Preparing for Calibrations: Manager Guide

Attendees:

• Department Managers, Directors, and VPs
• People Partner
• (Optional) VP, People and Director, Recruiting
• (Optional) Cross-functional Leaders

Meetings are facilitated by the People Team in partnership with each department head.

Agenda:

The following is a typical calibration session agenda. Sessions may slightly differ depending on the size of the group being calibrated, as well as the number of calibration meeting participants.

*Note: we expect all Managers to complete their pre-work prior to the calibration meeting.

- Step 1: Overview of the calibration process
- Step 2: The role of calibration participants
- Step 3: Building awareness and mitigating unconscious bias
- Step 4: Performance calibration
- Step 5: Promotion calibration

Part 1: Discussion

• Our calibration discussions are an opportunity to focus on aligning on what Exceeding High Bar means at Sourcegraph. During calibration, Managers will be asked to highlight specific instances where Teammates demonstrate exceptional performance.
• Of the four required questions on our Manager-to-Direct Report Impact Review, we will focus on two as part of the Manager presentation:
  • How has this Teammate’s performance mapped to the expectations of their role and level over the past 6 months? (Reference the career development framework if applicable). To what extent did they meet their commitments?
  • How does this person’s behavior align with our values? (Provide 2-3 specific examples).
• Our conversations will focus specifically on the area(s) in which the Teammate was exceeding our high bar: performance, values, or both.
• Managers will be asked to discuss on individuals who report to them and should come prepared to verbally share the following:
  • Performance and Values rating
• 2-3 examples of work that supports the rating (the 2 questions bulleted above are a great source for providing these examples!)
• Explanation for why each example supports the rating
• Pro Tips:
  1. Utilizing the SBI model when writing reviews, will better prepare Managers to present tangible evidence to support their ratings during the calibration session
  2. When possible, Managers should support their tangible evidence by tying it back to the expectations outlined in the career framework
  3. While not required, we highly encourage Managers to write notes in the Calibration Roster in preparation for their calibration presentation (see example below).
• Each calibration presentation should be sufficiently detailed that peer Managers can make an informed judgment on the score with no first hand knowledge of the work beforehand.

Part 2: Participant expectations

• When not presenting, Managers are expected to participate in the calibration of every other Teammate presented, not just their direct reports and ICs they are directly familiar with. Participating means:
  • Asking clarifying questions of the presenting Manager until you are able to make an informed determination on if the work presented supports the score given
  • Openly stating if you agree or disagree with the score given, and why, to facilitate the discussion
  • Participate in the discussion until the group is aligned on the score, and the reasoning why

Part 3: Aligning on the scores

• Managers will align on the score. Managers who disagree are expected to state their position and explain why, and participate in the debate to align on the score. Once aligned, we will move to the next Teammate on the calibration roster

Part 4: Discuss promotion nominations

• Following calibration discussions, we will review promotion nominations. Managers with promotion nominations will be asked to submit a completed promotion nomination form to their People Partner prior to the meeting, which will be shared with meeting attendees.
• During the calibration session, Managers will be asked to:
  1. Confirm they would still like to proceed with the promotion conversation, based on earlier performance/values calibration
  2. For individuals whose promotions we will move forward with, we will ask the group to raise concerns about promoting that individual
• The most senior leader in the meeting is responsible for getting the information they need from the group to make a final promotion decision.

Compensation & Promotion approval

Following calibration sessions, People Partners will work with VP+ level leaders to finalize compensation recommendations. Because we believe in consistently rewarding high performance, our merit increase process will tie increase percentages closely to performance/values ratings.

It’s crucial that we adhere as closely as possible to expected distributions because our merit increase budgets are based on distribution assumptions listed below. The purpose of calibration sessions are to hold a high bar for “Exceeding High Bar” scores, and reward teammates accordingly.

Likewise, final promotion decisions rest with VP+ level leaders. The calibration session is a time for VP+ level leaders to gather information they need to approve, or delay, promotion requests. VP+ level leaders are expected to follow up with Managers by the start of Phase 5 (see the Impact Review Timeline for details on phases) with final decisions, so Managers may communicate to their teams accordingly.

Ratings

• 1 - Exceeding High Bar
  • Skill: your contributions consistently raise the high bar set for individuals at your level; your execution, both individually and cross-functionally, is consistently excellent.
  • Values: exceeds in many, exhibits all, deficient in none.
  • Distribution: we expect ~20% of Teammates to fall in the “Top Tier” (high performance) category.
    • Top Tier score = 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1
    • Typically ~15% rated 1 in Skill, ~7% rated 1 in Values, with ~2% rated 1 in both.
  • Merit: Teammates who receive “exceeding high bar” rating can receive an increase twice a year.
    • Recommended merit increase:
      • 1:1 = 8-10%
      • 1:2 = 7.50%
      • 2:1 = 7.50%
    • Note: The above merit increase recommendations are based on the expected distribution of 20/70/10 and are subject to change dependent on final distribution.
• 2 - Meeting High Bar
  • Skill: your contributions are in line with expectations at your current level and sometimes exceed them; you are an essential part of the team.
  • Values: exceeds in some, exhibits most.
  • Distribution: we expect ~70% of Teammates will fall in the “Highly Valued” (strong performance) category
    • Highly-Valued score = 2:2
  • Merit: Teammates who receive “meeting high bar” are eligible to receive a compensation increase once a year, either in the February or August merit cycle. Your People Partner will inform you about a Teammate’s eligibility.
    • Recommended merit increase:
      • 2:2 = 3-5%
    • Note: The above merit increase recommendations are based on the expected distribution of 20/70/10 and are subject to change dependent on final distribution.
• 3 - Not Meeting High Bar
  • Skill: your contributions are below expectations for your current level and must immediately improve.
  • Values: exhibits some, lacks in some, deficient in some.
  • Distribution: we expect 10% of Teammates will fall in the “Least Effective” (low performance) category.
    • Least Effective score = 3:1, 3:2, 2:3, 1:3 or 3:3
  • Merit: Teammates who receive “not meeting high bar” are not eligible for a compensation increase or a promotion.

5 ways that biases can undermine a performance assessment.

[Based off the SEEDS model from the NeuroLeadership Institute]