How should an EM facilitate reviews in a self-organizing team?

WHAT THIS TESTS: Whether you understand that agile teams inspect and adapt together through retrospectives, so the manager does not manage day-to-day performance but instead develops people and improves the system. The interviewer wants to see that you trust the team to self-correct operationally while you use one-on-ones for growth, meta-coaching, and obstacle removal.

A GOOD ANSWER COVERS: First, reframe performance management as career development. The team handles its own process improvement; the manager handles growth trajectories. Second, hold frequent one-on-ones, weekly or biweekly, to build trust and offer meta-feedback on how the person gives and receives feedback, plus coaching or connections to other coaches. Third, separate feedback from compensation. Feedback must be continuous and two-way, not hoarded for an annual review. Fourth, for raises, reject individual hero rewards. Establish expertise criteria for each job level to ensure pay parity, then either give equal merit increases or provide a team-level raise pool and let the team distribute it based on shared norms. Fifth, see the system. The manager removes organizational obstacles and changes the environment rather than judging individuals against it.

COMMON WRONG ANSWERS: Saying the manager should evaluate top performers or stack-rank the team. Advocating that the manager assign tasks, create experts, or move people off teams to optimize resources. Proposing annual reviews with forced curves. Suggesting that because the team is self-organizing, the manager should skip one-on-ones entirely and let the team handle career growth alone.

LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS: How would you handle a genuinely underperforming individual on a self-organizing team? What if HR insists on individual ratings? How do you prevent a team-level raise pool from becoming a popularity contest? How do you maintain pay parity when market rates for different specialties differ?

ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE: You manage a platform team that is self-organizing. During one-on-ones you learn two mid-level engineers want to grow toward staff-level impact. You provide meta-coaching on how they can give better technical feedback during code review. When the team delivers a major reliability win, you do not single out the on-call hero. Instead, you bring a merit raise pool to the team, remind them of the expertise criteria you co-created with HR, and ask them to propose a distribution. You also use your system view to remove a cross-team dependency that was slowing them down.