Hey! I'm glad you asked for more context, because I think context here is really important.

Ultimately, I think my review was fair. I disagree with parts of it, but I truly do accept its outcome. And it didn't feel at all arbitrary. Smart people, myself included, legitimately disagreed.

I had two jobs last half: I was supposed to split my time between managing the London Friend Sharing team and running the site. I rated myself Meets Some on the Friend Sharing side (which is two notches below Meets All); I rated myself Exceeded on the site leading. My managers agreed with both -- so, at the highest level of abstraction, we're actually all completely on the same page.

Where we differed was this: I felt that I had to turn more attention to the site because the site needed it. My managers felt like I turned too much attention to the site, and that I could have let some of those site things go. Put it this way: what if I had instead just met expectations on the site? Could it have enabled me to also meet expectations on leading my team? I believe I could have. Where we differ in opinion is that I felt my managers put me in a position where I had to pivot more towards the site, whereas they don't see it that way. After much discussion with them, I think it comes down to just a plain and simple misunderstanding: I felt I was focused on the right things; they were worried about what I wasn't focusing on. My scope is so broad that people trust me to go months without intervention (literally); so this sort of divergence can happen.

On a meta level, I also completely own that I should not have been surprised by the outcome -- that is, that as a senior leader, I should very quickly detect these sorts of misalignments and correct them. So on that level, I also completely own the result.

I love my previous manager (Rushabh). In fact, I'd gladly work with him again. He is one of the most genuine people -- and very people-centered. Throughout this process, and even afterwards, I still completely trust him and would love a chance to work with him again.

On an even higher meta level, for context, I think FB's got one of the best review systems I've seen, even when comparing notes with many managers who've joined us from startups and large companies. No system is without significant flaws; but the FB system, from my experience both as an IC and a manager, is fairly good. I continue to have faith in the system as well.

And, random context here, I also believe around 2 years ago, when I was promoted, I was the highest level engineer promotion that had ever happened outside of Menlo Park. So I'm definitely not looking a gift horse in the mouth. I can't accept the supremely good without also enduring what's difficult. My review last half was difficult - but I accept and understand the results.

Does that help? Happy to chat more.