The whole year is a performance review
No more surprises: The rhythm of constant feedback.
👋 to the 6 new founders who subscribed this past week! If you were forwarded this newsletter, join 183 founders going on this weekly journey with us:
Here we go again. It’s performance review season. And it always reminds me of a core belief of mine: performance reviews shouldn’t exist just because “it’s that time of year.”
Employees dread the formality but desperately want the clarity. Founders dread distilling 6-12 months into one conversation that actually matters.
Most reviews happen because someone thinks they need to run a process. That’s the wrong reason.
Your job as a people leader is simple: recruit top talent, retain top talent, and grow top talent. Reviews only matter if they accelerate that growth.
I’ve run reviews at big companies and at startups. The approaches couldn’t be more different. Here’s what I’ve learned and what we’re trying at Clarify.
Continuous feedback first, reviews second
A yearly review can’t replace consistent week-to-week feedback. In a startup, context shifts fast. People need feedback as the work happens.
I try to build a culture where people pull feedback to them rather than waiting for it.
Earlier in my career, I ended meetings with, “What’s one thing I could do better this week?” I still like that question. If I have to push feedback onto someone who never asks for it, that tells me something about their growth mindset.
We’re moving formal reviews and calibration from once a year to every six months. This should help with comp, promotions, and alignment.
But we try to give feedback in the moment it’s relevant. The goal is simple: help people learn while it’s relevant, and drop no surprises at formal review time.
A great example of breaking the annual review cadence comes from Clay via First Round:
What I look at in a review cycle
Once the formal review cycle comes around, I ask myself four quick questions about the person before I evaluate:
Are they self-directed on core work?
Are they more often right than wrong in decisions?
Do their choices get better with input?
Do they ask for feedback regularly?
I’m looking for people who own their projects and make quality decisions—not someone who needs step-by-step directions. Yes, everyone misses sometimes. What matters is whether they learn and improve with input. If I see a pattern of weak calls, I get specific about what “good” looks like and what needs to change in the next cycle.
How I use peer feedback
I’m a big fan of peer reviews. For any individual, I focus on getting input from all their relevant cross-functional partners to get a sense of how they collaborate.
Cross-functional feedback is generally more useful than feedback from their direct team. If an engineer is up for promotion, I want to hear from product and design, not just other engineers. Same idea for designers and PMs.
The downside is that I’ve seen peer reviews tilt toward likability and politics. That’s never good for anyone. You have to try to find real feedback, or set the example of what that looks like.
To do that, I try to ask more specific questions like: If he/she promises something to you, do they deliver? Does he/she respect deadlines? How is the quality of their work? Do you value having them on the team?
Then, you can use that feedback to support specific development areas, rather than just listing it separately. Here’s an example from First Round:
I tend to weigh cross-functional input as the majority of the review, with the rest from my coaching and the outcomes I see directly. Managers should gather that input before promotions or major ratings. Skipping it is a red flag.
Cadence and founder involvement
Formal reviews: twice a year.
Day-to-day: feedback in the flow of work.
As a founder, I stay close to reviews for my direct reports and do skip-levels for very senior ICs. I look at product sense, execution, collaboration, and customer impact.
I wasn’t looped into some IC reviews once and didn’t like the outcome. Now I stay closer, even if it costs me time.
What I’m still learning
I’m working on keeping the standard high while making expectations simple and visible. That means clearer responsibilities, faster feedback, and better alignment before we open a role.
I’m also pushing managers to seek cross-functional input more often. And I want people asking, “What’s one thing I could do better this week?”
The goal: continuous conversations, people asking for feedback, and twice-a-year reviews that confirm what everyone already knows.
We’re not perfect, but this approach helps people grow and makes the company better.
— Patrick
Additional reads:
What every early stage founder should know about comp - First Round
Not directly about performance reviews, but gets at it from the angle that most employees care most about: their compensation.
The power of performance reviews - Lenny’s podcast