8 min read • Guide 559 of 877
Performance Review Tracking for Teams
Performance reviews work best when based on documented contributions rather than recent memory or politics. GitScrum's activity history and contribution tracking provide evidence-based input for fair evaluations, showing what each team member actually delivered over time. The key is continuous documentation, not scrambling before review season.
Performance Tracking Principles
| Good Practice | Bad Practice |
|---|---|
| Track behaviors and outcomes | Track activity metrics |
| Continuous documentation | Review-time only notes |
| Team and individual goals | Individual metrics only |
| Multiple data sources | Single source of truth |
| Growth-oriented | Punishment-oriented |
Goal Setting Framework
PERFORMANCE GOALS STRUCTURE
SMART GOALS TEMPLATE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Team Member: @alex │
│ Role: Senior Developer │
│ Review Period: Q1 2025 │
│ │
│ GOAL 1: Technical Leadership │
│ ───────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Specific: Lead architecture design for │
│ payment system migration │
│ Measurable: Design doc approved, migration │
│ completed with <0.1% error rate │
│ Achievable: Has experience, team support │
│ Relevant: Key project priority │
│ Time-bound: Complete by end of Q1 │
│ │
│ GOAL 2: Mentoring │
│ ───────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Specific: Mentor 2 junior developers │
│ Measurable: Weekly 1:1s, documented growth │
│ Achievable: Has capacity with current load │
│ Relevant: Team growth priority │
│ Time-bound: Ongoing through Q1 │
│ │
│ GOAL 3: Knowledge Sharing │
│ ───────────────────────────────────────────── │
│ Specific: Present 2 tech talks to team │
│ Measurable: Talks delivered, team feedback │
│ Achievable: Topics identified │
│ Relevant: Documentation improvement priority │
│ Time-bound: One per month │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Tracking Framework
PERFORMANCE DATA SOURCES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT DATA (Use Carefully):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ✓ Use for context: │
│ ├── Types of tasks completed │
│ ├── Collaboration patterns │
│ ├── Blocker resolution │
│ └── Sprint participation │
│ │
│ ✗ Do NOT use as metrics: │
│ ├── Story points completed │
│ ├── Tasks closed count │
│ ├── Lines of code │
│ └── Hours logged │
│ │
│ Why: These metrics are gameable and don't │
│ reflect actual performance or value delivered. │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
CODE REVIEW DATA:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Quality indicators: │
│ ├── Thoroughness of reviews given │
│ ├── Helpfulness of feedback │
│ ├── Response time to review requests │
│ └── Mentoring visible in review comments │
│ │
│ Example: "@alex's reviews consistently catch │
│ edge cases and include constructive │
│ suggestions for improvement." │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
QUALITATIVE SOURCES:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Peer feedback: │
│ ├── 360 reviews (quarterly or annual) │
│ ├── Retro participation observations │
│ └── Cross-functional stakeholder input │
│ │
│ Manager observations: │
│ ├── 1:1 meeting notes │
│ ├── Problem-solving approach │
│ ├── Communication quality │
│ └── Initiative and ownership │
│ │
│ Self-assessment: │
│ ├── Goal progress reflection │
│ ├── Challenges faced │
│ └── Growth areas identified │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Continuous Documentation
ONGOING PERFORMANCE NOTES
1:1 MEETING TEMPLATE:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Date: February 15, 2025 │
│ Team Member: @alex │
│ │
│ Current Project Work: │
│ ├── Leading payment migration - on track │
│ ├── Completed API design, starting impl │
│ └── Collaborating well with ops team │
│ │
│ Goal Progress: │
│ ├── Technical Leadership: ✓ Design approved │
│ ├── Mentoring: ✓ Weekly with @jamie, @sam │
│ └── Knowledge Sharing: ⚠ First talk scheduled │
│ │
│ Wins This Period: │
│ └── Caught critical bug before release │
│ │
│ Growth Areas: │
│ └── Could improve documentation habits │
│ │
│ Discussion Notes: │
│ └── Interested in cloud architecture cert │
│ │
│ Action Items: │
│ ├── @alex: Schedule tech talk for March │
