# Case: the review season > Seven months of facts, four coordinators, one great July week: write fair evaluations and a next-year plan for each person. - Course: [From Specialist to Manager: Your First Year Leading a Team](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager.md) - Module: Growing people, and a team that runs without you - Lesson 32/32, ~40 min - Source: https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/review-season-case ## Four blocks by the 25th **Iryna:** Four evaluations and four plans, one block per person. Same criteria for all, a fact behind every adjective. Drafts by the 25th. **Sofia:** I have the monthly facts for January to July, the incident log, my one-to-one notes and the July weeks. **Alex Tutor:** Criteria first, before any names: quality for families (reopens, satisfaction), volume, help to the team (mentoring), reliability (incidents). Then the same seven months for everyone. **Dataset (CSV):** [Klasna Support review-season facts, January–July 2027](https://productovi.com/datasets/from-specialist-to-manager/review-season-case/klasna-review-season-monthly.csv) Seven months, four permanent coordinators. July covers two shift weeks per person because of vacations. - `month`: Calendar month - `person`: Coordinator - `tickets_closed`: Tickets the person closed - `reopened`: Closed tickets the family reopened - `csat_responses`: Post-ticket survey answers - `csat_positive`: Positive survey answers - `mentoring_hours`: Hours spent onboarding or pairing with colleagues - `incidents`: Customer-facing mistakes in the incident log (a wrong refund, a missed promised callback) **Alex Tutor:** Mentoring hours are mostly spring, when Dmytro and Sofiia were learning the job. Incidents come from the team's incident log. **Alex Tutor:** Start with the person whose quality is easiest to overlook: Maryna. Add up her seven months. > **Exercise:** Use the dataset. What share of the tickets Maryna closed from January to July 2027 was reopened? Give a percentage to two decimals. **Alex Tutor:** Before comparing people, get the team's baseline. > **Exercise:** January–July reopened / closed tickets: Olha 87 / 2,160, Taras 257 / 2,833, Maryna 35 / 1,753, Bohdan 62 / 1,537. What is the **team's pooled reopen rate**? Give a percentage to two decimals. ## Everyone on the same ruler **Alex Tutor:** 2.00%: 35 of 1,753, the lowest on the team, with 94.93% positive answers and no incidents. About 80 survey answers a month, so read her months together, not one by one. **Alex Tutor:** A quick check on how to read her months. > **Exercise:** Maryna's monthly satisfaction rests on about 80 survey answers, so one answer moves a monthly rate by about 1.26 points. Her rate dips by 2 points in one month. How should you read it? **Sofia:** Olha: 2,160 tickets, 4.03% reopened, 91.10% positive, one incident, 24 mentoring hours. Steady every month, plus the refund exceptions. **Alex Tutor:** Bohdan: the fewest tickets, 1,537, and the most mentoring, 36 hours. The same 4.03% reopen rate as Olha, 88.26% positive, two incidents. **Sofia:** Taras: 2,833 tickets, the most, but 9.07% reopened, 78.67% positive, four incidents. And the week of 12 July. **Alex Tutor:** Each of them has a strength that a single column would hide. Match them. > **Exercise:** Match each coordinator with the fact-based strength that belongs in their review (January–July). ## The July shortcut **Iryna:** Honestly, could we just use July? It's the freshest month, and everyone remembers it. **Alex Tutor:** July holds two weeks per person, because of vacations. For Taras that's 245 tickets, 4.49% reopened, 87.04% positive, mostly thanks to one week. **Sofia:** And from January to June he was at 9.51%. **Alex Tutor:** So July alone would rate him far above what seven months support. That's the recency effect, written into a rule. > **Exercise:** Iryna suggests evaluating everyone on July only, because it's the freshest month. What is the main problem? ## Bohdan, fairly **Alex Tutor:** Bohdan's block is where similar-to-me sneaks in. He replies slowest and pushes back on the AI reply assistant. **Sofia:** My draft says "slow and stubborn about new tools". **Alex Tutor:** That's a label. The facts: slowest first replies, 4.03% reopened, two incidents, 36 mentoring hours. His doubts about the assistant are a view to discuss, not a trait to grade. **Olha:** For what it's worth: in spring, when the seasonal hires got stuck, they went to Bohdan first. > **Exercise:** Which lines belong in Bohdan's review block? Select all that apply. ## The review conversation **Alex Tutor:** The written block is half the job. The conversation is the other half: their self-assessment first, then your facts, then a plan built with coaching questions. **Alex Tutor:** Put the conversation in order before you write how you'd open it. > **Exercise:** Put the parts of a **review conversation** in the order they usually come. **Alex Tutor:** One more check: what status do the plans in your blocks have? > **Exercise:** **True or false:** once Iryna has read the four blocks, the next-year plans in them are final. **Sofia:** Taras's self-assessment says: "July shows what I can really do." **Alex Tutor:** Partly true, and a good place to start. Don't argue with it; ask about it. Then put the six months next to it. **Alex Tutor:** Write how you'd open. > **Exercise:** Taras's self-assessment says: "July shows what I can really do." Facts: in the week of the 12 July payment-page fault he closed 152 tickets with 2 reopened; from January to June he reopened 9.51% and got 78.10% positive answers. Write how you open his review conversation: two or three sentences that start from his view, ask before telling, and bring in the six months. ## Your four blocks **Iryna:** Three or four lines a person: results on the shared criteria, one strength, one thing to work on, and the plan for next year. **Alex Tutor:** The plans stay drafts until each person adds to them. Mark them as proposals for the one-to-ones. **Sofia:** In January I was taking the hardest tickets myself. Now I'm writing four growth plans. **Alex Tutor:** That's the job now. Write them so all four could read their own block and recognize themselves. > **Exercise:** Write the four review blocks for the Support team: a fair evaluation and a next-year plan proposal for each coordinator. > **Key ideas** > > - Set the criteria before you look at names, and apply them to the same period for everyone: here quality (reopens, satisfaction), volume, help to the team and reliability, January to July. > - Read the columns together. Taras closes the most (2,833) with the most reopens (9.07%); Maryna has the best quality (2.00%, 94.93%); Bohdan has the fewest tickets and the most mentoring (36 hours); Olha is steady on every criterion. > - One great week is a fact, not the review. July alone (two weeks per person) would put Taras at 4.49% reopened against 9.51% for January–June. > - Replace labels with facts: "slow and stubborn about new tools" becomes slowest first replies, 4.03% reopens and 36 mentoring hours, plus a view on the AI assistant worth discussing. > - Review conversations start with the person's self-assessment and end with a plan they help write. No league tables, no personality labels. **Alex Tutor:** Eight months ago the team waited for you on every hard ticket. In October it will run for two weeks without you. That's the lead's real output. - Previous lesson: [Development plans, handover and being away](https://productovi.com/courses/from-specialist-to-manager/development-and-handover.md) --- Productovi Learning. Free, no sign-up needed to read.