Write a performance review

Calibration Materials: Lukas Brenner, Senior PM

1. Review summary and proposed rating

Proposed rating: Meets expectations

Goal results

Strengths. Lukas delivered two of three goals ahead of target. Cutting onboarding time by more than half is a substantial result. Taking tracking adoption past 55% also took cross-functional work. Three of four peers were positive, citing the onboarding work and his collaboration.

The Dispatch v2 miss. This was a real failure with real cost: support was not briefed, 340 tickets arrived in week one, and the launch was rolled back. Several points shape how I weigh it:

• Lukas was on approved leave the week before launch, and his deputy ran the final checks. A launch-readiness gap occurred on his project, but not through negligence on his part.
• Lukas still owns the outcome. A launch of this size should have had a handoff or readiness process that survived his absence, and either the plan to cover his leave or the go/no-go decision was weak. I haven't confirmed who owned the support briefing or whether a checklist existed. I'll establish that before the relaunch, not assume it.
• The Head of Operations' criticism of how Dispatch was communicated is legitimate and should be recorded.
• Relaunch is planned for next quarter, so the outcome isn't final.

Why Meets, not Below. Two strong results and one significant miss, with mitigating context, add up to Meets. The record doesn't support "Below expectations." It also doesn't support Exceeds, because the rollback was costly and the Operations concern is a real signal.

Consistency check. Last year Priya, also a Senior PM, had a launch rolled back after a similar support failure and was rated Meets with no PIP. Rating Lukas lower, with a stronger consequence, for a comparable miss, and with better overall results than the miss alone suggests, would be hard to defend in calibration.

Development areas (to be documented in writing): 1. Launch readiness: cross-functional briefing (especially support and operations), and coverage plans when the owner is out. 2. Stakeholder communication with Operations on launch timing and impact.

2. PIP recommendation

I recommend against a PIP.

• Policy. A PIP requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap and a chance to improve. Lukas has had no written feedback this year on strategy or product sense. The only feedback was one conversation in November about launch readiness, after Dispatch. He hasn't had a fair chance to address the gap.
• Evidence. The "not strategic enough / lacks product sense" claim is not supported by the record. The onboarding and tracking results are strategic outcomes, and no example of poor product judgment is documented apart from the launch process.
• Consistency. It would be treated differently from Priya's comparable case.
• Proportionality. The one real gap, launch readiness, is specific and fixable, and the relaunch gives a natural test.

What I'd do instead: a documented development plan, delivered in writing within two weeks of calibration:

• Written feedback naming the launch-readiness gap and the Operations communication concern, with the Dispatch facts.
• Relaunch readiness criteria, agreed with Lukas before the Dispatch v2 relaunch:
• Support briefed and signed off at least 10 business days before launch.
• Written go/no-go checklist with named owners, including Support and Operations.
• A documented coverage and handoff plan for any planned absence in the two weeks around launch.
• Staged rollout or defined rollback triggers.
• Success measures: all criteria met; first-week support ticket volume within a threshold agreed with Support (to be set from baseline volumes); Operations lead's feedback on launch communication collected after relaunch.
• Check-ins: every two weeks with me, and a formal review at 60 days.

Escalation path. If the development plan is documented, the criteria are clear, and Lukas then repeats the same failures in areas he controls, a PIP with measurable criteria and a 60-day term would be justified and policy-compliant. We are not there today.

3. Note to Ines

Ines,

Thanks for drafting the pre-read. I've reviewed the record and I'd like to propose a different rating and approach before we go into calibration. I think the current draft would be hard to defend.

Where I agree. Dispatch v2 was a serious miss. Support wasn't briefed, 340 tickets came in, and we rolled back. The Operations Head's concern is valid. Lukas needs clear feedback on launch readiness.

Where the evidence doesn't support the draft: - "Not strategic, lacks product sense." Lukas cut onboarding from 21 to 9 days against a target of 10, and took tracking adoption to 57% against 55%. Three of four peers were positive. I can't point to documented evidence of weak product judgment, and I'd rather not put that claim in a pre-read without it. - "A disaster." The rollback was costly, but Lukas was on approved leave the week before launch and his deputy ran the final checks. That doesn't absolve him, because the handoff was his to plan, but it matters to how we weigh it. - PIP eligibility. Our policy requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap. Lukas has none on strategy or product sense, and the one launch-readiness conversation was in November, after the fact. A PIP now would likely not survive HR review. - Precedent. Priya had a similar rollback and support failure last year and was rated Meets with no PIP. Treating Lukas more harshly invites a fairness challenge.

What I propose. Rate Meets, and issue written feedback plus a development plan tied to the Dispatch relaunch criteria (summary above). If he repeats the pattern after that, a PIP becomes defensible.

I also own part of this. I should have given Lukas written feedback earlier, and I'll fix that now. If you have specific examples of product-sense or strategy gaps that aren't in the record, please send them before calibration and I'll weigh them. Could we also adjust the pre-read wording to reflect the facts above?

