Tony's Self-Assessment

TL;DR:

• Your annual rating is decided in a "calibration" meeting before you submit your self-assessment. 
• Your rating depends on your manager's ability to "sell" your case to their boss and peers, and they have a very short time to do it.
• Don't expect your work to speak for itself; be pragmatic and strategic.

Tony's Self-Assessment

Tony was proud of his self-assessment. He nailed it this year. He has always been a top performer, but this time he was also “strategic”. 

Every week, Tony carefully noted his main accomplishments, focusing on their impact. Every quarter, he reviewed the list, his yearly goals, and his group's goals to ensure everything aligned.

Tony made sure he had a good working relationship with his manager. He didn't tell her much about his specific accomplishments or how much this year's performance review and the potential for a promotion meant to him, but that was ok, he wanted his results and the masterfully crafted self-assessment to speak for themselves.

When the dreaded time for self-assessments came, Tony felt confident. He got everything under control.

The big day arrived. Jennifer, Tony's manager, expressed her gratitude for the great work and congratulated him for a beautiful self-assessment. 

If every one put the same care on these things my work would be so much easier, she told him in a confidential tone. I have no doubts you met the expectations this year, in fact, I see you as almost exceeding expectations, but unfortunately there is no “almost exceeding” category. 

I can tell you, however, that if you keep this level of excellence for the next cycle, you will be a strong candidate for “exceeds expectations” and a promotion. Just make sure we talk about this earlier. Bring it a few weeks before the performance review window in our 1-on-1.

Tony didn't know how to react. Really? Only meets! Is she happy with my results or not? Next year? Is she disappointed and doesn't think I can't deal with the truth? And then, the bring it up earlier comment, what is that even supposed to mean? I completed my self assessment a week before the deadline!

What Tony didn't know is that both Jennifer and him missed a great opportunity this year and it all has to do with the timing of the performance reviews and calibrations. Jennifer couldn't share this openly with him, but by the time he submitted his self-assessment, all the important decisions were already made.

She felt bad. She should have remembered all the great things Tony did this year and made a good case for him in the calibration meeting. She could, but she didn’t. With all the deadlines and emergencies, she didn’t have much time to prepare. 

As usual, this year the director scheduled the calibration before the deadlines for self-assessment. So, she didn't have much to rely on. Managers are supposed to know who their best performers are and be able to make their cases. If they miss someone, they can always bring it up before the final submission. But let's be honest, how will that make them look?

What is calibration after all?

"Calibration" is the corporate process to enforce a bell curve on performance ratings. Your manager gives you a preliminary rating, and then they go into a closed-door meeting with all their peer managers and their boss. There, they "stack rank" all employees in that peer group. Every manager presents their case for their people, especially for the high and low performers. "My engineer, Sarah, led the migration of the high-velocity-trade system; she's a clear 'Exceeds Expectations'." Then another manager argues why their person is the real “Exceeds”. They debate, trade, and eventually "calibrate" the entire group to fit a pre-determined distribution—like, only 10% 'Top Performer', 20% 'Exceeds', 60% 'Meets', etc.

The Good

• Standardization: In theory, this stops "easy graders." It prevents one manager from giving their entire team “Exceeds” while another strict manager gives everyone “Meets”. It tries to make a “Meets” rating mean the same thing across departments.
• Accountability: It forces managers to actually defend their ratings. They can't just mail it in; they have to bring concrete examples of your impact to argue your case against other high-performers.

The Bad

• It's a Forced Curve: This is the biggest problem. You can have a group where most people hit it out of the park, but due to the curve, some of them still have to get a “Meets”. It stops being about your personal achievements and becomes about who you're ranked against.
• Your Manager's "Sales" Skill: Your final rating is often less about your performance and more about how well your manager argues your case. If your boss is quiet, new, or just bad at negotiating in that room, you could lose out to someone whose boss is a political shark.
• The Firedrill: There is normally a very short time to discuss each individual and most people are not even discussed. I have seen a leadership team go over 100 employees in 2 hours. That means everyone gets about a minute on average. Let that sink for a minute, an entire year of hard work gets evaluated in one minute. Of course, it is not evenly distributed. Most “meet expectations" are not even discussed. A disproportionate amount of time is dedicated to under and over performers.
• The Timing Makes Self-Assessments Useless: Often, these calibration meetings happen before or in parallel with you writing your self-assessment. By the time you submit your list of accomplishments, the ratings are already locked. It makes the entire self-assessment process feel like a useless, bureaucratic exercise because the decisions have already been made without your input.

At the end of the day, it's a system designed to manage compensation budgets and force differentiation. It's not always fair, but it's the system we're in.

The Takeaway

So, was all the careful note-taking and the beautiful self-assessment a mistake, a waste of time? Absolutely not, the problem was the timing and the communication. If Tony had presented a draft to Jennifer and discussed his aspirations earlier, probably both of them would have received better evaluations this year.

Then, whose fault is this fiasco? Technically, Tony can blame Jennifer, but what good will it do for him? Let's play out two scenarios.

Scenario 1: Tony realizes Jennifer could have represented him better... he feels she had enough information... and, disappointed, he changes teams. That feels fair, but if Tony repeats the same playbook, chances are his new boss will fall into the same trap.

Scenario 2: Tony keeps up the good work, but this time he makes sure he has that conversation with Jennifer before the calibration meeting. In fact, he checks in with her mid-year, and she realizes he will need more exposure to her peers. Then they work together on a plan to make that happen. The end result is a great rating and a promotion for Tony, and a great rating and bonus for Jennifer, plus recognition as a great talent developer. 

The best scenario: I bet you would prefer scenario 2. What if I told you there is an even better scenario? When you know what Tony didn't, you can be proactive and save one year of effort. Start having the critical conversations with your manager right now; it is a win-win situation.

The Engineering Approach To A Political Game

​For most of us, this sounds awful, political, and awkward. We're engineers. We want to let the work speak for itself. Let's reframe this. It is not bragging. It's a pragmatic, data-driven approach.

Whether you like it or not, your manager has to go into a calibration meeting and "sell" your case. If you don't give them the data, they have to rely on memory. Tony delivered his data after the decision was made.

You must provide your manager with a clear, well-documented "data packet" months before the review cycle.

1. The "Alignment Sync": 4-6 months before reviews, book a 30-min meeting. Call it: "Mid-Year Goals & Impact Review." It's professional and specific.
2. The 1-Page "Data Packet": Send this 24 hours ahead. This isn't a self-assessment; it's a concise spec for review.

• My Wins: 3-5 bullets of your best impact, not just activities. Use the language of calibration: "Led migration X, which reduced latency by 15%".
• My Goal: Be explicit. "I am targeting promotion to Senior next cycle and want to make sure I'm on track".
• The Ask: This is the key. "What gaps do you see in my case?" or "What visible work can I take on to close the gap?"

What NOT to do:

• Never ask, "How am I doing?" It's lazy and unactionable.
• Don't wait for your manager to ask. They're busy and have many other reports.

You're not "playing politics." You're an engineer, presenting a clear, data-driven case for review. You're giving your manager the ammunition to win the debate for you. This is how you and your manager both win.