Vizzuality playbook in progress
This project is maintained by Vizzuality
(*) This guideline was approved by group consent on February 3rd 2023.
This proposal is intended to support teams when it comes to addressing a continued reduction in performance in the team (ie. low-performance) while helping their peers grow and improve.
Some of the questions the guideline will try to answer:
To build the proposal we considered inputs and insights from the accountability workshops we did last year, learnings from previous low performance cases, as well as advice from several people on the team.
Is there a difference between “poor” or “very poor” performance? A performance lapse becomes ‘very’ poor as time passes and the reduction becomes continued and repetitive. What helps is understanding the time period that someone has not been meeting expectations, and how we will set up support systems and tools to help a peer improve their performance at Vizz.
Temporary Performance Lapse ( > 4 weeks )
Performance Issue Persists ( 4 - 8 weeks )
Long Term Performance Issue ( 9+ weeks )
Everyone has had a short period of poor performance at some time (< 4 weeks). This is nothing out of the ordinary - it happens to the best.
If someone is underperforming, this usually means the person is failing to perform the responsibilities of their job (ie. pledges, roles, onboarding, etc.) or to perform it at a level considered acceptable.
There are three main types of underperformance:
Skills & Knowledge - the person has some critical technical skills or knowledge gaps that stop them from delivering at the level/quality required of them.
Accountability - the person struggles to get things done, fulfill commitments and responsibilities, or work productively in our environment.
Behaviors - the person doesn’t follow company guidelines, live up to our principles, or contribute to a healthy environment.
The first level of feedback, as described in our accountability guideline should always come from your peers (ie. same FA, Project team, other FAs/Teams).
A peer could be anyone at Vizzuality that might notice an improvement area(s) in your performance, accountability, or behaviors.
Once you identify signs of underperformance, you should provide feedback to your peers as soon as possible, try to help them get back on track, and rebuild their confidence early on.
A few tips and good practices:
Give feedback when the issue/situation is small and it doesn’t take so much energy to address.
Take your time to prepare for feedback. This will help you (the feedback provider) to reflect and organize your ideas/feedback before giving it.
Invite the other person to a meeting/call and explain the reason for it (“I would like to offer you feedback. Is this ok? ”). This will allow the other person to get into the right mindset and will also allow the conversation to be smoother and clearer for everyone involved.
Finally, summarize and share your feedback in a slack message or shared document. (A written document will help the person receiving the feedback to understand the message clearly and also for future reference).
If the feedback you have provided is not well received, if you don’t see visible progress, and/or if you are unsure about how to move forward, please share the situation with someone else who also knows the other person’s work:
The main objective is to get a better perspective and understanding of the situation. To achieve this please share the situation and gather additional perspectives from whomever you consider relevant (ie. Same FA, Different FA, PMs, Exec Team, etc.)
If the performance issue persists (4 - 8 weeks), we will get the relevant people together and make sure everyone:
Please document (ie. Google Docs) the main ideas and actions from the conversation and share them with everyone involved/relevant.
Who should be involved in the group conversation? The person with low performance and the feedback provider(s) / relevant people. Please include People & Culture and/or the Exec Team for support if needed (especially when it comes to thinking about performance improvement plans)
If the reduction in performance has been continued and a challenge for some time (9+ weeks), you want your next conversation to be focused on discussing a formalized Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
A PIP should be a genuine last opportunity to resolve underperformance before exploring the possibility of terminating the person’s contract. But a PIP is ineffective if you don’t believe your peer can improve. Therefore, only do a PIP if you are confident that the outcome could be successful.
It’s important to define clear agreements (deliverables, timelines and impact measures) and design the plan to be short in scope and time (4 - 6 weeks), so it’s easier to focus on and quick to see progress. (The plan timelines could be extended or modified depending on the specific case)
When designing the plan please use this Template.
The person with low performance will be the main responsible for leading their improvement efforts and defining their own plan.
A “support peer” who understands the person’s day-to-day job, will work with the person to get a better understanding of their specific needs, will help with the plan design, and provide support when the plan is being implemented. The support peer will also be responsible for the plan sign-off.
**(For more information* about the criteria and process for electing a support peer please check the FAQ section.*)
People & Culture. Please inform and seek help from the People & Culture team to design and follow up on the plan.
Additional support. Depending on the case, more people on the team could be also involved and provide support (ie. Senior team member, Exec Team)
The person with low performance leading the plan is responsible to schedule and facilitate these periodic check-ins (weekly or bi-weekly) and also to self-report on how they believe they are doing. While the support peer responsibility is to help follow up/review progress and provide feedback. Please ensure you document progress toward goals.
Having passed the final deadline of the plan, the person leading the plan will meet their support peer to review commitments and progress. (Other people could also be involved if relevant)
In advance of the session:
The person leading the plan will do a self-reflection and assessment of their progress (performance, responsibilities, learnings, etc.) and gather feedback from peers (if relevant)
The support peer will also do an assessment of the plan, and gather feedback from peers (if relevant)
At this stage, we have 3 outcomes and possible actions:
Plan Achieved: When the person has responded positively by meeting plan objectives, you can formally close the PIP. This is a big accomplishment for the person, but be sure the person understands that this level of good performance needs to continue beyond the PIP.
Plan Extension: If your peer is meeting some, but not all deliverables, consider extending the PIP. The additional time may allow them to finish the outstanding work and put you in a better position to fully evaluate the PIP.
No Progress: If the person does not meet the expectations laid out in the PIP, it might be clear that the person is not fit for the team and/or organization. Please update the PIP document to reflect this and reach out to P&C and Exec team to evaluate whether termination is now appropriate.
Not at all. We trust everyone at Vizz, regardless of their seniority or length in the company, to demonstrate individual leadership in helping their peers improve their performance and accountability.
Help and support will always be available (ie. Execs, People & Culture), but if you see something that needs addressing and could be improved, please get started by giving feedback to your peer and asking for support if needed.
As per our company guidelines, when a conflict happens we have a shared responsibility to help resolve it, starting always with the people directly involved. If you need support with Conflict Resolution or are in need of mediation, please ask People & Culture or the Exec Team for help.
“How are they elected?”
In stage “4. Group Conversation” all the relevant people will assess the need of implementing a PIP and the type of support needed, including the definition of who is the best person to perform the support role.
When it comes to deciding who should be a support peer, there are 2 elements that will work together:
Someone who understands very well the person’s role and responsibilities (regardless if they were the first to provide feedback).
A strong willingness and desire to support a peer to improve their performance and grow at Vizz
It’s important to note that if relevant and useful, we could have more than 1 support peer to provide better support to the person (ie. Someone senior from the same FA and a project peer from another FA). Also, the Exec Team and/or P&C will always be available to support the person leading the plan, the support peer, and anyone else who might need it, throughout the process.
“May they refuse?”
Yes of course. We will never mandate or impose a support role on a person.
However, I would like to note that high performance is only possible when we look at it as a team effort and take responsibility for one another. As described in our Growth Framework, an important element of demonstrating personal leadership and creating impact at Vizz is achieved by actively helping improve team performance and supporting other people’s growth, especially when it comes to senior roles.
Now, if following the conversation described in point 4, the group considers that someone in the team is in the best position to support a peer with low performance, but the person doesn’t want to do it, we need to understand the reasons. For example
Based on the above responses, we will then reassess the options we have and the possible impacts of that decision, so we can provide the support needed to the person with low performance.
“Does the person leading the plan have a say in this?”
Of course, they will. The person leading the plan will be involved in the Group Conversation in which is discussed the PIP, and will be able to express their opinion about who they feel more comfortable working with moving forward (always considering the 2 criteria described above).