Performance Reviews

performance reviews in charthop can be as simple or as sophisticated as you need them to be we've seen everything from lightweight manager check ins with three questions to elaborate 360 degree cycles with calibration workflows and competency matrices the platform flexes to match your process — the key is designing intentionally for what actually works for your organization understanding what performance reviews are for performance reviews in charthop are designed for feedback that's about specific people — whether that's self reviews, manager reviews of direct reports, peer feedback, or upward reviews the key principle if you're asking someone to provide feedback about a specific reviewer or another identified person, that belongs in performance reviews what belongs in performance reviews manager reviews of direct reports self assessments peer feedback (360 degree reviews) upward feedback (reports reviewing their managers) what doesn't belong here if you're sending a form that's about no one in particular or is a deidentified survey (like pulse surveys, engagement feedback, or anonymous team health checks), use the engagement module instead performance reviews is built for identified, person specific feedback that ties to your org chart setup principles that work across any cycle start with clean org chart data whether you're running a simple or complex cycle, charthop pulls review relationships from your reporting structure recent transfers, dotted line reports, managers covering multiple teams — handle these scenarios before launch, not during be realistic about timelines build in buffer time if you want reviews completed by a specific date, set your deadline a few days earlier if you're running multi stage reviews (self + manager + peer), stagger those deadlines so each phase completes before the next begins design your visibility intentionally when can employees see their reviews? what can they see? this varies wildly by company — some share everything immediately, others wait until after calibration either approach works in charthop, just decide upfront and configure accordingly think through your data flow if performance ratings connect to compensation, promotions, or succession planning, map those connections early the more integrated your processes, the more valuable your review data becomes what makes cycles run smoothly pilot before full launch whether you're running something simple or complex, test with a small group first they'll catch configuration issues and process questions you didn't anticipate automate communications set up reminders at key intervals create clear documentation for managers the more you can automate and systematize, the less ad hoc support you'll need to provide plan for edge cases new hires, employees on leave, recent transfers, open roles — decide how to handle these situations before they become questions keep forms focused even in complex cycles, less is often more every question should serve a clear purpose more questions don't automatically mean better data common challenges (regardless of complexity) the surprise launch always coordinate your charthop launch with your internal communications visibility mishaps test your settings thoroughly make sure people see what they're supposed to see, when they're supposed to see it mid cycle changes reporting relationships shift, people transfer, managers go on leave decide upfront how you'll handle these situations — freezing relationships at cycle launch versus allowing real time updates performance reviews in charthop work for everyone from 50 person startups running their first structured review to 15,000 person enterprises with sophisticated multi rater cycles the platform adapts to your process your job is designing something that fits your culture, your capacity, and your goals — then letting charthop handle the execution