Feedback and Performance Reviews

I just watched a brilliant young mind quit after his first performance review.  The system didn't fail, it worked exactly as designed. And that's the problem. A close friend's son called me yesterday asking for advice. This kid has always been exceptional - top of his class, and one of the most hardworking young minds I know. He joined a company last year, excited to prove himself. His first performance review just happened. They put him on a PIP for "team collaboration issues." Here's what actually happened that past year: + On-time, flawless project delivery. + Zero complaints from stakeholders. + Often stayed late to get things right. But he wasn’t loud. He didn’t hang around in Slack threads and coffee chats or networked just for the sake of being visible. He focused on the work. And that somehow became a problem. When he called me, his voice was shaking. "I keep questioning myself. Maybe I really am terrible at my job." Just imagine an A-player, now doubting his entire future because our review systems punish introverts, misfit metrics, and non-traditional brilliance. I told him what I'm telling you: You're not the problem, kid. The system is. Four decades in this industry, and this still breaks my heart every time.  We're crushing exceptional talent with processes designed for a different era. We measure yesterday's activities instead of tomorrow's potential. The best leaders understand that real performance happens in real-time, not annual reviews. They coach continuously, celebrate wins immediately, and address challenges before they destroy confidence. ✅ Netflix eliminated performance reviews entirely.  ✅ Adobe replaced them with ongoing conversations.  ✅ Google shifted to quarterly goals with continuous feedback. These aren't experiments, they're competitive advantages. While traditional companies waste months on review documents nobody reads, smart organisations invest that time in actual development conversations that drive results. We need to replace annual reviews with monthly check-ins that matter. And most importantly, replace the assumption that people need to be "reviewed" like products with the understanding they need to be supported, challenged, and trusted to grow. That young man will find a company that values his work ethic over his small talk skills. His former employer will keep wondering why they can't retain talent while using the same broken processes. The difference will transform one organisation and devastate the other. So, stop managing performance like it's a quarterly report. Start enabling it like it's a human being's career and dreams. #performancereviews #thoughtleadership

Just by being Black, the level of latitude you're given for behaviour – especially behaviour deemed "bad" – is often completely different. The consequences are harsher and the scrutiny is sharper. Take disciplinary matters, for example. Black employees are often judged more harshly for the same behaviours as their white counterparts. A Black professional might be labelled “difficult”, “angry”, “intimidating”, or “unprofessional” for expressing frustration in a meeting, while a white colleague might be excused as “passionate” or “assertive”. You know the type of comments – “Elizabeth is just expressing how she feels,” or “Johnny was just a bit hot under the collar.” The disparity isn’t just anecdotal – it’s backed up by research into workplace racial bias. Then there’s career progression. Black employees are frequently held to higher standards to earn the same recognition. Feedback like, “You need to prove yourself more” or “be more of a team player” is often levelled at those who have already delivered exceptional results. Meanwhile, others are promoted based on potential or likeability rather than consistent performance. Not sure if this is (or has) happened in your workplace? 1) Look at patterns in employee relations cases – Are Black employees disproportionately disciplined or receiving harsher feedback compared to their peers in similar roles? 2) Examine promotion criteria – Are Black employees expected to overperform just to be considered for opportunities, while others get ahead based on vague ideas of potential or even subpar performance? How do performance and potential ratings for Black employees compare with others? 3) Observe how behaviours are labelled – Is there a difference in the language used to describe similar actions? Are words like “angry” or “unapproachable” disproportionately applied to Black colleagues? For Black women, how are their traits described compared to non-Black women? For Black men, what “advice” is given under the guise of mentorship to ensure they aren’t perceived as “intimidating” or “scary” – particularly when they express frustration or anger? To address this, the first step is noticing the patterns (or not dismissing or acting defensively when it’s pointed out), the second is to question and avoid making assumptions that it is an “unfounded accusation” and the third? Well, that’s up to you. You can either take action or ignore it. I say that only because too many organisations are still struggling to get past the first step 🤷🏾♀️ 📹 Sterling K. Brown

