I'd love to hear more about the process by which you assess (evaluate) the performance of a PM!

I've found that many systems in large and small companies tend to rely on feedback given to evaluate, rather than doing an evaluation on whether they are meeting the requirements of the ladder level they are at. Merging feedback and evaluation creates an environment where any feedback could be used as a negative against someone. It creates a very biased system overall, especially when impact may require more than six months to come to fruition.

We have been using an approach where we look to check off various competencies in the ladder for the level they are at. This is done through evidence that answers the who, what, when, where, why, and how questions. It still puts the onus on the employee but it takes a lot of bias out of the way that managers interpret the work people do.

A benefit of this system is that the feedback taken through 360 feedback can be used but doesn't automatically. It is up to the person to make their case. It avoids any little piece of feedback someone gives being blown up to something stopping them from getting a 'meets' evaluation if they have shown it in other ways.

Promotions are based on the fact that you are meeting all of the next ladder level's requirements.

Happy to connect sometime if you want to trade notes!