Are you with a job at a startup or currently running a startup.
Do you do any form of employee performance appraisal? (either once a year or multiple times a year).<p>What format (top-down, 360 Peer Review) and tools do you use to facilitate that? Has it been effective?
I've seen a bunch of performance assessment systems, most of them being pretty bad.<p>The worst ones tend to boil down to: "As your manager, here is my subjective view of your performance over the last N months." which essentially rewards high visibility and self promotion rather than actual performance.<p>Second worst is: "As your manager, here is my subjective view of your performance plus 360 input from peers" which rewards your ability to join cliques and alliances.<p>Sadly in almost all jobs I've ever had, it was one of the above.<p>Sometimes the company would throw in a "self assessment," purpose unknown to me, which is likely not even read.<p>The ideal (in my view) performance assessment would be: "Here are the numeric metrics we agreed N months ago to measure your performance by. The data (collected neutrally and transparently throughout those months) show you met metric 1, 2, and 4, exceeded 3 and 5. Based on the transparent and mutually agreed upon formula, your raise and bonus this year are X and Y". Measurable and objective: Clear goal posts for you to aim for throughout the year. I've never seen this anywhere. I understand some sales roles get something like this.<p>VCs and shareholders don't come to shareholder meetings and say things like "CEO, I subjectively feel in my heart you are not doing a good job!" No, they look at the company's measurable, numeric results and judge by that. Why should it be any different with employees?<p>Obviously the hard part is coming up with those metrics so you're rewarding the right behavior and performance, but I'd much rather see companies put effort into coming up with those metrics rather than crafting the world's best self-assessment question or wasting everyone's time on 360s.
I've been on both ends of the performance appraisal spectrum; from ultra formal annual appraisals to nada.<p>Each and every time, the biggest predictor of a successful outcome was how well I was prepared. If i could articulate in a concrete, detailed way how much value I'd added.<p>It's not easy to do this. It takes time and effort to prepare. I used to search old emails, IMs, run user metrics, check old Microsoft Project charts, ask coworkers, reread all appraisals. [Shameless plug incoming] That's one of the reasons i built JobRudder [1] to help me keep track of all that stuff.<p>One other constant among the decades worth of performance appraisals. They're very messy. Feelings, first impressions, unconscious biases, stereotypes, cliques, politics etc etc etc. It's not particularly data driven or even objective. Be prepared.<p>[1] <a href="https://jobrudder.com" rel="nofollow">https://jobrudder.com</a>
TL;DR: If you decide you need a process, keep it very simple. If your company is small, trust that you likely already have a pretty good idea of how any one person is contributing. The faster and larger you grow the less likely this is. Either way, it can often help to make these thoughts and conversations accessible somewhere, especially when you want to recognize someone for their achievements.<p>In a 20 person company we focus only on 360 Feedback as needed throughout the year and set quarterly Objectives, while having regular 1:1 meetings.<p>Through our own personal experience, we've learned to keep it as simple as possible. Using only three questions during 360's (What did you do well? What could you improve on? and Is there anything else you would like to mention?) - we show the author of the feedback, but many also keep the author anonymous. It's personal preference, there are pros and cons to both.<p>Objectives make it easier to align with others and observe your team's progress over time. Regularly updating these saves a lot of energy when providing feedback to others if/when they're asked to provide more formal feedback.
If feedback is actionable it's more likely to be useful and the smaller the company the more informal you should make the process. Small teams often already know what needs to improve intuitively, but it can help to record this somewhere so you remain aware of what you're working towards.<p>Most important though is recognizing and celebrating the successes of your team. It feels good to be appreciated for the work you do and encourages you to do more.<p>Disclaimer: I'm a developer for Small Improvements, a feedback tool. We work specifically with startups and medium-size businesses.
On timing, I like our approach: initially 9 months after joining, then yearly after. A year after joining for your first salary review is too long.<p>Our strongest tool for performance "reviews" are 1:1s. Weekly/bi-weekly with your direct manager, typically monthly (or more) with your business unit's engineering lead, and about bi-monthly with the head of engineering, though newer engineers have 1:1s with me more often at first [0].<p>Some of this is covered in our manager's faq [1], specifically about performance reviews, score cards, ranking, etc, and why we think it's utlimately harmful, as it benefits the insitution more than the unique employee.<p>[0] This is tough to do as engineering groups scale, but critically important.<p>[1] <a href="https://blog.esharesinc.com/a-managers-faq-35858a229f84#.tqbgbn7ag" rel="nofollow">https://blog.esharesinc.com/a-managers-faq-35858a229f84#.tqb...</a>
* 360 Peer Reviews in winter and summer<p>* 1-1 with manager and peer twice a month<p>* 15five once a week as a mental health check for the employee<p>It's not a perfect system, and it's ever evolving, but it the best I've experienced so far.<p>The 360 system is great for highlighting projects and contributions a top-down review might miss, and also gives the coworkers a chance to call out areas for improvement. Employees can game the system by exchanging positive reviews, but that is easy to spot. An honest review with proper critical feedback is valuable to an employee's progression.<p>The 1-1's work for general sanity checks, but require preparation from the manager to have an impact. Too many managers show up with without preparing and expect the employee to do all the talking. I use 1-1's to discuss career progression, establish SMART goals, and ensure that my report is happy with the work they're doing.<p>15five is still a relatively new process for us, but the perceived anonymity of a form allows employee's to more direct with their feedback. A report is a great indicator for what to discuss in a 1-1.
We just did a round, very simple: both of the founders sit down with each and every employee individually and ask a couple of questions:<p>- what was the thing you did last year you have been most proud of
- what is the thing you did last year you have been the least proud off
- what did we do as a company that you think was great
- what did we do as a company that you think was bad<p>We got great feedback and engagement on these sessions.<p>Now obviously this wont work if you have a decently sized head count but in our case it worked just fine over the course of a week or so.
The study below has an adequate analysis and conclusion about politics in performance appraisals:<p><a href="https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/payne/PA/Longenecker%20et%20al.%201987.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/payne/PA/Longenecker%20et%20al....</a><p>Politics being "My appraisal is more to achieve an outcome in the self-interest of the person reviewing me, than it is to accurately assess my performance."
We use our own tool internally (<a href="https://www.intuo.io/" rel="nofollow">https://www.intuo.io/</a>). It works pretty well I'd say. What we do is basically:<p>* Continuously give each other 360 feedback<p>* Each manager does a monthly one-on-one with all of their teammembers<p>* We have quarterly objectives, on a personal, team and company level (using OKRs)<p>* Apart from that, we do continuous pulse surveys, measuring the happiness and engagement of our people
I really like the 5-word review described here:<p><a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3019036/dialed/simple-direct-honest-personal-and-blunt-how-the-5-word-performance-review-works-wonde" rel="nofollow">https://www.fastcompany.com/3019036/dialed/simple-direct-hon...</a><p>Having been on both sides of the review process, this form of review is not as time-sucking for the manager and can elicit good conversation.