4 ms·

I'm curious how this applies to employee performance reviews. Could feedback about what an employee needs to improve be perceived as criticism no matter how you

I'm curious how this applies to employee performance reviews. Could feedback about what an employee needs to improve be perceived as criticism no matter how you try to frame it? What I noticed is that, when I have to review someone in my team and I gather feedback from other members of the team, I rarely get any critical input, even if the feedback is anonymous. Many avoid giving what they perceive as negative feedback even if it's framed as an opportunity to help the other person improve.

dgb23 4y ago
I can think of possible reasons. For one there might be a power structure, where employees feel they will harm their colleagues by revealing criticism. For example if performance is used to determine further compensation and job security. If instead there is a healthy error culture, while improvement and ownership is incentivized, then people might want to share more. Secondly it is bad form to criticize others indirectly, good form to own up your own mistakes or to personally and directly ask for criticism. If there is a middleman, then providing criticism can come off as weak and finger pointing. It might be easier and more healthy to give people an opportunity to ask others about their opinion. Third, they might be many other social reasons like being timid or not thinking all too much about other people's performance. They might just like each other, be indifferent or afraid or what have you. Some might not even know very well how to give constructive, useful criticism. To get people to care and share their opinions freely you need regular practice. Face to face. And again, it should typically start with self-criticism, because that invites ownership and openness instead of a you vs me kind of deal.
- curiousllama 4y ago
  1 and 2 are def reasons I hesitate. I’d add: what possible good could come from criticizing someone to their boss? If I have feedback for someone that’s substantive enough to bring up, then I’ll just tell them. If the relationship isn’t strong enough to just tell them directly, then it’s probably not going to be improved by criticism, even anonymously (however constructive & well meaning).
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Most places here have a ritual to "say something bad and say something good", which mostly brings out a half-assed response from one side or even both sides. Criticizing others or even just things has been stamped out during upbringing due to it generally being a really bad move socially, whereas praising others is much easier. I'd extrapolate that and say most people don't think of things that could be criticized too much as a result, and don't have enough experience criticizing, which in turn creates little critical feedback.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> even if the feedback is anonymous. There is usually good reason for an employee to believe that anonymous feedback is not truly anonymous. Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee.
- Majestic121 4y ago
  The upside is that your manager gets constructive feedback and improves from it, making your life as an employee better. Not all managers respond well to feedback, but if you have a good one and you're constructive it can produce real improvements
- cntainer 4y ago
  The way I'm sharing it with the person being reviewed is: "This is all the feedback you got from people you work with", without attaching names to it. If I have reasons to think the person will take it personally or the way it's written is too negative I refrain from sharing it raw and I prepare a tl;dr. What's important is to extract the main points from the feedback. > Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee. Not sure I understand why.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
I will always hesitate to give negative feedback in the format of an official review at work. These things are attached to someone's ability to keep a roof over their head, directly and indirectly.
- yodsanklai 4y ago
  I think it depends on what we mean be "negative". Constructive, easily actionable feedback can also be an opportunity for an employee to improve, which may help with next evaluation.
- cntainer 4y ago
  I think that's a matter of trust between the manager and his team. If the team culture is set for continuous improvement this kind of feedback should be considered normal. If an employee is at risk for termination that won't be determined just by some peer feedback.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    PMC and workers are not allies
    - cntainer 4y ago
      That's a choice not a law EDIT: in most successful teams I know manager and team are in the same boat
      - wahnfrieden 4y ago
        "That's an individual's choice" is the weakest perspective on systemic effect PMC are in the same boat in that they're not the owners but they do serve their interests
        cntainer 4y ago
        It really depends on the system. I agree that most companies tend to end up with a cesspool of middle-management political games but that's not something unavoidable. I've seen examples where the objectives of the management and the teams are sufficiently aligned by the owners to create win-win situations. Yes, it's not that typical, but it's possible.
ARandomerDude 4y ago
I never give negative feedback unless I think (1) it's necessary, and (2) the other person is open to hearing it. If either of those elements is missing, I'm wasting my time and potentially harming myself later.
geodel 4y ago
Interesting. I have given frank feedback in case a team member is just coasting for long time and not doing their share. In fact many places I worked people feel free to offer their feedback even without being asked.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
My view is that feedback, especially negative feedback, should be timely. If an employee 'discovers' negative feedback at performance review time it is not good, and the person may get the additional feeling that their manager withheld telling them in time only to 'frame' them on record at review time (I say that because I was on the receiving end once). So I think that negative feedback in formal performance reviews is particularly sensitive.
- cntainer 4y ago
  I completely agree. From my perspective there's the day to day operational kind of feedback: "X, your latest change broke production the 2nd time this week, let's see what we can do to prevent that". This needs to be addressed as part of the daily work. Business as usual for someone leading/managing a team. And then there is the periodic performance review were we want to take a high-level look at changes in impact, outcomes, behavior over longer periods of time.

