First-HR-Hire Engagement
Performance Management for a Growth-Stage Startup
The system I design for a post-Series-A team with first-time managers and founders skeptical of HR process. Built to be useful before it is mandatory.
Context
This is the performance-management system I proposed for a growth-stage SaaS startup. I've stripped the company details; the archetype is what matters. A founder-led team that has crossed the threshold where gut-feel feedback stops scaling. First-time managers. A commission-driven sales org alongside non-revenue functions. Founders who have seen enough overbuilt HR programs to be skeptical of anything that smells like bureaucracy.
The brief was not "install a review cycle." The brief was "design something we will actually use, that makes the business better, that does not feel like HR theater." Everything below follows from that.
Philosophy: An Operating System for the Business
I've been the first HR hire at three companies. At Sundae, I scaled from 100 to 600 employees and built 360 reviews, promotion frameworks, and manager development for first-time managers skeptical of process. At Agoric, I built performance systems for senior engineers who distrusted HR on principle. Both times I learned the same thing: the performance system is not an HR program. It is an operating system for the business.
Design Thinking
Listen first, prototype, test, iterate. Not "assess for six months."
The Mantra
Put people in a position to learn, grow, and thrive.
The Result
A system built for the team that exists today and the first-time managers ready to scale it.
System Architecture
Structure & Cadence
Two formal touchpoints per year. A mid-year developmental check-in (no ratings, pure conversation) and an end-of-year review (self-assessment, manager assessment, 360 feedback, calibration).
The weekly 1:1 is the real performance system between cycles.
Everything plugs into the existing monthly business review.
Defining Performance
No universal rating scale in year one.
Co-create three to five function-specific outcomes per role with each department head. Calibration uses a simple three-bucket conversation (exceeding, meeting, below expectations) with founders participating directly. No 9-box.
360 Feedback Design
Who
Self, manager, and one peer selected by the employee and approved by the manager. Upward feedback deferred to cycle two.
Questions
Behavioral, short-answer. Self: proudest accomplishment, where you fell short, what you need. Manager: performance vs. expectations, top development priority. Peer: biggest strength, one area for more impact.
Psychological Safety
Peer feedback delivered in summarized form by the manager, never raw. Upward feedback aggregated with a three-respondent minimum.
Frequency
Once per year at end-of-year. Mid-year is manager and employee only.
Rollout Plan: 30 / 60 / 90 Days
Days 1 to 30
Listen & Build
- Learning tour: every leader, every manager, 40 to 50 conversations in three weeks.
- AI synthesizes patterns: which managers avoid feedback, where leaders and ICs disagree on standards.
- Present readout to founders by week three.
- Map reporting lines, identify first-time managers, set up basic infrastructure.
Days 31 to 60
Pilot & Enable
- Two pilot groups: one "likely to succeed" team and one "stress test" team.
- Pilot includes goal-setting, structured 1:1s, and a truncated 360 on Notion and Google Forms.
- Manager enablement through peer sessions (groups of three to four), not training.
- Standing office hours for pre-conversation coaching.
Days 61 to 90
Company-Wide Launch
- Founders announce the program. If this is "Matt from HR's thing," it is dead on arrival.
- First full cycle launches.
- One-page FAQ distributed company-wide.
- Pilot teams serve as informal advocates.
Comp, Promotion, Tooling & What I Defer
Compensation
For the sales org, comp is driven by a structured commission plan. The review system addresses what commission does not: management quality, collaboration, career development. For non-revenue roles, reviews carry more direct weight. Year one, reviews inform but do not mechanically determine comp decisions. First-time managers will not calibrate ratings consistently until they have been through a full cycle; tying comp to scores too early sets misguided expectations across the team.
Promotion & Development
Principle set from day one: demonstrate next-level performance before promotion, not after. Every review produces one to two development priorities per person, followed up at mid-year. Development plans are practical and manager-owned. Formal leveling and comp bands are an H2 project.
Tooling
Program starts on Notion and Google Forms immediately. In parallel, evaluate Rippling Performance, Lattice, or Culture Amp within a single-digit budget per employee per month. Tool decision comes after the pilot. AI tooling (Claude Code plus Cowork) to 10x what one HR person can do.
Deliberate Deferrals
Rating scale: cycle two, need calibration data first. Upward feedback: cycle two, managers need development support first. Contractor 360: cycle two, full-time employees first. Comp bands and leveling: H2 year one, need more data and org maturity.
Risk, Failure Modes & a Scenario
Failure Modes
Manager Non-Compliance
If the process competes with quota, it loses. Mitigation: embed in existing workflow. 1:1 templates connect to deal management. The whole thing takes two to three hours per quarter. Manager participation becomes a data point in their own review.
360 Produces Noise
Without feedback culture, responses default to vague positivity or weaponized criticism. Mitigation: behavioral questions, one peer reviewer in cycle one, manager synthesizes and delivers in context. Explicit norm: feedback must be specific, behavioral, and something you would say to their face.
Founders Lose Interest
Pain fades once a system exists. Mitigation: calibration is 60 to 90 minutes, twice a year, presented in business-review format. I name this risk in the first 30 days. "I need you to show up twice a year. If you do not, this will not work."
Scenario: A Senior Director with a 360 Problem
A senior director shows low 360 scores. Other directors flag turnover on the team. The director's output is strong and they are close to the CEO.
Verify the data
Meaningful sample or two to three data points? Which dimensions are low: communication, availability, development, fairness? Pull retention data, exit feedback, output metrics. Go with a complete picture, not "scores are bad."
Direct conversation with the director
Share themes, not raw scores. "Your output is strong but the people signal tells a different story." Give them space to respond. Might be context I am missing. How they react (defensive, curious, already aware) shapes everything next.
Co-create a 90-day development plan
Not a PIP. Specific behavioral changes: 1:1 frequency, communication on decisions, dedicated IC development time. Offer coaching or peer connection. Clear checkpoint at 90 days with informal team feedback.
Brief the CEO as a business problem
"Director X's output is excellent. Turnover pattern suggests retention risk. I have had the conversation and a plan is in place. Visibility only, you do not need to act. I am handling it." I am the problem-handler, not escalator.
If nothing changes after 90 days, bring the CEO in directly
"Plan in place for 90 days, feedback has not improved, lost two more engineers. At what point does the cost of keeping this person in leadership exceed their output?" The CEO needs to answer that question themselves. But I have done the work and earned the right to ask it.
Why This Works
Built for the Stage
Designed for a small, growth-stage team with first-time managers and founders skeptical of bureaucracy. Every element is sequenced to build trust before adding complexity. The system earns adoption by being useful, not by being mandatory.
AI as Force Multiplier
Synthesizing 360 themes, flagging 1:1 patterns, drafting development plans: work that normally requires a People team, done by one person with the right tooling.
Earned, Not Imposed
Nothing launches without a listening tour. Nothing scales without a pilot. The founders' voice carries the message, not mine. Every recommendation reflects professional judgment shaped by the specific context of the engagement.