| name | performance-management |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| description | Use this skill when designing OKR systems, writing performance reviews, running calibration sessions, creating PIPs, or building career ladders. Triggers on OKRs, performance reviews, calibration, PIPs, career ladders, leveling frameworks, feedback cycles, and any task requiring performance management system design.
|
| tags | ["performance","okrs","reviews","career-ladders","calibration","pips","experimental-design","writing"] |
| category | operations |
| recommended_skills | ["compensation-strategy","employee-engagement","interview-design","onboarding"] |
| platforms | ["claude-code","gemini-cli","openai-codex"] |
| license | MIT |
| maintainers | [{"github":"maddhruv"}] |
Key principles
-
Continuous feedback, not annual surprise - Annual reviews should contain
zero surprises. If the review is the first time someone hears a concern, the
system has already failed. Build feedback into weekly 1:1s, quarterly check-ins,
and project retrospectives so the formal review is a summary, not a revelation.
-
OKRs are aspirational, not quotas - An OKR system where 100% completion
is expected destroys ambition. Objectives should be stretch goals; hitting 70%
of a hard OKR is often better than hitting 100% of an easy one. Never tie OKR
completion directly to compensation - it incentivizes sandbagging.
-
Calibration ensures fairness, not uniformity - Different managers have
different rating tendencies (hawks vs. doves). Calibration sessions align rating
standards across teams so that a "Meets Expectations" in one org means the same
thing in another. The goal is consistency, not forcing a bell curve.
-
Career ladders clarify expectations - Employees should never have to guess
what promotion requires. A career ladder makes expectations explicit: here is
what impact, scope, technical skill, and leadership look like at each level.
Ambiguity in ladders breeds favoritism in promotions.
-
PIPs are a last resort, not a first response - A PIP should never be a
surprise. It follows documented coaching, informal feedback, and clear warnings.
A well-run PIP has specific, measurable milestones, a realistic timeline (60-90
days), and genuine organizational support. Its goal is improvement, not
documentation for termination.
Core concepts
OKR hierarchy
Company OKRs (annual)
|
+-- Department OKRs (quarterly)
|
+-- Team OKRs (quarterly)
|
+-- Individual OKRs (quarterly, optional)
Each level's Key Results should ladder up to the level above. An individual KR
that does not connect to a team or company OKR is a signal that the work is
misaligned or the OKR system is not being used correctly.
OKR anatomy:
Objective: Qualitative, inspiring, time-bound.
"Make our checkout experience the fastest in the industry by Q4"
Key Results: Quantitative, binary-scoreable (0.0-1.0), 3-5 per Objective.
KR1: Reduce median checkout latency from 2.1s to 0.8s
KR2: Increase checkout completion rate from 71% to 85%
KR3: Reduce cart abandonment on mobile from 62% to 45%
Review cycles
| Cycle | Cadence | Participants | Output |
|---|
| 1:1 | Weekly | Manager + IC | Ongoing coaching notes |
| Mid-cycle check-in | Quarterly | Manager + IC | OKR progress, early flag |
| Peer feedback | Semi-annual | 3-5 peers per person | Structured written feedback |
| Self-assessment | Semi-annual | Individual | Written self-reflection |
| Manager review | Semi-annual | Manager | Performance rating + narrative |
| Calibration | Semi-annual | Manager cohort | Normalized ratings |
| Compensation review | Annual | HR + leadership | Salary and equity decisions |
Calibration process
Phase 1 - Pre-work (1 week before):
Managers submit draft ratings and written justifications.
HR compiles rating distribution by team and level.
Phase 2 - Calibration session (2-3 hours):
Facilitator shares distribution. Outliers discussed first.
Each manager defends any rating 2+ steps from cohort median.
Ratings adjusted by consensus, not by committee override.
Phase 3 - Post-calibration (1 week after):
Final ratings locked. Managers deliver feedback to ICs.
Promotions and compensation decisions proceed from locked ratings.
Career ladder dimensions
Most effective ladders evaluate four dimensions consistently across all levels:
| Dimension | What it measures |
|---|
| Technical skill | Depth and breadth of domain knowledge and execution quality |
| Scope of impact | Size of the problem space owned (self, team, org, company) |
| Autonomy | How much direction is needed to produce high-quality work |
| Leadership | Mentorship, cross-team influence, and culture contribution |
Common tasks
Design an OKR system
Setup checklist:
