---
aliases: ["Team Annual Review"]
Is A: Project
Belongs to: "[[24q4]]"
Advances: "[[responsibility-team-management]]"
Status: Done
Owner: "[[person-luca-rossi]]"
---
# Team Annual Review

## Overview

As the Refactoring team grew from a solo operation to a small but functional team, it became clear that informal check-ins were not sufficient for aligning on expectations, giving structured feedback, and planning development. This project designed and executed the first formal annual review process for the three team members: [[person-matteo-cellini]] (sponsorship outreach), [[person-paco-furiani]] (operations and podcast support), and [[person-sara-ricci]] (editing).

The goal was not to create a heavyweight corporate HR process but to establish a lightweight, honest, and useful review cycle that fits a small indie team. Reviews happened in December 2024, covering the full calendar year, and set the stage for [[25q1]] planning. The process was designed to be reusable and will run annually going forward.

## Goals

- Design a review template covering: role scope, key accomplishments, areas for growth, and goals for next year
- Write a self-assessment prompt for each team member to complete before the review meeting
- Conduct 1-hour review conversations with each team member
- Document agreed-upon goals and any compensation adjustments for 2025
- Establish this as a repeatable annual process with a calendar reminder and documented procedure

## Key decisions

- **Conversation-first, not form-first.** The review is structured around a 1-hour conversation, not a lengthy written form. The self-assessment is a short (half-page) prompt to help team members reflect before the meeting. The conversation is where the real feedback happens.
- **Bidirectional feedback.** Each team member was explicitly asked to give feedback on working with [[person-luca-rossi]] — what works, what does not, what they need more of. This was uncomfortable but produced the most actionable insights of the entire process.
- **Compensation adjustments tied to review, not negotiation.** Rather than waiting for team members to ask for raises, proactively included compensation review as part of the process. All three team members received adjustments based on expanded scope and demonstrated value.

## Notes

- [[person-sara-ricci]]'s review was the most impactful. She articulated clearly that the editing workflow needed more lead time — receiving drafts 24 hours before publish was creating unnecessary stress and reducing edit quality. This led to adjusting the [[procedure-weekly-newsletter]] timeline to give her 48 hours minimum.
- [[person-matteo-cellini]] expressed interest in taking on more strategic work beyond outreach execution. This was a growth signal — his Q4 performance on [[24q3-new-sponsor-verticals]] showed he could handle strategic thinking, not just tactical execution. Agreed to expand his role in 2025.
- [[person-paco-furiani]] was the most straightforward review — he is happy with his current role scope and compensated fairly. His main feedback was wanting more visibility into the business roadmap, which is a fair ask. Started sharing quarterly plans with the full team afterward.
- The process took about 6 hours total (prep + 3 conversations + documentation). This is very manageable for a small team. The key learning: do this every year, not just when it feels necessary. Scheduled the 2025 review for December in advance.
