Write a performance review

1. Lukas’s review summary and proposed rating

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

Lukas delivered strong results against two measurable goals. Carrier onboarding time fell from 21 days to 9 days, exceeding the 10-day target. Live-tracking adoption increased from 40% to 57%, exceeding the 55% target. Three of four peers gave positive feedback, particularly on his onboarding work and collaboration.

Dispatch v2 was a substantial delivery failure. Although it launched in October, it was rolled back after six days; the launch objective should therefore not be treated as successfully completed. Support had not been briefed, and 340 support tickets arrived in the first week. The Head of Operations’ feedback reinforces the specific concern about launch communication and operational readiness. Relaunch is planned for next quarter, so the intended outcome remains outstanding.

As the responsible Senior PM, Lukas should be assessed on how he established launch-readiness requirements, cross-functional ownership, and delegation. However, the record does not establish which safeguards he put in place or who approved the final launch. He was on approved leave the preceding week, and his deputy ran the final checks. Approved leave is not a performance failure; equally, delegation does not automatically remove accountability for the preparation and handoff. We should establish those facts before assigning Lukas sole responsibility.

The evidence supports a specific execution and communication gap, not the broader conclusions that Lukas is “not strategic enough” or “lacks product sense.” No feedback on those broader concerns was documented this year, and the supplied record contains no concrete examples substantiating them.

On balance, two above-target outcomes, positive collaboration feedback, and one serious but bounded delivery failure support Meets expectations. This is also consistent with Priya’s rating last year after a similar rollback and support failure. That precedent does not dictate Lukas’s rating, but a harsher outcome requires a material, evidenced distinction—not stronger language about the incident.

2. PIP recommendation

Do not initiate a PIP on the current record.

HR requires earlier documented feedback on the specific gap and an opportunity to improve. The record contains one November conversation about launch readiness, after Dispatch, but does not establish that it was documented or that Lukas subsequently had a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate improvement. There is no documented feedback on strategy or product sense. A PIP on those grounds would therefore lack the required foundation.

Instead, put a documented development plan within normal performance management in place now. This is not a disciplinary PIP or a predetermined path to one. Agree with Lukas on:

• Readiness ownership: Before the relaunch go/no-go review, document owners, decision rights, coverage during absences, escalation routes, and rollback criteria.
• Support preparedness: Before launch approval, secure Support and Operations sign-off on training, customer communications, FAQs, and the escalation runbook.
• Launch monitoring: Before relaunch, agree measurable adoption, reliability, and support-volume thresholds with Engineering, Support, and Operations; review results against them after launch.
• Manager support: Provide a readiness template, help resolve cross-functional ownership gaps, and hold regular check-ins through relaunch.

Document the expectations, support provided, and subsequent results. If a specific performance gap persists after clear feedback and a genuine opportunity to improve, reassess with HR. Any later PIP must meet the policy’s 60-day duration and measurable-success-criteria requirements.

3. Note to Ines

Ines—

I recommend changing Lukas’s proposed rating to Meets expectations and removing the PIP recommendation on the current evidence.

We should retain a direct account of Dispatch’s failure: Support was not briefed, 340 tickets arrived in the first week, and the release was rolled back after six days. But “not strategic enough,” “lacks product sense,” and “disaster” should be replaced with specific, attributable observations. The current draft also omits his two above-target results.

Before the pre-read is finalized, I’ll review the launch checklist, handoff and approval record, clarify the November feedback and subsequent improvement opportunity, and give Lukas a chance to respond to the factual account. I’ll also check whether there are material differences from Priya’s case.

If that review produces additional evidence, we should consider it explicitly. Otherwise, the defensible outcome is Meets expectations, clear launch-readiness feedback, and documented follow-through—not a PIP unsupported by our policy.

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 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.