Create a new L/R review process for 2025

[LexaMichaelides]

Proposer: @LexaMichaelides Host: @fastfadingviolets

This new process should be designed to be ongoing, but decisions are not forever and we can always change it if we try it and find ways to improve it.

Constraints:

• Two L/R reviews are scheduled for September 2024. These reviews will use the existing process, NOT whatever process we come up with through this proposal.
• This new process must be designed by end of calendar year. It will be implemented in March 2025 for all Hypha members (full and probationary).
• This process applies only to existing Hypha members (full and probationary). As an informal norm at Hypha, we have 2 opportunities for review (March and September) and a new employee is first eligible to review in March or September after they've been around for at least 6 months.
• In scope:
  • the process by which we review people's individual L/R self-assessments and assign salaries based on those numbers
  • how we choose review groups, the tenure of the review groups
• Out of scope (but possible to change through other proposals):
  • the framework we use to interpret what an L or R number means
  • how we budget for practice areas when someone works in multiple areas
  • changes to our conflict transformation process

Participation:

• Everyone can comment: L/R reviews impact everyone, so everyone is welcome to comment and raise objections + concerns
• At least one member of Operations: the process is run by Operations and needs to be designed with that in mind
• At least one member of Finance: the result of this process has a material impact on our finances and budgets
• I'm seeking consent from all Hypha members and consensus from the ops + finance people who want to be involved.

Reminder of some useful distinctions for contributing to the discussion: 🔎 Clarification: asking a question about the content of the proposal (e.g., "can you decline an invitation to be in a review group?")

☝️ Reaction: a comment with no question (e.g., "some people are split across practice areas") -> could be converted to a clarification with care (e.g., "how does a person who is split across practice areas have their L/R reviewed by their team lead?"). Reactions do not block the proposal, even if they are concerns held with strong conviction.

🛑 Objection: a risk or a backward movement for the organization that is backed up by evidence (e.g., has happened before). Objections are different from reactions -- valid objections can and should block the proposal and require the proposer to integrate a solution into the proposal.

---

Proposal V4

I propose that for Hypha's annual L/R reviews (which correlate directly to salaries), we adopt the following process:

Individual assessments

1. An individual performs a self-assessment using our existing framework and identify the L, R, and resultant salary that these factors produce.
   • Time commitment should be decided in advance with the individual's team/practice lead. This factor is not actually under review by the group, but is necessary to calculate the salary number.
2. The individual invites 2 people who they feel are qualified to assess and review their L/R. This forms a 3-person group that reaches consensus about the individual's L and R.
   • "Qualified" is subjective -- an individual person is best-positioned to judge who knows the quality of their work.
   • People may decline an invitation if they do not feel qualified. The individual must then invite someone else.

Consistency and budget checks

3. For each team or practice area, a consistency reviewer reviews and consents to the array of L/R across their team. They can solicit feedback, host discussion, and request re-reviews.
   • A 'team' or 'practice area' is a group that works closely together on the same material. It makes sense to understand the entire group's set of L/R and compare them to one another.
   • A person in multiple teams or practice areas will be reviewed as part of each group, and all consistency reviewers need to consent.
4. Budget reviewer reviews and consents to the array of salaries across the organization. They can solicit feedback, host discussion, and request re-reviews.

Implementation

5. The Operations working group enters the new L/R into the Operations Planning sheet and makes adjustments to the Financial Planning sheet for the next payroll period.
6. In the next payroll period following the review process, Finance working group will pay out salaries according to the new L/R.

Roles: Using a different piece of Percolab advice, I've tried to describe the people who would fulfill certain functions in the process. This could be one person, or a group of people fulfilling the role. What matters is that, within the org, we can fill each role at the start of the process.

• Consistency reviewer: One per team or practice area. This is someone with insight into the full team's function and working habits who is able to judge consistency of L/R across the group they're reviewing. Chosen by the group at the start of the process.
• Budget reviewer: A person or group of people with an org-wide understanding of Hypha's finances who can judge the financial impact of the salary changes and whether Hypha can afford it.

Operationalization log Bullet list of implementation details to figure out which are not necessarily part of the proposal:

• How does each result get communicated to the next step in the chain (e.g., does Operations manage all communication, or do people talk directly to their consistency reviewers?)
• How long is reasonable for each step?

[fastfadingviolets]

Please add your comments by July 12!

[makew0rld]

☝️ This looks good to me. The main "concern" I would have is that the consistency reviewer would always end up being the team lead, which is probably not intended.

[uditvira]

☝️Well presented. This seems better than what we have today and low risk enough to try.