"Why does our top performer get the worst reviews?" the VP asked me. I was reviewing their annual performance data. "Show me," I said. She pulled up the ratings. Diana: 2.8 out of 5. Below average on "collaboration." Low marks for "team player." "What's her actual performance?" I asked. "Exceeded every target. Landed our biggest client. Trained three new hires." "So why the low scores?" "Her peer reviews are dragging her down." I scanned the comments. "Too direct." "Challenges ideas too much." "Not supportive enough." "Let me talk to Diana," I said. "I used to give honest feedback," Diana told me. "Said our pricing model was broken. Got dinged for 'negativity.'" "What happened with the pricing?" "They finally fixed it six months later. After we lost two major accounts." "What else?" "I questioned why we needed  eleven approvals for a simple contract change. Manager said I wasn't being collaborative." "Are you still giving feedback?" "No. I learned my lesson. Now I smile. Nod. Say everything's great. My reviews are improving." "But nothing's actually improving?" "We're making the same mistakes. Just with better vibes." She chuckled. I went back to the VP. "Your review system doesn't measure performance," I said. "It measures compliance." "That's not true." "When was the last time someone got promoted for challenging bad ideas?" Silence. "When did someone get rewarded for preventing a mistake?" More silence. "You've trained your best people to stay quiet. And your mediocre people to stay nice." A few months later, they redesigned the system. Added a category: "Constructive Challenge." Points for identifying problems early. Rewards for preventing costly mistakes. Diana got promoted. "What changed?" I asked the VP. "We stopped confusing agreement with alignment. Stopped mistaking silence for harmony." "And?" "Turns out our 'difficult' people were our most valuable. They actually cared enough to speak up." Here's the truth about performance reviews: Most companies don't reward performance. They reward performance theater. The person who says the meeting was great beats the person who says it wasted an hour. The person who agrees with bad ideas beats the person who prevents disasters. You think you're measuring contribution. You're measuring conformity. And your best people? They've already figured out the game. They're just deciding whether to play it or find somewhere that values truth over comfort. _____ Like my content? Give me a follow. Want to see more of it? Click the 🔔 on my profile.

Managers come to me frustrated: "My team member is underperforming." So I ask them just two questions: "What are they spending time on vs. what they SHOULD be spending time on?" "Do they know what is EXPECTED of them to deliver for each priority?" The uncomfortable silence says everything. It's not a performance problem. It's an alignment disaster. Your "underperforming" employee is grinding away on tasks that are not a priority. Your "failing" team member is delivering the strategy, thinking they have done their work, not realizing they are expected to lead the delivery. Stop the performance theater. Use your next 1:1 to: • Perform a priorities audit • Align on expected deliverables • Define what good looks like • Write these down for clarity Then do it again next week. And the week after. And when priorities shift. And when projects change. The harsh truth? Most managers would rather label someone "underperforming" than admit they failed to create clarity. Performance without alignment is like archery in the dark. Your team isn't missing the target. They're shooting at a different one. What alignment conversation are you avoiding right now?

Most performance problems aren’t skill issues. They’re clarity and safety issues. When results slip, leaders often think: “They should know this by now.” But performance rarely breaks because people can’t. It breaks because they’re unsure — and don’t feel safe enough to say it out loud. Here’s the gap I see over and over 👇 What leaders think: 1.I’ve been clear 2.They understand the goal 3.Silence means alignment 4.Experience = confidence 5.If it mattered, they’d ask 6.Pressure drives performance 7.Accountability means control 8.One message = alignment 9.Speed means efficiency 10.If they struggle, it’s a skill gap What’s actually happening: 1.They’re filling gaps with assumptions 2.The goal feels fuzzy at the edges 3.Silence means uncertainty or self-protection 4.Experience adds pressure to “get it right” 5.Asking feels risky, not responsible 6.Pressure narrows thinking and ownership 7.Control erodes trust and initiative 8.Everyone heard something slightly different 9.Speed skips alignment — then creates rework 10.The real gap is clarity, context, and safety That quiet guessing? That invisible pressure? That’s where performance breaks — long before it shows up in results. Not because people don’t care. But because clarity feels unsafe when expectations are unspoken. High performance isn’t built by pushing harder. It’s built by slowing down early. By making the unspoken speakable. By checking understanding instead of assuming it. By building safety before accountability. ♻ Share this with your network if it resonates. ☝ And follow Stuart Andrews for more insights like this.

