On evaluating performance and craft for designers

---

Performance reviews, in my experience, usually look something like this:

1. A starting date is given.
2. Collect peer feedback from a pool that you either decide on or that your manager asks for, satisfying a set of parameters — i.e. one engineer, one PM, one designer, etc.
3. Manager writes your feedback.
4. Some kind of deliberation happens.
5. You receive feedback.

There is nothing in particular about these steps that I would suggest changing. They're pretty straightforward, so more than the how, it's the what I want to focus on.

The double feedback model

Career Manager + Craft Manager

I'm pretty sure what I'm about to describe isn't totally new, but this idea has been roaming around my head for a while. Most of the time, the final say on your evaluation relies on your manager — which, again, there's nothing wrong with — but this model presents an idea for getting the best of both worlds:

1. How you handle projects, evaluated by your direct manager.
2. How you can get better at your craft, evaluated by a senior IC.

At this moment you might be asking yourself: isn't this how things are done already? Yes and no. If your pool of feedback already contains a senior IC, then yes — but it's in the weight of that feedback where we might be losing something.

So the main idea here would be to introduce someone into the process who cares specifically about the craft — about the tiny details that set apart a good designer from a great one.

What this looks like in practice

For me, the ideal flow would be the same kind of 1:1 you have with your manager, but transformed into studio time — where the senior IC and the designer both look at the work being done, and in real time the senior provides feedback on the craft.

Practically speaking, this is like a mentoring cycle that doesn't cease — one that continues to make both the mentor and the mentored grow.

“

Speaking purely from experience, this is something I've made sure to have in every org I've been a part of: find someone you'd like to be mentored by and schedule regular time with them. Even though it isn't official, it has done wonders for my growth.

How is this better than what we have now?

Right now, most performance reviews center on the business impact you have as a designer — which makes sense, and which you should always be getting better at.

But there's also something to be said about the how as much as the what. This model introduces the idea that having a peer be part of your constant evaluation is a great way to also center skills, craft, and capability in the discipline — and to offer a space for ICs to push each other in the right direction.

It also aims to introduce more flexibility in which discipline a manager belongs to: they don't need to be part of a specific discipline as a hard requirement to manage designers.

Finally, the weight of this feedback should be similar to your manager's, since (as we established) this model is focused on: doing great work for the business + getting great at doing your job.

Closing remarks

We need to keep growing and harnessing talent in our designers. This model also aims to grow the ability to share your knowledge, to be kind to those who are starting out, and to always have someone alongside you — no matter your seniority — pushing you to be better at your craft.

How else do you think we can introduce evaluation models for designers that include business metrics, soft skills, and core craft skills? If you have other ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Let this article also work as a spark for you to reach out to fellow designers in your org. Even if it isn't part of your perf review — share, bounce ideas, seek feedback, and I promise you'll see some really nice growth in your craft.