A performance review should be more than a form.
At Flynk, I built a performance management system from scratch with Airtable and Make — connecting reviews, goals, and follow-up across offices in Vietnam, Australia, and Ukraine.
Starting small.
Growing into structure.
When I joined Flynk, the team was small and the CEO led performance conversations directly. That made sense then.
As we grew across offices, I needed a repeatable approach to feedback and development that could work across teams without ignoring local differences.
Performance management was one part of the broader HR system I built, alongside recruitment, onboarding, and employee records.
The goal wasn't more paperwork. It was better conversations — and meaningful follow-through.
From a blank page
to a working system.
I taught myself Airtable and Make rather than adapting an off-the-shelf HRM. I designed the data, workflow, access rules, and automations around how our teams actually worked.
Linked evaluations, review records, goals, and owners.
Scheduled reminders, handoffs, new review records, and carry-forward data.
Kept feedback, discussions, and decisions in human hands.
Prepare
Schedule the cycle and send forms two weeks ahead.
Before the reviewGather perspectives
Self-assessment, brief coworker input, and manager evaluation.
Structured inputDiscuss & decide
Align with HR and CEO where needed; hold the review conversation.
Human decisionsAgree & follow through
Set goals; manager submits; share results by access, collect acknowledgement; HR handles related documents.
Post-review controlsBetween formal reviews
1:1 catch-ups track progress, blockers, and outstanding actions.
Illustrative workflow — no internal forms or employee information.
Enough structure.
Room for judgment.
I had to decide what to standardize, what to automate, and what should stay with people.
Measure what makes sense.
Clear criteria and measurable targets where useful; qualitative judgment where numbers would mislead.
Keep peer feedback short.
Coworker input gave a supporting perspective, not an equivalent substitute for manager evaluation. I kept it brief to limit subjectivity and effort.
Automate the handoffs, not the conversations.
Make could generate records and reminders. People still chose meeting times, gave feedback, and made decisions.
Show the right information to the right people.
I separated feedback, results, and compensation information according to roles and access needs.
The real work happened
between reviews, too.
Agreed goals became the starting point for the next cycle, not something filed away after the review.
Airtable and Make carried forward action items, created future reviews, and sent calendar reminders. Regular 1:1s helped managers revisit progress and obstacles.
HR tracked overdue catch-ups and raised unfinished actions in HR meetings. Automation helped keep the rhythm; people still did the managing.
Employee aspirations + team priorities
Continuity instead of starting from zero
Illustrative sequence; catch-up timing varied across teams.
The framework changed
with the people using it.
After discussing the change with the CEO, I redesigned and implemented a manager-led review process. Direct managers took ownership of conversations; HR, managers, and the CEO continued to collaborate on compensation decisions.
I refined the framework over successive cycles, with feedback from the people using it across all three offices.
CEO-led reviews
The CEO led employee reviews while the team was small.
Manager-led reviews
Managers led reviews; HR coordinated the process and leadership decisions.
What worked in practice
The system ran across offices. Most managers kept up regular 1:1s; HR followed up on overdue meetings and actions.
What it didn't solve
It didn't remove subjectivity from peer or manager feedback, nor ensure every follow-up happened on time. Compensation still required human judgment.
“Good processes should grow with the people using them.”
I'm proud I built the system myself. But the hardest part wasn't the tools — it was understanding people, responsibilities, and what actually happens between decisions.
A useful process has to keep changing with the people who use it.
← Back to my website