Write a performance review

Thursday calibration pre-read

Proposed changes below are for discussion, not final ratings. We’ll assess outcomes against goals first; shipping, effort, and stakeholder praise are not outcomes by themselves. Managers can share additional evidence before ratings are finalized.

Ratings I’d change

• Aisha — Greatly exceeds → Meets. Trial conversion reached 8.4% against an 11% goal. Self-serve billing shipped, but shipping is not an outcome, and the cited nine features, energy, and leadership praise don’t establish goal outperformance.
• Chloe — Exceeds → Meets. API usage grew 4% against a 20% goal. The partner portal shipped, but no result from the launch is cited; strong specs and on-time delivery don’t establish Exceeds.
• Emma — Exceeds → Meets. Expansion revenue grew 6% against a 15% goal. The dashboard shipped, and six Sales requests were delivered, but neither is evidence of the targeted revenue outcome or clear outperformance.
• Ines — Exceeds → Meets. Checkout drop-off reached 21% against a 22% goal, while two payment methods shipped. The checkout result beat its target by one point; for the payment-method goal, no outcome beyond shipping is cited. The evidence supports a solid year, not clear outperformance on outcomes.
• Gita — Below → Meets on the current record. Online invoices reached 47% against a 45% goal. Reminders v2 launched but was rolled back after four days because Support had not been briefed. That is a serious rollout issue, but the record includes no earlier documented feedback on the gap, as required for Below. Please share any such documentation before calibration closes.

Ratings I’d keep

• Ben — Exceeds. Onboarding fell to 4.5 days against a 5-day goal, and activation reached 39% against 38%: both measured outcomes surpassed target.
• Dev — Exceeds. Support tickets fell 27% against a 25% goal, and NPS reached 41 against 40. Both outcomes beat their goals; mentoring two APMs is additional contribution.
• Femi — Meets. Weekly retention reached its 46% goal, and new-account churn fell 22% against a 20% goal.
• Hugo — Meets, with a material concern to discuss. The app shipped late and mobile weekly actives rose 3% against a 20% goal. The evidence shows a missed outcome; no earlier documented feedback is cited to support Below.
• Jon — Meets. Search success reached 66% against 70%, and filters shipped. This is progress, not goal attainment; the record does not establish a case for a non-Meets rating.
• Kai — Meets. Fraud losses fell 24% against a 20% goal; refund rate was 3.1% against a 3% goal. Mixed results support Meets.
• Lena — Below. Listings grew 9% against a 25% goal, and seller analytics did not launch. Earlier feedback on the gap is documented in Q2 and Q3 1:1s, meeting the Below requirement.
• Mo — Meets. Time to first sale was 15 days against a 14-day goal; seller NPS rose 6 points against a 5-point goal. One goal narrowly missed, the other was exceeded.
• Nora — Meets. Payment success reached 95.4% against a 95% goal, and support tickets fell 35% against a 30% goal. Both outcomes beat target, but the evidence supports Meets rather than clear outperformance.

Note to Ravi

Ravi, several of your proposed high ratings cite launches, feature volume, responsiveness, or praise alongside missed outcome goals. For calibration, please anchor any Exceeds or Greatly Exceeds case in clear outcome outperformance; shipping alone is not enough. Please bring any additional outcome evidence you believe changes these recommendations.

To: Ravi, Sara, Tom From: Director of Product Date: October 24, 2023 Subject: Pre-Read: Product Calibration (Thursday)

Team—ahead of Thursday’s calibration, I have reviewed all 14 proposed ratings against our calibration principles: 1. Outcomes over outputs: We evaluate impact against goals first, then how the work was done. Shipping is an output, not an outcome. 2. Evidence-based: Any rating other than Meets requires documented outcome data. 3. Guardrails on Below: A Below rating requires documented prior feedback on the gap. 4. Distribution: Most PMs should land at Meets, with Exceeds reserved for clear outperformance on business and customer outcomes.

Below are my proposed adjustments, the ratings I recommend keeping, and the discussion points for Thursday.

---

1. Proposed Rating Changes

#### Aisha (Ravi): Greatly Exceeds $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: Trial conversion increased from 8% to 8.4% (well short of the 11% target). Self-serve billing and 9 features shipped. * Rationale: Aisha’s energy and velocity are appreciated, but shipping features and executive visibility do not constitute business outcomes. She significantly missed her primary conversion goal. Delivering features without moving the core metric places her solidly at Meets.

#### Chloe (Ravi): Exceeds $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: API usage grew +4% (target was +20%). Partner portal shipped on time with strong specs. * Rationale: Timely delivery and strong documentation are expected baseline PM capabilities. Chloe missed her outcome metric by 16 percentage points. Meets is the appropriate rating.

#### Emma (Ravi): Exceeds $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: Expansion revenue grew +6% (target was +15%). Shipped usage dashboard and 6 sales requests. * Rationale: Being responsive to Sales and clearing backlog requests reflects high effort, but it produced less than half of the targeted revenue expansion. Meets appropriately reflects delivery without outsized outcome impact.

#### Gita (Sara): Below $\rightarrow$ Meets * Evidence: Invoices paid online reached 47% (exceeded the 45% target, up from 35%). Reminders v2 launched in September and was rolled back after 4 days due to unbriefed support. * Rationale: Gita significantly outperformed on her primary outcome metric (+12 pts). The launch execution for reminders was unacceptable, but: 1. Our policy prioritizes outcomes first, then execution. 2. A Below rating explicitly requires documented prior feedback on the gap, which is absent here. Gita should receive Meets, paired with explicit operational feedback regarding launch readiness.

