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.

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.

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]