Want your team to perform better this year? Express genuine positivity, early. Researchers published in Organization Science studied 9,968 consultants across 20 months. The result? Consultants who received positive feedback early in the year performed significantly better—regardless of past performance. When leaders express positive emotions early on… Employees feel seen. They feel respected. And they’re driven to maintain that respect all year long. It creates a motivational anchor. Athletes show the same pattern. Another study tracked 245 NCAA athletes and 86 coaches. Those who received early-season praise from their coaches performed better even after controlling for playtime or past stats. But here’s the twist: Teams performed BEST when leaders paired early praise… with a little constructive feedback at the midpoint. Not harsh. Just honest. It’s the classic tough-love combo, with the love first. Why it works: Midpoint critique signals, “You can do better and I believe you will.” It gives people a chance to re-earn the respect they value. And that challenge? It boosts motivation and focus. So, what should you do? Start projects with specific, heartfelt praise. Avoid constant negativity, it backfires. Use midpoints to give clear, constructive feedback. Sequence matters more than style. The bottom line: You don’t have to choose between kindness and candor. Lead with warmth. Course-correct with honesty. The right emotional timing doesn’t just feel better it delivers results.

In my 18 years at Amazon, I've seen more careers transformed by the next 2 weeks than by the other 50 weeks of the year combined. It's performance review season. Most people rush through it like a chore, seeing it as an interruption to their "real work." The smartest people I know do the opposite: they treat these upcoming weeks as their highest-leverage opportunity of the year. After handling over fifty feedback requests, self-reviews, and upward feedback 𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 for nearly two decades, I've learned this isn't just another corporate exercise. This is when careers pivot, accelerate, or stall. Your feedback directly impacts compensation, career trajectories, and professional growth. Your self-assessment frames how leadership views your entire year's work. This isn't busywork—it's career-defining work, but we treat it with as much enthusiasm as taking out trash. Here's how to make the most of it: 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 - Ask yourself: "What perspective am I uniquely positioned to share?" Everyone will comment on the obvious wins and challenges. Your job is to provide insights others miss, making your feedback instantly invaluable. 𝗗𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗯𝗶𝗮𝘀 - I keep a living document for every person I work with. When something feedback-worthy happens—good or challenging—it goes in immediately. No more scrambling to remember projects from months ago. This ensures specific, timely examples when needed. 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 - Don't just list tasks—craft a narrative. Lead with behaviors that drove impact. Show your growth in handling complex situations, influencing across teams, and making difficult trade-offs. Demonstrate self-awareness by acknowledging areas where you're actively improving. 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿 - They receive little feedback all year. Focus on how they help you succeed and specific ways they could support you better. Make it dense with information—this might be their only chance to learn how to serve their team better. 𝗢𝗻 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 - The difference between criticism and valuable input is showing you genuinely want the other person to succeed. When that intention shines through, you don't need to walk on eggshells. Be specific about the behavior, its impact, and how it could improve. 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 - Good constructive feedback often feels like an insult at first. But here's the mindset shift that changed everything for me: feedback is a gift. It's direct guidance on improvement from those who work closest with you. When you feel that defensive instinct rise, pause and focus on understanding instead. Here's your challenge: This year, treat performance review season like the most important work you'll do. Because in terms of long-term impact on careers—both yours and others'—it just might be.

Giving feedback isn’t just about pointing out mistakes—it’s about empowering growth and creating a path for improvement. As leaders, mentors, or colleagues, we must remember that our words can either uplift or demoralize. Here’s my go-to approach for constructive feedback: ✅ Be Specific: Vague criticism helps no one. Focus on particular behaviors or outcomes. ✅ Use the SBI Model: Situation. Behavior. Impact. It keeps the conversation objective and solution-focused. ✅ Balance with Positivity: Acknowledge what’s working well before addressing areas of improvement. ✅ Feedforward: Let’s shift the narrative to what can be improved for future success, instead of lingering on past mistakes. Remember, the goal is to help others grow—not just to correct. When delivered effectively, feedback becomes a powerful tool for building trust, inspiring confidence, and driving real change. How do you approach giving feedback in your workplace? 💬 Let’s discuss! #Leadership #Feedback #ProfessionalGrowth #Coaching #Empowerment #LeadershipDevelopment