1. Define the cadence: annual company OKRs, quarterly team OKRs.
2. Set the hierarchy: company -> department -> team. ICs optional.
3. Write the Objective: inspiring, qualitative, owner assigned.
4. Write Key Results: measurable, 0.0-1.0 scoreable, 3-5 per Objective.
5. Mid-quarter check-in: score progress (0.0-1.0). Flag blocked KRs early.
6. End-of-quarter score: score final. Write retrospective (what worked, what did not).
Scoring convention:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|
| 0.7-1.0 | Excellent - ambitious goal largely achieved |
| 0.5-0.6 | Good - meaningful progress, some misses |
| 0.3-0.4 | Underperformed - significant misses, needs analysis |
| 0.0-0.2 | Failed - goal not pursued or fundamentally blocked |
Common OKR mistakes:
- Tasks masquerading as KRs ("Launch feature X" is a task; "increase DAU by 20%" is a KR)
- Too many OKRs (max 3 Objectives, 5 KRs each per team per quarter)
- OKRs set top-down without team input (kills ownership)
- No mid-quarter review (problems surface too late to course-correct)
Write effective performance reviews
Review framework (STAR + impact):
Situation: Context for the work (project, team, constraints).
Task: What was expected of this person at their level.
Action: What they specifically did. Use "I" statements from self-review,
evidence from manager notes and peer feedback.
Result: Measurable outcome. Tie to team or company OKR where possible.
Impact: Why this mattered beyond the immediate deliverable.
Rating levels (standard 5-point scale):
| Rating | Label | Meaning |
|---|
| 5 | Exceptional | Significantly exceeded expectations; top ~5% at level |
| 4 | Exceeds Expectations | Consistently above bar; likely promotion candidate |
| 3 | Meets Expectations | Solid contributor performing at level |
| 2 | Partially Meets | Below bar in some areas; needs focused improvement |
| 1 | Does Not Meet | Significantly below bar; PIP territory |
Review writing rules:
- Use specific examples, not adjectives. "She delivered X which increased Y by Z%" beats "She is a great communicator."
- Separate performance (what was achieved) from potential (growth trajectory).
- Address both strengths and development areas for every employee, regardless of rating.
- Write the development section as investment, not criticism: "To reach Staff, focus on..."
Run calibration sessions
Facilitator guide:
Opening (10 min):
Share distribution data: rating counts by level, by team.
State the goal: consistent standards, not forced curve.
Ground rules: discuss evidence, not personal opinions.
Main calibration (90-120 min):
Start with obvious cases: clear Exceptional and clear Does Not Meet.
Focus time on the middle: Meets vs. Exceeds boundary is where most
disagreements live.
For each contested rating, ask:
- "What specific evidence supports this rating?"
- "Would someone at this level at [peer company] get the same rating?"
- "Is this a level question or a project-quality question?"
Closing (20 min):
Confirm final rating distribution.
Flag anyone under-leveled or over-leveled (promotion or PIP triggers).
Agree on messaging consistency for sensitive cases.
Red flags during calibration:
- "She's just not a culture fit" - not an evidence-based rating criterion
- Recency bias - one strong quarter overriding a weak three quarters
- Halo effect - strong in one area assumed to be strong in all areas
- Proximity bias - in-office employees rated higher than remote employees
Create career ladders
Engineering ladder example: See references/career-ladder-template.md for
the full engineering ladder with IC1-IC7 levels.
Ladder design principles:
- Each level must be differentiable from the next with concrete examples
- Avoid level descriptions that are pure quantity ("does more of L4") - define quality shifts
- Include both "floor" (minimum bar to be at this level) and "ceiling" (upper bound before promotion)
- Run the draft past employees at each level and ask: "Does this describe you accurately?"
Design a PIP
PIP template:
Employee: [Name], [Level], [Team]
Manager: [Name]
HR Partner: [Name]
PIP start date: [Date]
PIP end date: [Date, typically 60-90 days]
Review checkpoints: [Date 1 - 30 days], [Date 2 - 60 days], [Date 3 - end]
PERFORMANCE GAPS
Gap 1: [Specific, observable behavior or outcome gap]
- Expected: [What the role requires at this level]
- Observed: [What has been documented, with dates and examples]
Gap 2: ...
SUCCESS MILESTONES
Milestone 1 (Day 30): [Specific, measurable outcome]
Milestone 2 (Day 60): [Specific, measurable outcome]
Milestone 3 (Day 90): [Specific, measurable outcome - overall bar to exit PIP]
SUPPORT PROVIDED
- [Weekly 1:1 with manager, focused on PIP progress]
- [Access to training, mentor, or other resource]
CONSEQUENCES
If milestones are not met by [end date], employment may be terminated.
Signatures: Employee, Manager, HR Partner
PIP prerequisite checklist (must all be true before issuing):
Build a feedback culture
1:1 framework:
Suggested 1:1 structure (30-60 minutes weekly):
[5 min] Employee agenda - what's top of mind for them this week?
[10 min] Project pulse - what's going well, what's blocked?
[10 min] Feedback exchange - one piece of coaching from manager;
one piece of upward feedback from employee.
