
Ask HN: How are you doing performance appraisal at your startup? - tmlee
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?
======
ryandrake
I've seen a bunch of performance assessment systems, most of them being pretty
bad.

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.

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.

Sadly in almost all jobs I've ever had, it was one of the above.

Sometimes the company would throw in a "self assessment," purpose unknown to
me, which is likely not even read.

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.

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?

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.

~~~
jerkstate
Like CEO pay, purely metrics driven performance reviews lead to gaming the
metrics. Maybe you wouldn't do it, but how would you feel if your peers were
getting better raises and bonuses than you because they file and close more
do-nothing bugs, or ship more features because they wrote fewer tests.

~~~
ryandrake
This would be a problem with the choice of metrics, and I've already conceded
that coming up with the right "un-gameable" metrics is a tough problem indeed.

~~~
corysama
At Pixar they concluded that all metrics would be gamed eventually. So, they
responded by changing up the metrics on a regular basis.

------
gentleteblor
I've been on both ends of the performance appraisal spectrum; from ultra
formal annual appraisals to nada.

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.

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.

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.

[1] [https://jobrudder.com](https://jobrudder.com)

~~~
mattm
I started keeping a daily list of my accomplishments. I read about this
technique somewhere. I haven't seen how it has worked out yet but I think it
will help a lot with preparation.

Interesting site. I signed up and will give it a try. Very well done landing
page.

~~~
gentleteblor
Thank you for giving JobRudder a try (and for the kind words).

I'm (obviously) a big believer in achievement/accomplishment tracking. I think
it's the best thing anyone can do for their career, outside of the work itself
(and doing good work is not enough these days).

I had a streak of bad performance appraisals/interviews going before I started
tracking my achievements. It's made a world of difference.

Even if you end up not using JobRudder long term, I'm excited for you. I hope
it's as helpful for you as it was for me and others.

PS. If there's anything I can do to make JobRudder work better for you. Please
don't hesitate to reach out (email in profile).

------
rwieruch
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: I'm a developer for Small Improvements, a feedback tool. We work
specifically with startups and medium-size businesses.

~~~
garysieling
I don't think 360 feedback is ever really anonymous. I worked for a place that
did that, and it was always obvious from the writing style who wrote each
comment, since you typically also get emails from the same people.

~~~
batbomb
A possible fix for that is to hire a writing service that rewrites all
feedback.

------
erichurkman
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.

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].

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.

[0] This is tough to do as engineering groups scale, but critically important.

[1] [https://blog.esharesinc.com/a-managers-
faq-35858a229f84#.tqb...](https://blog.esharesinc.com/a-managers-
faq-35858a229f84#.tqbgbn7ag)

~~~
FLGMwt
+1 to "A year after joining for your first salary review is too long."

We have tick-tock reviews at the end of the year then mid year and people who
start in the fall aren't eligible for the end of year. If we didn't have the
mid year, I can't imagine the restlessness.

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
I joined my company on June 1st. At the end of the year, I was told that I
performed well and would be getting the typical 2.8% raise, but divided in two
because I had only been there six months.

------
notjustanymike
* 360 Peer Reviews in winter and summer

* 1-1 with manager and peer twice a month

* 15five once a week as a mental health check for the employee

It's not a perfect system, and it's ever evolving, but it the best I've
experienced so far.

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.

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.

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.

~~~
tmlee
> 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

The 360 review as i understand can be quite a complex flow ie. reviewer
nomination, anonymity, ensure everybody answers the review, releasing the
questions. Are you using a software for this or straight up google forms or
paper?

With these 3 different flows, do you tend to get push backs from teams? How
did you overcome that?

------
waseems
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:

\- 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

We got great feedback and engagement on these sessions.

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.

~~~
hnhg
I think what you're doing is a great exercise, culturally, but I wouldn't use
it to assess anyone's performance objectively.

What happens if you have a great employee who finds it difficult to articulate
on these points? Would you have to hear through the grapevine that they were
doing great things? What if you have someone who is a poor employee but can
talk the talk?

~~~
arethuza
That's a good point - what you'd be evaluating there is how good people are at
_talking_ about their performance rather than their actual performance.

A lot of excellent developers I've known (in fact I might say particularly the
excellent ones) were rather modest and often rather hard on themselves.

------
saycheese
Formal appraisals are a waste of resources in a startup.

Focus on addressing issues as they come up as a team or let them go.

~~~
cmdrfred
I work for a company that doesn't do performance reviews. Thus, there is
little incentive to perform well as nobody will even notice. Everyone just
works hard enough to keep their jobs.

~~~
hnhg
Maybe the lack of performance reviews and lack of motivation are probably
causatively linked to a wider, underlying issue?

~~~
cmdrfred
I think it's management that thinks an attaboy can pay a mortgage.

------
hitekker
The study below has an adequate analysis and conclusion about politics in
performance appraisals:

[https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/payne/PA/Longenecker%20et%20al....](https://www.tamu.edu/faculty/payne/PA/Longenecker%20et%20al.%201987.pdf)

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."

~~~
tytrin
Thank you! This study was very informative!

It would seem that the Performance Review is less a measurement to be taken
accurately, and more a Tool to be used to subtly move people.

The study you cited provides a useful enumeration of why. And if you read
carefully you can begin to see that the perception of the tool is likely to be
incorrect. (that of a measurement to be taken accurately).

To quote the end of the study: " The goal then is not to arbitrarily and
ruthlessly try to eliminate politics but, instead, to effectively manage the
role politics plays in employee appraisal."

------
philipDS
We use our own tool internally
([https://www.intuo.io/](https://www.intuo.io/)). It works pretty well I'd
say. What we do is basically:

* Continuously give each other 360 feedback

* Each manager does a monthly one-on-one with all of their teammembers

* We have quarterly objectives, on a personal, team and company level (using OKRs)

* Apart from that, we do continuous pulse surveys, measuring the happiness and engagement of our people

------
mcheshier
I really like the 5-word review described here:

[https://www.fastcompany.com/3019036/dialed/simple-direct-
hon...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3019036/dialed/simple-direct-honest-
personal-and-blunt-how-the-5-word-performance-review-works-wonde)

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.

