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]

1. Lukas’s review summary and proposed rating

Proposed rating: Meets Expectations, with a significant development area in launch readiness and communication.

Lukas delivered strong results against two of his three goals. He reduced carrier onboarding time from 21 days to 9, beating the 10-day target, and increased carrier adoption of live tracking from 40% to 57%, above the 55% target.

Dispatch v2 launched in October as planned, but the launch was not successful: support had not been briefed, 340 tickets came in during the first week, and the product was rolled back after six days. Lukas was on approved leave the week before launch, and his deputy ran the final checks. That context matters when assessing individual responsibility for the checks, but it does not erase the product team’s launch outcome or the need to clarify Lukas’s ownership of readiness and communication. The relaunch next quarter will be an important opportunity to demonstrate improvement.

Peer feedback is largely positive: three of four peers cited his onboarding work and collaboration. The Head of Operations raised a concern about how Dispatch was communicated. Overall, the evidence supports recognizing Lukas’s substantial delivery while clearly addressing the failed launch. A Meets Expectations rating is also consistent with the precedent of a Senior PM rated Meets Expectations after a similar support-related rollback.

2. Recommendation on a PIP

Do not recommend a PIP at this time. HR policy requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap and a chance to improve. The record contains no written feedback this year on strategy or product sense, and the only recorded conversation about launch readiness took place in November, after the Dispatch launch. That does not meet the stated prerequisite for a PIP. The current record also does not substantiate the draft’s broader claims that Lukas “lacks product sense” or is “not strategic enough.”

Instead, give Lukas direct, documented feedback now on the Dispatch readiness and communication failures, clarify his responsibilities for the relaunch, and set measurable launch-readiness expectations for that work. Reassess his performance with that evidence. This addresses the issue without bypassing the required feedback process.

3. Note to Ines on the evidence

Ines, I recommend revising the pre-read to distinguish the documented launch failure from the broader judgments about strategy and product sense, for which we have no recorded feedback. We should include the onboarding and tracking results, the rollback and support impact, the Operations feedback, and the approved-leave/deputy context. The November readiness conversation came after the launch, so it does not establish earlier feedback or an opportunity to improve for PIP purposes. Applying the same Meets Expectations rating used in Priya’s similar case would also support consistency.