[5 min] Career conversation (monthly rotation) - growth, goals, interests.
[5 min] Action items and follow-ups from last week.
SBI feedback model (Situation-Behavior-Impact):
Situation: "In yesterday's design review..."
Behavior: "...you interrupted the junior engineers twice before they finished."
Impact: "...which caused two of them to stop contributing for the rest of the meeting."
Follow with: "What was going on for you in that moment?"
SBI works for both constructive and positive feedback. Never deliver feedback as
a personality judgment ("you are dismissive"). Always anchor to observable behavior.
Measure performance system health
System health metrics:
| Metric | Healthy | Unhealthy |
|---|
| Surprise rating rate | < 5% of employees | > 20% of employees |
| Calibration rating shift rate | 10-20% of ratings adjusted | < 5% (rubber stamp) or > 40% (managers not preparing) |
| PIP success rate (improvement) | > 50% | < 20% |
| Time to promotion from eligible | < 2 cycles | > 4 cycles |
| Regrettable attrition post-review | < 5% | > 15% |
| Employee agreement with their rating | > 75% | < 50% |
Survey your team annually: "Do you understand what it takes to be promoted?"
A "yes" rate below 70% means your career ladder is failing.
Anti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it is wrong | What to do instead |
|---|
| Forced ranking (rank-and-yank) | Creates internal competition, destroys collaboration, and causes top performers to leave to protect their peers | Use calibrated ratings with absolute standards; a whole team can exceed expectations |
| Annual review as the only feedback | Employees cannot course-correct without feedback. Annual surprises cause disengagement and legal risk | Build feedback into weekly 1:1s; the annual review summarizes what was already said |
| OKRs tied directly to bonuses | Incentivizes sandbagging (set easy goals to hit 100%) and gaming (maximize metric, not outcome) | Decouple OKR scores from compensation; use them as input to qualitative performance assessment |
| Career ladders with unmeasurable criteria | "Shows leadership" or "has impact" without examples lets bias drive promotion decisions | Each criterion needs two examples: one that clears the bar, one that does not |
| PIP as documentation for termination | Employees and lawyers see through it; it destroys trust and sometimes backfires legally | Issue a PIP only after genuine coaching attempts; if the decision is already made, use a severance agreement |
| Proximity bias in remote/hybrid teams | In-office employees rated higher for "visibility" rather than output | Anchor all ratings to documented outcomes and artifacts, not perceived presence |
Gotchas
-
OKR scoring is meaningless without a pre-agreed measurement method - Writing "increase user engagement" as a KR and then measuring it with a metric chosen at the end of the quarter is not scoring - it is post-hoc rationalization. Every KR must include the exact measurement method and data source at the time of writing, not retrospectively.
-
Calibration sessions without prior written justifications become seniority debates - When managers show up to calibration without pre-submitted written evidence for each rating, decisions are driven by whoever speaks most confidently or is most senior. Require written evidence packages to be submitted 5 business days before calibration. The session is to resolve disagreements, not to discover evidence.
-
PIPs issued without prior documented coaching are legally and ethically vulnerable - A PIP that is the first documented feedback an employee receives is both procedurally unfair and a legal liability in many jurisdictions. Before initiating a PIP, verify that prior coaching is documented in 1:1 notes, prior review cycles, or written feedback threads - not just verbal memory.
-
Career ladders with only "ceiling" descriptions create ambiguity about promotion timing - Many ladders describe what each level looks like at full performance but omit what "ready to promote" looks like vs. "solidly at level." Without a "promotion ready" description, managers make arbitrary timing decisions that appear inconsistent to employees. Add an explicit "signals of readiness to level up" section to each ladder rung.
-
Peer feedback collected without anonymization guarantees creates political feedback - If employees know (or suspect) they can identify who wrote each peer review, they write safe, positive feedback to protect relationships. Feedback volume goes up but signal quality collapses. Use aggregate summary reports shown to reviewees, not individual attributed quotes, unless your culture explicitly supports radical candor with attribution.
References
For detailed guidance on specific performance management topics, load the relevant
file from references/:
references/career-ladder-template.md - full engineering career ladder from IC1 to IC7, with level descriptions, scope, and promotion criteria
Only load a references file when the current task requires it.
Companion check
On first activation of this skill in a conversation: check which companion skills are installed by running ls ~/.claude/skills/ ~/.agent/skills/ ~/.agents/skills/ .claude/skills/ .agent/skills/ .agents/skills/ 2>/dev/null. Compare the results against the recommended_skills field in this file's frontmatter. For any that are missing, mention them once and offer to install:
npx skills add AbsolutelySkilled/AbsolutelySkilled --skill <name>
Skip entirely if recommended_skills is empty or all companions are already installed.
