×) → Surface common themes in free-text responses → Flag significant disagreement (range ≥ 2 points) ``` ## Calibration Session ### Purpose Align ratings across managers to ensure: - A "3" means the same thing in Engineering as it does in Sales - No manager is systematically too lenient or too severe - Ratings reflect actual performance, not recency bias or affinity bias ### Format ``` Duration: 2 hours per calibration group (8–12 managers) Facilitator: HRBP or People Ops partner Participants: Managers with direct reports in the same cycle Agenda: 1. Review rating distribution across all managers (15 min) 2. Each manager presents their 5s and 1s (evidence required) (45 min) 3. Challenge outliers: "Why is Manager A giving more 4s than Manager B?" (30 min) 4. Re-rate any contested employees (15 min) 5. Finalize ratings and document calibration decisions (15 min) Rules: - Evidence required for all 5s and 1s - Managers defend their ratings; group can suggest adjustment - HRBP has final say on distribution fairness - All adjustments documented with rationale ``` ### Calibration Red Flags - Any manager with > 30% of direct reports rated 5 - Any manager with 0 employees rated below 3 (potential leniency bias) - Any manager with > 30% rated below 3 (potential severity bias) - Significant rating gaps between managers of similar teams - Ratings that don't align with objective data (project delivery, customer feedback, revenue impact) ## Review Conversation Guide ### For Managers: How to Deliver Feedback ``` Opening (5 min): "Thank you for the self-assessment. Let's walk through the review together. This is a conversation, not a monologue." Goal Review (10 min): "Let's look at each goal. Where do you see alignment or disagreement with my assessment?" Competency Discussion (15 min): "In [competency], I noticed [specific example]. How do you view this?" 360 Feedback Summary (5 min): "Themes from your 360 feedback: [strengths]. One area peers mentioned: [growth area]." Overall Rating (5 min): "Your overall rating is [X]. Here's what that means: [anchor]. Does this feel fair to you?" Development Plan (10 min): "For next cycle, let's focus on [1–2 growth areas]. Here are specific actions and resources." Employee Voice (10 min): "What do you need from me to succeed? What's working well? What's not?" Closing (5 min): "I'll document our discussion. We'll revisit these goals in our next 1:1. Any final thoughts?" ``` ## Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) Trigger Initiate a PIP when: - Employee receives a rating of 1 (Unsatisfactory) - Employee receives two consecutive ratings of 2 (Needs Improvement) in the same competency - Specific behavioral or performance issue identified that hasn't improved after coaching ### PIP Structure ``` Duration: 30, 60, or 90 days (documented at start) Check-ins: Weekly 1:1 with manager + bi-weekly HR check-in Document includes: 1. Specific performance gaps (with evidence) 2. Clear, measurable expectations for each gap 3. Resources and support provided (training, mentorship, adjusted workload) 4. Weekly milestone checklist 5. Consequences of non-improvement (role change or separation) 6. Employee acknowledgment signature Success criteria: Employee meets ≥ 80% of PIP milestones by end date ``` ## Output ### Review Summary Report ``` PERFORMANCE REVIEW SUMMARY — 2024 Annual Cycle ================================================ Employee: Jane Doe | Role: Senior Product Manager Review Period: Jan 1, 2024 — Dec 31, 2024 Reviewer: Alex Chen (Director, Product) GOAL ACHIEVEMENT: ✓ Q1 Platform Roadmap: Exceeded (delivered 2 weeks early) ✓ Q3 Feature Launch: Achieved (on time, on budget) ⚠ Cross-team Alignment: Partially Achieved (improved by Q4) ✓ Customer Satisfaction: Exceeded (NPS +12 pts) COMPETENCY RATINGS: Technical/Functional: 4 — Exceeds Communication: 4 — Exceeds Collaboration: 3 — Meets Initiative & Ownership: 4 — Exceeds Growth & Learning: 4 — Exceeds 360 FEEDBACK SUMMARY: Average rating: 4.1/5.0 (from 6 raters) Common theme: "Strong strategic thinker" Growth area: "Delegate more effectively" OVERALL RATING: 4 — Exceeds Expectations CALIBRATION: Confirmed at calibration session (Jan 15) DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1. Lead cross-functional initiative in Q1 to build delegation skills 2. Enroll in advanced negotiation workshop 3. Mentor a mid-level PM COMPENSATION IMPACT: Eligible for above-midpoint increase per comp policy ``` ## Integration Points - HRIS (Workday, BambooHR): Goal tracking, rating storage, comp integration - Performance platforms (Lattice, 15Five, Culture Amp): Review workflows, 360 collection - Calendar: Schedule review meetings, calibration sessions - Email: Cycle announcements, deadline reminders - Payroll/Comp systems: Link ratings to compensation adjustments - LMS: Recommend development courses based on growth areas ## Edge Cases - **New hires (< 6 months in)**: Prorated review focusing on ramp and early contributions; no formal rating if < 90 days - **Employees on extended leave**: Pause review cycle; resume when fully back - **Role changes mid-cycle**: Split review: rate first role for period held, second role for period held - **Manager change mid-cycle**: New manager completes review but incorporates prior manager's input - **Remote/international employees**: Same standards; account for communication challenges in rating collaboration competency