#### Nora (Sara): Meets $\rightarrow$ Exceeds * Evidence: Payment success increased to 95.4% (beat 95% target, from 92%). Payment support tickets dropped -35% (beat -30% target). * Rationale: Nora exceeded both of her core outcome metrics. Quiet, low-drama delivery should be rewarded just as visibly as vocal execution. This is textbook outperformance.

---

2. Ratings Kept as Proposed

• Ben (Ravi) — Exceeds: Cut onboarding time to 4.5 days (target: 5) and grew activation to 39% (target: 38%). Clear outperformance on both outcome metrics.
• Dev (Ravi) — Exceeds: Reduced support tickets by -27% (target: -25%) and lifted NPS to 41 (target: 40), while mentoring two APMs. Strong outcomes combined with positive org impact.
• Ines (Tom) — Exceeds: Reduced checkout drop-off to 21% (beat target of 22%) and successfully shipped two new payment methods. Met both outcome and delivery bars.
• Jon (Tom) — Meets: Improved search success to 66% (target: 70%) and shipped filters. Solid progress; Meets is accurate.
• Kai (Tom) — Meets: Refund rate finished at 3.1% (target: 3.0%) and fraud losses dropped -24% (beat -20% target). Consistent, dependable execution.
• Mo (Tom) — Meets: Time to first sale dropped to 15 days (target: 14) and seller NPS reached +6 (target: +5). Solid year with strong stakeholder management.
• Lena (Tom) — Below: Marketplace listings grew only +9% (target: +25%) and seller analytics failed to launch. Missed both goals. Formal feedback was documented in Q2 and Q3 1:1s, meeting our required standard for Below.

---

3. Key Discussion Items for Calibration

• Hugo (Sara — Proposed: Meets): Hugo shipped mobile v2 late and achieved +3% WAU growth against a +20% target. By outcomes alone, this is Below performance. However, our guidance requires documented earlier feedback to assign a Below. If Sara has prior documented feedback, we should move Hugo to Below. If not, Hugo stays at Meets, but must be placed on a structured performance plan immediately.
• Femi (Sara — Proposed: Meets): Femi hit weekly retention (46%) and beat account churn reduction (-22% vs. -20%). We will discuss whether Femi’s consistent delivery warrants an Exceeds alongside Nora.

---

4. Org Distribution Impact

* Proposed initial spread: 1 Greatly Exceeds / 5 Exceeds / 6 Meets / 2 Below (Ravi: 100% Exceeds+, Sara: 0% Exceeds+, Tom: 25% Exceeds) * Revised spread: 0 Greatly Exceeds / 4 Exceeds (29%) / 9 Meets (64%) / 1 Below (7%) (pending Hugo/Femi) This aligns with our goal of centering the team at Meets while recognizing demonstrable outperformance.

---

5. Note to Ravi

Ravi,

I want to speak directly to your proposed ratings before we meet Thursday. You put forward 5 out of 5 PMs at Exceeds or Greatly Exceeds. While I appreciate your instinct to back your team, this submission has two significant issues:

1. Outputs vs. Outcomes: For Aisha, Chloe, and Emma, your rationale centers on features shipped, sales responsiveness, spec quality, and team energy. These are outputs and behaviors. When we look at their business targets, all three fell well short: trial conversion missed by 2.6 pts, API usage missed by 16 pts, and expansion revenue missed by 9 pts. Shipping software that does not move the target metric is not Exceeds performance.
2. Parity across the org: Tom and Sara evaluated their teams strictly against measurable results. If we reward activity on your team while holding their PMs to hard outcome metrics, we undermine the integrity of the process and demotivate top performers across Northgate (such as Nora, who exceeded all metrics without fanfare).

Ben and Dev demonstrated genuine outperformance on outcomes and have earned their Exceeds ratings. Aisha, Chloe, and Emma are valued contributors, but their results are standard Meets. Let’s align on this calibration standard so we can give your PMs clear, actionable coaching on driving commercial and customer impact, rather than just shipping volume.

Looking forward to a productive session Thursday.

To: Ravi, Sara, Tom From: Director of Product Subject: Pre-Read: Thursday PM Calibration (Northgate)

Team,

Ahead of our calibration session this Thursday, I have reviewed the proposed ratings, outcomes, and evidence for all 14 PMs across our org.

Per our calibration guidance, we evaluate PMs first on outcomes against goals, not on activity. Shipping features, being responsive to sales, or having great energy are inputs, not results. Furthermore, any rating other than "Meets" requires rigorous, quantifiable evidence of goal achievement, and "Below" ratings require documented prior feedback.

Below is my proposed adjustment of ratings, the rationale and evidence for changes, and the list of ratings we are keeping as submitted.

---

Part 1: Proposed Rating Changes & Rationale

#### 1. Aisha (Manager: Ravi) * Proposed by Manager: Greatly Exceeds * My Proposed Rating: Below * Evidence & Rationale: * Goal 1: Raise trial conversion from 8% to 11% $\rightarrow$ Result: 8.4% (Missed by a wide margin). * Goal 2: Ship self-serve billing $\rightarrow$ Result: Shipped (Violation of guidance: "Shipping is not an outcome"). * Rationale: Aisha missed her primary core metric goal entirely (gaining only 0.4% against a 3% target) and fell back on "shipping" and "great energy" for her second goal. Per our framework, failing the core quantitative goal while relying on output means this is a Below performance. Ravi, we will need to document the performance gap and prior feedback for Aisha in this cycle.

#### 2. Chloe (Manager: Ravi) * Proposed by Manager: Exceeds * My Proposed Rating: Meets * Evidence & Rationale: * Goal 1: Grow API usage 20% $\rightarrow$ Result: +4% (Severe miss). * Goal 2: Launch partner portal $\rightarrow$ Result: Shipped on time