[dimitar]

I manage 30 people, but I review only 10 of them and the rest are reviewed by my team-leads.

We use KPIs and 360 feedback. These are not perfect measures, and I acknowledge that often, but are good enough for some purposes.

Performance reviews are easy for all sides if there is nothing new in them. If you either side is surprised during a performance review they are not talk to each other nearly enough during the reviewed period.

If I had the opportunity to evaluate I would experiment with more frequent feedback - like monthly sessions, small forms focusing on a very few key items.

[edgefield0]

What are your thoughts on 360 reviews? I've heard the process can be very devisive?

[dimitar]

They allow me to see if I'm missing something (another way of looking at it they also prevent me from being totally unjust). So they are ok as an information source, but can create nasty incentives.

So you don't give them too much weight, you don't want them to influence employees too much. We used to do that and it impacted company culture negatively IMHO. Now it is under 20% of the score and so it cannot be abused, but it remains a useful tool.

[spaetzleesser]

I want to do 360s on the managers two level up and higher. Because they are the real problem in my view. I hate snitching on my direct team members not knowing how the the feedback is used so I usually just praise them without much detail.

[dimitar]

We are not a big shop so there are not many levels up but the managers, including myself also got 360 reviews.

[spaetzleesser]

We do 360s one level up but the real problems are two levels up. I think it would be great if people could rate the management chain all the way up.