Happy to talk through it before the session.

[Director of Product]

Calibration Pre-read: Lukas Brenner, Senior PM

1. Review summary and proposed rating

Proposed rating: Meets expectations

Lukas exceeded two of his three goals. The third launched on schedule but failed in a way that was partly his responsibility. On balance, that is a solid year with one clear development area: launch readiness.

Goal 1: Cut carrier onboarding time from 21 days to 10. Exceeded. Onboarding now takes 9 days, beating the target by a day. That is a 57% reduction in a metric that directly affects carrier activation and revenue timing. Three of four peers cite this work specifically as a strength.

Goal 2: Launch Dispatch v2 by October. Not met in substance. Dispatch v2 shipped in October, so the date was hit. It was rolled back six days later. Support had not been briefed, and 340 tickets arrived in the first week. The goal was a working launch, not a date, so I do not count it as achieved.

On accountability, both of these facts matter: - Lukas was on approved leave the week before launch, and his deputy ran the final launch checks. He was not the person who missed the support briefing on the day. - Lukas still owned the launch plan. A Senior PM should leave behind a readiness process that does not depend on his being present, including a support-briefing step and a clear handover. The Head of Operations' concern about how Dispatch was communicated is fair and consistent with this.

The failure was in launch-readiness process and handover. It was not a failure of strategy or product judgment. The product itself is due to relaunch next quarter, which suggests the underlying work is sound.

Goal 3: Grow carriers using live tracking from 40% to 55%. Exceeded. Adoption reached 57%, two points above target.

Peer feedback. Three of four peers are positive, citing the onboarding work and his collaboration. The one negative review, from the Head of Operations, is specific to Dispatch communication and matches the development area above.

Why Meets rather than Below. - Two of three goals were exceeded, and the miss has a specific, correctable cause. - Last year Priya, also a Senior PM, had a launch rolled back after a similar support failure. She was rated Meets expectations, with no PIP. Rating Lukas lower for a comparable event would be inconsistent, and harder to justify given that Lukas also beat his other targets. - "Not strategic enough" and "lacks product sense" do not appear anywhere in his written feedback this year, his goal results, or his peer reviews. I can't support them as rating inputs on the current evidence.

Development area for next year: Own launch readiness end to end. That means cross-functional briefings (Support and Operations), go/no-go criteria, and handover plans that hold up when he is away.

2. PIP recommendation

Recommendation: No PIP. Use a documented development plan tied to the Dispatch v2 relaunch instead.

A PIP does not meet our HR policy here, on either potential basis:

• Strategy and product sense. Policy requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap and a chance to improve. There is no written feedback to Lukas on either topic this year. A PIP on these grounds would not meet policy.
• Launch readiness. The only feedback was a single conversation in November, after the Dispatch rollback. Lukas has had no launch since then, so he has had no chance to improve. A PIP now would also skip that step.

A PIP would also diverge from how we treated Priya in a comparable situation. That creates fairness and legal exposure, and it would read to the team as a reaction to one visible incident rather than to performance over the year.

What I propose instead: a written development plan, starting now, built around the Dispatch v2 relaunch.

Key terms: 1. Readiness checklist. Lukas produces a written launch-readiness checklist covering a Support briefing, an Operations sign-off, a rollback plan and a comms plan. It is reviewed with me and the Head of Operations at least four weeks before relaunch. 2. Support and Ops readiness. Support is trained, with documentation in place, at least one week before relaunch. The Head of Operations confirms in writing that communication was adequate. 3. Clean launch. Dispatch v2 relaunches without a rollback. First-week support tickets stay under an agreed threshold, which Lukas proposes and I approve; for scale, last time there were 340. 4. Handover plan. Any planned absence within the four weeks before launch has a written handover with a named decision-owner. 5. Cadence. Biweekly 1:1 check-ins on the plan, with brief written notes after each.

If he meets these terms, the issue is closed. If he does not, despite clear documented feedback and a real chance to improve, we will then have the basis policy requires to consider a PIP. If Ines has concerns about strategy or product sense, the right step is to give Lukas specific written feedback now, with examples, so those concerns can be assessed fairly over the coming period.

3. Note to Ines

Ines,

Thanks for the draft on Lukas. I've looked closely at the record, and I don't think I can support Below expectations or a PIP in the pre-read. My reasons are below.

The results. Lukas beat two of his three targets: onboarding is down to 9 days against a target of 10, and live tracking is at 57% against 55%. Dispatch v2 was a real failure and I'm not minimising it. But he was on approved leave the week before launch, and his deputy ran the final checks. His share of the fault is that the readiness process didn't survive his absence. That is a real gap, but it is a specific process gap, and I've built the development plan around it.