│ └── @manager: Approve certification budget │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
BRAG DOCUMENT (Self-Maintained):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Encourage team members to maintain: │
│ │
│ Q1 2025 Accomplishments: │
│ ├── Led payment system migration │
│ │ └── Reduced transaction time by 40% │
│ ├── Mentored 2 junior developers │
│ │ └── Both now contributing independently │
│ ├── Gave tech talk on caching strategies │
│ │ └── Team implemented in 3 services │
│ └── Fixed critical production bug │
│ └── Prevented $50K in potential losses │
│ │
│ Skills Developed: │
│ ├── Kubernetes deployment │
│ └── Team leadership │
│ │
│ Feedback Received: │
│ └── "Alex's code reviews are incredibly │
│ thorough and educational" - @teammate │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Review Process
PERFORMANCE REVIEW WORKFLOW
BEFORE REVIEW (2 weeks prior):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Manager preparation: │
│ ☐ Compile 1:1 notes from period │
│ ☐ Review goal progress │
│ ☐ Gather peer feedback │
│ ☐ Review project contributions │
│ ☐ Draft initial assessment │
│ │
│ Team member preparation: │
│ ☐ Complete self-assessment │
│ ☐ Update brag document │
│ ☐ Reflect on goals and growth │
│ ☐ Prepare questions and discussion points │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
REVIEW MEETING (60-90 min):
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Agenda: │
│ │
│ 1. Self-reflection (15 min) │
│ └── Team member shares perspective │
│ │
│ 2. Goal review (20 min) │
│ └── Discuss each goal's progress │
│ │
│ 3. Feedback (20 min) │
│ ├── Strengths observed │
│ └── Growth opportunities │
│ │
│ 4. Development discussion (15 min) │
│ ├── Career aspirations │
│ └── Skills to develop │
│ │
│ 5. Next period goals (10 min) │
│ └── Draft goals for next period │
│ │
│ Tone: Collaborative, growth-focused │
│ No surprises (feedback given throughout) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
AFTER REVIEW:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ☐ Finalize and share written summary │
│ ☐ Document agreed goals for next period │
│ ☐ Create action items for development │
│ ☐ Schedule follow-up 1:1 to check progress │
│ ☐ Process compensation changes if applicable │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Competency Assessment
DEVELOPER COMPETENCY MATRIX
TECHNICAL SKILLS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Skill Junior Mid Senior Lead │
│ ──────────────────────────────────────────────│
│ Code quality Basic Good Expert Mentor│
│ System design Learn Apply Lead Org │
│ Testing Basic Good Expert Std │
│ Debugging Guide Indep Expert Any │
│ Performance Aware Apply Expert Drive │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
COLLABORATION SKILLS:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Skill Junior Mid Senior Lead │
│ ──────────────────────────────────────────────│
│ Code review Receive Give Mentor Std │
│ Documentation Basic Good Drive Org │
│ Knowledge sharing Consume Share Lead Drive │
│ Mentoring - Basic Active Lead │
│ Cross-team work Support Collab Lead Drive │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
ASSESSMENT:
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ @alex - Senior Developer Assessment: │
│ │
│ Technical: Meets Senior expectations │
│ ├── Code quality: Expert level │
│ ├── System design: Leading projects │
│ └── Growth area: Performance optimization │
│ │
│ Collaboration: Exceeds Senior expectations │
│ ├── Code review: Mentoring others │
│ ├── Knowledge sharing: Actively driving │
│ └── Ready for: Lead-level cross-team work │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Best Practices
- Document continuously not just at review time
- Use multiple data sources for balanced view
- Focus on outcomes and behaviors not metrics
- No surprises in reviews — ongoing feedback
- Growth-oriented framing for development
- Team member self-reflection valued
- Clear competency expectations by level
- Actionable goals for next period
Anti-Patterns
✗ Using story points as performance metric
✗ Reviews only once per year
✗ Surprising feedback in reviews
✗ Single source of performance data
✗ Punitive rather than developmental approach
✗ No documentation between reviews