A capability-first operating system that replaces inconsistent performance management with structured growth pathways, shared expectations, and embedded feedback.
Designed and implemented at a B2B SaaS product company (engineering team of 23), this system shifted the organisation from evaluating performance to building capability as the foundation for high-performing teams.
TL;DR
Fresho’s performance management system created inconsistency and defensiveness.
This system puts capability first: core and specialty capabilities define observable, level-specific expectations, while a structured feedback model shifts ownership from managers to individuals. A continuous growth flywheel connects capability, feedback, growth plans, and real project work into a self-reinforcing loop.
Guiding principles:
- Establish shared expectations before measuring outcomes
- Make capability the foundation, performance the outcome
- Enable continuous growth and predictable delivery
- Treat adoption as a design problem, not an afterthought
Adoption was co-created with the organisation and reinforced through workshops, iterative rollout, and training. Feedback evolved from manager-led → IC-initiated → self-directed. Outcomes included stronger engagement, learning, recognition, and clarity. The system is designed to evolve as the organisation grows.
Core Model
Context
Performance management was applied before the organisation had shared clarity on expectations or growth. Conversations focused on evaluation rather than development. “High performance” varied across managers and teams.
Without defined capabilities, feedback lacked a common language, growth discussions were subjective, and performance cycles felt episodic rather than developmental.
Core Problem
Performance optimises for judgement. Capability builds clarity, progression, and shared understanding. Capability had to come first.
Performance is an outcome, capability is the system that produces it.
Framework Design
Core capabilities provide continuity across functions. Specialty capabilities layer on for senior growth. Frameworks follow a shared design guide but allow function-specific divergence.
Capabilities span levels from Junior to Staff+, with behaviours that are observable and actionable rather than personality traits, enabling fair calibration and transparent growth.
- Core capabilities apply to everyone
- Specialty capabilities add depth for senior roles
- Progressive levels show measurable growth
- Titles aligned to capability levels, replacing inconsistent historical naming
Core capabilities provide common ground, specialties allow depth where it matters.
Operating Model: Growth Flywheel
The system operates as a continuous loop. Capability defines expectations, feedback translates work into insight, growth plans guide opportunity, real projects enable practice, and assessment refines priorities.
Over time, this flywheel strengthens, allowing capability development to scale alongside the business.
Capabilities, feedback, and growth plans continuously feed each other to make people growth the default mode of operation.
Application
Adoption by Design
Adoption was treated as a design problem, not an afterthought. Early adopters were selected across roles and levels, including advocates, skeptics, and potential disruptors. Workshops refined core and specialty capabilities before broader rollout.
Specialty capabilities were tested incrementally, with drafts reviewed, iterated, and re-tested to surface misalignment early. Organisation-wide mock assessments introduced a shared language and assessment standards, while “build in public” updates reinforced transparency and trust.
Formalisation avoided surprises. Employees self-assessed, discussed concrete examples with managers, incorporated peer input, and were calibrated before manager 1:1s confirmed placements.
Capability lived in the organization: co-created, iterated, and embedded before formal rollout.
Feedback as the Engine
Capabilities only become meaningful when observed, named, and discussed. Feedback was the lever that transformed the framework from static documentation into lived practice.
It was framed around career development rather than evaluation, shifting ownership from managers to individuals while encouraging proactive growth conversations.
Key shifts
- Continuous feedback instead of episodic review
- Manager-led to self-initiated development
- Hierarchy-independent, peer-supported input
Training built practical skills over time:
- Giving reinforcing feedback (Situation Behaviour Impact - SBI model)
- Receiving feedback (Curious Active listening Take action - CAT model)
- Initiating constructive peer feedback
Phased feedback strategy
- Phase 1: Manager-initiated peer feedback every two months
- Phase 2: IC-initiated feedback, supported by managers
- Phase 3: Self-directed feedback at meaningful moments (future)
Feedback is the engine that drives growth in core and specialty capabilities, evolving from training to self-directed practice.
How Performance Is Measured
Performance is not separate. It emerges from how capabilities are applied to deliver impact.
Assessment dimensions
- Capability level: Observable behaviours across core and specialty areas; holistic, not averaged
- Progress within level: Levels represent growth bands; early versus advanced placement recognised
- Impact at level: Reflects how effectively capabilities are applied at expected scope and influence
This keeps performance conversations focused on growth, fairness, and real impact, avoiding ratings or output-based scoring.
Capability sets expectations. Impact reveals performance.
Delivery Model & Constraints
Delivery was led by a small, cross-disciplinary team: one internal engineer and one external HR consultant. This paired deep organisational context with expertise in growth systems, feedback design, and holocratic environments.
The engagement was scoped by working backwards from outcomes, defining success metrics and a full roadmap in the first two hours. Limited internal capacity enabled rapid experimentation without heavy process.
Complementary strengths
- Internal engineer: context, tenure, real-time testing
- External consultant: HR systems expertise, adult development, prior experience in holocratic systems
Dual-lead delivery model delivered discipline without bureaucracy, leveraging complementary skills to implement a scalable capability framework.
Reflections
Outcomes
System-level results demonstrated alignment, trust, and behavioural change.
- Engagement survey participation increased 65% to 95%
- Learning and Development scores improved, especially career clarity and manager support
- Feedback and Recognition scores strengthened over time
These results show a shift from performance management as a process to capability development as a system.
Systemic change drives engagement, clarity, and trust - not just tick-box improvements.
Lessons
Capability must come before performance. Measuring outcomes without shared expectations optimises reporting, not results.
Adoption mattered more than design. The framework worked because it was co-created, reinforced through behaviour, and visible in everyday conversations. Feedback was the hardest and most powerful lever. Capability only becomes real when people can observe it, name it, and talk about it safely.
This framework is a living system. As the organisation grows and new roles or specialties emerge, the capabilities and assessment practices are expected to evolve, ensuring the system continues to support clarity, development, and high performance.