dgb23 4y ago

I can think of possible reasons. For one there might be a power structure, where employees feel they will harm their colleagues by revealing criticism. For example if performance is used to determine further compensation and job security. If instead there is a healthy error culture, while improvement and ownership is incentivized, then people might want to share more. Secondly it is bad form to criticize others indirectly, good form to own up your own mistakes or to personally and directly ask for criticism. If there is a middleman, then providing criticism can come off as weak and finger pointing. It might be easier and more healthy to give people an opportunity to ask others about their opinion. Third, they might be many other social reasons like being timid or not thinking all too much about other people's performance. They might just like each other, be indifferent or afraid or what have you. Some might not even know very well how to give constructive, useful criticism. To get people to care and share their opinions freely you need regular practice. Face to face. And again, it should typically start with self-criticism, because that invites ownership and openness instead of a you vs me kind of deal.

curiousllama 4y ago
1 and 2 are def reasons I hesitate. I’d add: what possible good could come from criticizing someone to their boss? If I have feedback for someone that’s substantive enough to bring up, then I’ll just tell them. If the relationship isn’t strong enough to just tell them directly, then it’s probably not going to be improved by criticism, even anonymously (however constructive & well meaning).

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Most places here have a ritual to "say something bad and say something good", which mostly brings out a half-assed response from one side or even both sides. Criticizing others or even just things has been stamped out during upbringing due to it generally being a really bad move socially, whereas praising others is much easier. I'd extrapolate that and say most people don't think of things that could be criticized too much as a result, and don't have enough experience criticizing, which in turn creates little critical feedback.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> even if the feedback is anonymous. There is usually good reason for an employee to believe that anonymous feedback is not truly anonymous. Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee.

Majestic121 4y ago
The upside is that your manager gets constructive feedback and improves from it, making your life as an employee better. Not all managers respond well to feedback, but if you have a good one and you're constructive it can produce real improvements
cntainer 4y ago
The way I'm sharing it with the person being reviewed is: "This is all the feedback you got from people you work with", without attaching names to it. If I have reasons to think the person will take it personally or the way it's written is too negative I refrain from sharing it raw and I prepare a tl;dr. What's important is to extract the main points from the feedback. > Assuming it actually is anonymous would be all downside and no upside for the employee. Not sure I understand why.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

I will always hesitate to give negative feedback in the format of an official review at work. These things are attached to someone's ability to keep a roof over their head, directly and indirectly.

yodsanklai 4y ago
I think it depends on what we mean be "negative". Constructive, easily actionable feedback can also be an opportunity for an employee to improve, which may help with next evaluation.
cntainer 4y ago
I think that's a matter of trust between the manager and his team. If the team culture is set for continuous improvement this kind of feedback should be considered normal. If an employee is at risk for termination that won't be determined just by some peer feedback.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  PMC and workers are not allies
  - cntainer 4y ago
    That's a choice not a law EDIT: in most successful teams I know manager and team are in the same boat
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      "That's an individual's choice" is the weakest perspective on systemic effect PMC are in the same boat in that they're not the owners but they do serve their interests
      - cntainer 4y ago
        It really depends on the system. I agree that most companies tend to end up with a cesspool of middle-management political games but that's not something unavoidable. I've seen examples where the objectives of the management and the teams are sufficiently aligned by the owners to create win-win situations. Yes, it's not that typical, but it's possible.

ARandomerDude 4y ago

I never give negative feedback unless I think (1) it's necessary, and (2) the other person is open to hearing it. If either of those elements is missing, I'm wasting my time and potentially harming myself later.

geodel 4y ago

Interesting. I have given frank feedback in case a team member is just coasting for long time and not doing their share. In fact many places I worked people feel free to offer their feedback even without being asked.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

My view is that feedback, especially negative feedback, should be timely. If an employee 'discovers' negative feedback at performance review time it is not good, and the person may get the additional feeling that their manager withheld telling them in time only to 'frame' them on record at review time (I say that because I was on the receiving end once). So I think that negative feedback in formal performance reviews is particularly sensitive.

cntainer 4y ago
I completely agree. From my perspective there's the day to day operational kind of feedback: "X, your latest change broke production the 2nd time this week, let's see what we can do to prevent that". This needs to be addressed as part of the daily work. Business as usual for someone leading/managing a team. And then there is the periodic performance review were we want to take a high-level look at changes in impact, outcomes, behavior over longer periods of time.