I’ve been rethinking something I used to believe pretty deeply: that performance reviews were a necessary part of managing people well. For a long time, I accepted the model. Work hard all year. Document everything. Sit down once or twice annually to reflect, rate, and decide compensation. It felt structured. Responsible. Grown-up. But the more I reflect, the more I’m willing to say this out loud: A performance review never made me perform better all year round. It was a snapshot. And I knew it drove my compensation. So I wrote a beautiful review. I curated my wins, softened my misses, and told a compelling story about my impact. Performance theater at its finest. That realization is uncomfortable, especially for someone who’s helped run these processes. It forces me to confront an old mindset and a real paradigm shift: maybe performance reviews aren’t just flawed. Maybe they’re unnecessary. Or worse — counterproductive. When pay is tied to a retrospective review, does feedback gets distorted? Does honesty drop? Does coaching become cautious? And do reviews stop being about growth and start being about positioning? And, yikes - do we pretend that’s development? What I’m grappling with now is simple, even if the change isn’t. Adults (and the data says) want the same things at work: Pay me fairly for the role and the value I bring. Tell me when I’m doing something well. Tell me when I’m missing the mark - early enough to fix it. That’s it. That’s the equation. So why do we keep anchoring all of this to a single moment? What if compensation were grounded in role value and market realities, not a once-a-year narrative exercise? What if feedback lived where it actually drives performance, in real time, tied to real work? What if we trusted adults with clarity instead of managing them through cycles? Eliminating traditional performance reviews feels radical because it challenges habits, not logic. It asks leaders to trade forms for conversations. It asks employees to trade self-promotion for transparency. And it asks both sides to stay engaged all year, not just when it counts. This isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about raising them. Managers are still accountable for clarity, recognition, and course correction. Employees are still accountable for delivering, learning, and asking for feedback. The difference is honesty - and momentum. I’m not claiming to have all the answers yet. But I am convinced of this: if our goal is real performance, real growth, and fair pay, then we should stop defending systems that optimize for theater. Pay people fairly. Coach them continuously. Talk often. It’s a meaningful change. But it might be the most adult approach we have.

I once gave an employee a review that made him hate me. It didn’t matter that I was right. Here’s how you can do better: As a new manager, I thought my job was to figure out where people were "doing things wrong" and then tell them. I was managing an older, experienced engineer with a lot of knowledge and skills. I did not think about how hard it must be to have a younger, less experienced manager give you feedback in the first place. Then, I focused his review on what I saw as weaknesses and how he could change and improve. It didn't matter if my feedback was "right" or not. I demolished any trust or respect he may have had for me, so there was no chance he would listen to anything I had to say. Last week, I wrote a newsletter about what you can do to ensure you get a good performance review. This week, I want to share how you can give a good review to your reports. I will share my perspective here to introduce our guest newsletter from Jess Goldberg, which focuses on giving good, individualized feedback. Here are the 3 most important parts of giving a review: 1) Reviews require trust! No one can hear feedback if it comes from someone they do not believe has their best interest at heart. This is where I lost my employee - I did not establish that I recognized his valuable experience and tenure, so he didn’t trust me to give him feedback. 2) Never surprise someone with a review. Good managers give feedback frequently, both positive and corrective. Corrective feedback is backed up by clear examples and is delivered as soon as is practical. Surprising someone with bad news or a low rating is inexcusable as a manager. Employees should know where they stand before their official review rolls around. 3) Emphasize the positives. For a while, I gave employees their reviews in two pieces. Amazon employees tended to skim past all their strengths to quickly look at where they could improve, so I used to give them the strengths part a few hours or a day before I gave them the areas for improvement. My goal was to ensure they really digested and internalized where they were doing well. This practice was in contrast to the failure in my story, where I saw my job as simply pointing out where the engineer on my team needed to improve. More than 25 years later, I still feel bad about that review. The best I can say is that I learned and improved as a result. Today's guest newsletter is from Jess Goldberg, a leadership communication expert, company trainer, and executive coach. Her article goes deep into how you can deliver effective employee feedback across the performance spectrum. The newsletter includes a visual model that will help you tailor feedback to the specific situations, as well as FAQs about how to best deliver feedback. You can read the newsletter here: https://lnkd.in/gE2Bvacv Leaders - what else is essential for giving a good review? What mistakes have you made?