Strategy and product sense. I couldn't find any evidence for these in the record. There's no written feedback to him on either topic this year, and his peer feedback is three-to-one positive. The one negative peer review is specifically about Dispatch communication. If you've seen something I haven't, I'd genuinely like to hear it. If so, I'd suggest we put it to him in writing now, with examples, so it can be assessed properly over the coming period.

Policy. A PIP requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap and a chance to improve. We have one post-incident conversation in November and no subsequent launch, so neither condition is met. Proceeding would put us outside our own policy.

Consistency. Priya's rollback last year followed a very similar support failure. We rated her Meets, with no PIP. Treating Lukas differently would be hard to defend in calibration and with HR.

My proposal is Meets, plus a documented plan tied to the Dispatch relaunch with measurable criteria. That holds him firmly accountable for the gap that actually showed up, and it gives us a clear record either way. Could we talk this through before the pre-read goes out?

Thanks, [Name] Director of Product

1. Lukas’s review summary and proposed rating

Proposed rating: Meets expectations, with a significant launch-readiness gap to address.

Lukas delivered strong results on two of his three annual goals:

• Carrier onboarding: Reduced onboarding time from 21 days to 9 days, exceeding the 10-day target.
• Live tracking adoption: Increased adoption from 40% to 57%, exceeding the 55% target.
• Dispatch v2: Launched in October, meeting the timing target, but was rolled back after six days. This was not a successful, sustained delivery and should not receive full credit simply because it launched on schedule.

Dispatch exposed a serious readiness failure: support was not briefed, and 340 support tickets arrived in the first week. That outcome warrants explicit negative feedback and corrective action. However, the record does not establish how responsibility was divided among Lukas, his deputy, and other launch stakeholders. Lukas was on approved leave the week before launch, and his deputy ran the final checks. His leave is not itself a performance issue; his planning and handoff before leave remain legitimate areas to assess.

Peer feedback is positive from three of four peers, particularly on onboarding and collaboration. The Head of Operations’ criticism of Dispatch communication is relevant and consistent with the launch failure. It should be addressed directly rather than generalized into an unsupported conclusion about Lukas’s overall capabilities.

Review summary: Lukas exceeded the onboarding and live-tracking goals and received broadly positive feedback on collaboration. Dispatch v2 was a material setback: the release was not adequately prepared for support and was rolled back. As a Senior PM, Lukas needs to demonstrate more reliable launch planning, explicit delegation, and cross-functional readiness. We should establish his specific responsibility for the failure and assess improvement through the relaunch.

“Meets expectations” is the most defensible overall rating on the current record. It recognizes substantial results without minimizing Dispatch. It is also consistent with Priya’s rating last year after a similar rollback and support failure. That precedent is not automatically determinative, but a lower rating here would require a documented, material distinction that we do not currently have.

2. PIP recommendation

Do not initiate a PIP now.

HR policy requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap and an opportunity to improve. There is no written feedback this year about strategy or product sense. The only recorded conversation concerns launch readiness in November, after Dispatch. On the available record, that does not establish both the required prior documentation and a subsequent opportunity to improve.

The proposed PIP therefore lacks the required foundation. “Not strategic enough” and “lacks product sense” are also too broad to serve as actionable performance gaps without concrete examples and defined expectations.

Instead, put a documented, non-PIP development plan in place now:

• Clarify accountability: Review the Dispatch launch plan, handoff, readiness checks, and go/no-go decision with Lukas, his deputy, Operations, and Support. Identify individual and process failures.
• Set observable expectations: For the relaunch, require named owners for every readiness item, documented support briefing and training, escalation and rollback procedures, and explicit cross-functional approval before release.
• Check progress regularly: Hold biweekly check-ins with Lukas and record feedback, completed actions, and any remaining gaps.
• Assess the relaunch: Evaluate readiness execution and post-launch support outcomes against thresholds agreed with Support before launch.

This should be genuine coaching, not a PIP under another name. If Lukas subsequently fails to meet clearly documented expectations after a reasonable opportunity to improve, reassess with HR. Any later PIP must run for 60 days, with measurable success criteria and the support needed to meet them.

3. Note to Ines

Ines — I agree that Dispatch’s readiness failure deserves clear accountability. I recommend Meets expectations and no PIP at this stage.

The pre-read should distinguish established facts from judgments. Lukas exceeded two goals; Dispatch met its launch date but failed as a sustained release. We have evidence of a launch-readiness and communication problem, but not enough to substantiate “not strategic enough” or “lacks product sense.” We also need to clarify Lukas’s handoff responsibilities versus the final checks his deputy owned.

Before calibration, I’ll verify the launch ownership, the November feedback record, and whether there are material differences from Priya’s case. Unless that produces materially different evidence, we should revise the pre-read accordingly. HR’s PIP prerequisites are not demonstrated in the current record; the appropriate next step is specific documented feedback and a fair opportunity to improve.