sop · People, Operations & Finance
Performance Review
Performance Review
Purpose
Provide the shared process for preparing, conducting, documenting, and following up on formal team-member performance reviews.
This SOP owns the review workflow. The performance framework/KPI system owns the actual criteria, measures, score definitions, and career-level expectations and should be linked rather than copied here.
When to Use
Use for formal recurring performance reviews, probation/confirmation reviews, and other structured evaluations where the company requires a documented performance decision.
Informal coaching and routine 1:1 feedback should not wait for a formal review cycle.
Owner
People Operations administers the review process. The responsible manager/lead owns the quality of performance feedback and evidence for their team member.
Principles
- Evaluate against known role expectations and applicable performance criteria.
- Use evidence from the review period rather than recent-event bias alone.
- Separate performance facts from personality preferences.
- No material negative feedback should be deliberately saved as a surprise for the formal review when it could have been addressed earlier.
- Document agreed actions and ownership.
- Treat review records as confidential employment information.
Procedure
1. Confirm the review type and period
People Operations identifies the applicable review cycle/type and confirms:
- team member;
- reviewer/manager;
- review period;
- applicable performance framework/criteria;
- due date;
- any required inputs.
2. Gather evidence
The reviewer gathers relevant evidence from the review period, such as:
- delivery/reliability records;
- role-specific outcomes;
- applicable KPI/performance data;
- documented feedback;
- goal/progress records;
- examples of ownership, problem solving, collaboration, communication, growth, or role excellence where these are part of the current framework.
Do not manufacture precision where evidence does not support it.
3. Prepare the assessment
Assess the team member against the current canonical performance framework and role expectations.
Where a score/rating is required, apply the current defined scale consistently. Do not create local department scoring systems that conflict with the company framework unless formally approved.
4. Conduct the review conversation
The reviewer discusses:
- outcomes and contributions;
- strengths;
- gaps/improvement areas;
- evidence/examples;
- development/growth priorities;
- employee perspective and context;
- agreed next actions.
The conversation should be specific enough that the team member understands what to continue, change, or develop.
5. Record the outcome
Record the required assessment, notes, decisions, and actions in the approved performance-management location/system.
Do not place confidential review details in broadly accessible SOP documents or public/shared project spaces.
6. Handle employment/compensation decisions separately
A performance review may inform confirmation, promotion, compensation, role changes, development plans, or other employment decisions. Those decisions must follow their applicable approval rules and should not be automatically implied by a performance score unless the canonical company framework explicitly says so.
7. Follow up
Assign owners and dates for material development or improvement actions. Managers should revisit agreed actions during normal 1:1/check-in rhythms rather than waiting until the next formal review.
Program-Specific Reviews
Internships and other programs may use more frequent coaching/check-ins. Their program SOP may define the frequency and program-specific outcome while reusing this process for structured evaluation principles and documentation.
Exceptions / Escalation
Escalate to People Operations when:
- reviewer responsibility is unclear;
- evidence is materially disputed;
- the review may lead to disciplinary or termination action;
- discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or another serious conduct concern is raised;
- a reviewer proposes criteria inconsistent with the approved framework;
- confidential information may have been mishandled.