When we first tested annual written 360s, we ran them like everyone else. Each employee selected a handful of people she wanted to receive feedback from, and those people filled out the report anonymously, rating the employee on a scale of 1 to 5 across a series of categories and leaving comments. We used a “Start, Stop, Continue” format for the comments to ensure that people didn’t just pat each other on the back but gave concrete, actionable feedback… We no longer have employees rate each other on a scale of 1 to 5, since we don’t link the process to raises, promotions, or firings. The goal is to help everyone get better, not to categorize them into boxes. The other big improvement is that each person can now give feedback to as many colleagues as they choose at any level in the organization—not just direct reports, line managers, or a few teammates who have invited input. Most people at Netflix provide feedback for at least ten colleagues, but thirty or forty is common. I received comments from seventy-one people on my 2018 report.

Within each theme, the company lists smaller “Rocks” (column 5 of the OPSP) that need to be addressed in order to achieve the company’s big goal for the next 13 weeks, helping to focus everyone on execution. Though employees do not discuss the themes during daily huddles, which are focused on daily operations, they devote 30 minutes at weekly meetings to addressing progress toward the Quarterly Theme.

The City Bin Co. alternates between a Critical Number and Quarterly Theme that are focused on improving the People side of the business (“180 to One,” “Saving Mrs. Ryan”) and the Process side of the business (“Life Begins at 40,” “Bin it,” “Bin’s Health”). It’s important to find the same kind of balance as you sequence your #1 priorities.

When Rob examined the networks of the top ten thousand people in the company, Scott “was the Number 1 most overloaded person.” More than 118 people came to Scott every day for information from the three units he ran. Rob learned in one unit “78 people—some 50 percent—of the 150 top managers in that one unit felt they couldn’t hit their business goals unless they got more of Scott’s time.

In the abstract, economic theory held: swift redundancies would lead to quicker recovery and hence new, better jobs. But he stopped believing in it. Or rather, he gradually became convinced that the axe wasn’t falling in the places that theory called for. The bosses weren’t losing their jobs or homes. They weren’t leading from the front and sacrificing themselves for the greater good. How many ordinary jobs could you save with the CEO’s salary? It was simple arithmetic. McKinsey, too, was making a healthy surplus that could have kept most of these people employed, at least for another year. There had to be a better way to fit this puzzle together.