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 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. Performance Review Summary & Proposed Rating

Employee: Lukas Brenner, Senior Product Manager Manager: Director of Product Proposed Rating: Meets Expectations

#### Executive Summary Lukas delivered significant business impact this year across core logistics workflows, exceeding quantitative targets on two of his three primary annual objectives. While the Q4 rollout of Dispatch v2 suffered an operational failure that required a temporary rollback, Lukas’s broader performance demonstrates high execution capability, strong peer collaboration, and deep workflow understanding. A rating of Meets Expectations accurately reflects his net delivery, aligns with company precedent, and balances his substantial wins against an operational misstep in launch execution.

#### Objective Performance & Evidence

• Objective 1: Reduce Carrier Onboarding Time (Target: 21 days → 10 days)
• Result: Exceeded (Achieved 9 days).
• Evidence: Lukas redesigned the onboarding funnel, eliminating operational bottlenecks and cutting time-to-activate by over 57%. This represents a major strategic unlock for carrier supply growth and demonstrates strong customer and product workflow sense.
• Objective 2: Launch Dispatch v2 by October (Target: Oct Launch)
• Result: Partially Met / Rollback Required.
• Evidence: Dispatch v2 shipped in October but was rolled back after six days due to 340 support tickets resulting from inadequate Support team enablement. Lukas was on approved leave the week immediately preceding the release, having delegated final checks to his deputy. While Lukas owns the ultimate operational readiness of his product, the failure stemmed from delegation and cross-functional go-to-market (GTM) enablement, not defective core product design. Relaunch is on schedule for next quarter.
• Objective 3: Expand Live Tracking Adoption (Target: 40% → 55%)
• Result: Exceeded (Achieved 57%).
• Evidence: Successfully drove adoption among carriers through incremental UX enhancements and behavioral triggers, surpassing the annual target by two percentage points.

#### Competencies & Stakeholder Feedback * Execution & Impact: Delivered 2 out of 3 major company-level OKRs ahead of target. * Collaboration & Peer Regard: 3 out of 4 peer reviews are strongly positive, specifically praising his cross-functional partnership and execution on onboarding. * Operational Readiness & Communication: Negative feedback from the Head of Operations regarding launch communication on Dispatch v2 is valid. Lukas failed to build a resilient operational handoff prior to his leave, revealing an area for growth in GTM risk management. * Product Sense & Strategy: Lukas’s architectural and flow simplifications in carrier onboarding reflect sound product sense. The feedback record contains no documented deficits in strategic ability or product sense throughout the year.

---

2. Recommendation on the PIP

Recommendation: Do NOT place Lukas Brenner on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

#### Rationale: 1. HR Policy Non-Compliance: Company policy explicitly states that a PIP requires prior documented feedback on the specific performance gap and a reasonable opportunity to correct it. There is zero documented feedback on record regarding strategy or product sense. Lukas received only one conversation regarding launch readiness in November. Placing him on a PIP now directly violates established HR procedure and exposes the company to process risk. 2. Disproportionate Action vs. Net Delivery: Lukas exceeded two key company metrics. Placing a high-performing contributor on a PIP over a single operational coordination error—occurring while on approved leave—is disproportionate and demotivating to the broader team. 3. Precedent and Equity: Last year, Priya (Senior PM) experienced a nearly identical launch rollback driven by a support enablement breakdown. Priya received a rating of Meets Expectations and was not placed on a PIP. Subjecting Lukas to a punitive process under matching circumstances creates severe inconsistency across the product organization.

#### Alternative: Targeted 60-Day Operational Readiness Development Plan Rather than a formal HR PIP, Lukas should be placed on a structured, manager-led coaching plan for the Dispatch v2 relaunch: * Key Terms & Measurable Criteria: * GTM & Enablement Sign-Off: Implement a mandatory Launch Readiness Review (LRR) framework with explicit, written operational sign-offs from Customer Support and Operations at least two weeks before launch. * Dispatch v2 Relaunch SLA: Successfully relaunch Dispatch v2 next quarter with fewer than 50 support enablement tickets in the first 14 days post-launch. * Delegation & Redundancy Protocol: Document a standard operating procedure (SOP) for coverage and handover during PM absences.

---

3. Note to Ines Okoro (VP Product)

To: Ines Okoro, VP Product From: Director of Product Subject: Calibration Pre-Read Draft – Lukas Brenner

Hi Ines,

Ahead of calibration on Friday, I want to share some vital context regarding the pre-read draft for Lukas Brenner. I recommend we revise his rating to Meets Expectations and withdraw the recommendation for a PIP, for three reasons:

1. The Objective Data: Lukas exceeded two of his three major annual OKRs: cutting carrier onboarding from 21 days down to 9 (target was 10), and expanding live tracking to 57% (target was 55%). Peer feedback is 75% positive, praising his collaborative delivery. The Dispatch v2 rollback was a serious operational misstep, but the core product is sound and on track to relaunch next quarter.
2. HR Policy & Documentation: HR guidelines require documented feedback on specific performance gaps before initiating a PIP. There is no written record critiquing Lukas’s strategy or product sense, and we have had only one conversation (in November) regarding launch readiness. A PIP would not meet our HR criteria and would be vulnerable to challenge.
3. Internal Precedent: Last year, Priya had a launch rolled back under almost identical support-readiness circumstances. She received Meets Expectations and no PIP. Applying a PIP to Lukas creates an inconsistency in our standard across the team.

Dispatch v2 showed a breakdown in operational handoff and delegation while Lukas was on approved leave, and the Head of Operations’ frustration is justified. However, this is an operational readiness gap, not an absence of product sense.

I propose we update his pre-read to: > "Lukas: Meets Expectations. Exceeded annual targets on onboarding (9 days) and live tracking (57%). Experienced an operational setback on Dispatch v2 due to GTM/support readiness failures during an absence. Relaunching next quarter under a structured launch-readiness plan."

I will manage Lukas through a rigorous 60-day launch-readiness framework for the relaunch, including sign-offs from Ops and Support. Let’s discuss briefly tomorrow so we’re aligned before the calibration deck is locked.

Best, [Director of Product]