When a manager's evaluation and an employee's self-assessment differ, treat it as a valuable signal. This gap is not a conflict to resolve but a conversation starter to clarify expectations, uncover blind spots, and align on performance standards before formal reviews.
Related Insights
A three-step structure for feedback: state a neutral observation ("What"), explain its impact ("So What"), and suggest a collaborative next step ("Now What"). This focuses on the work, not the person, making the feedback more likely to be received well and acted upon.
Move beyond annual reviews by implementing a structured competency model for bi-monthly, one-hour check-ins. This practice removes ambiguity from feedback, makes it conversational and actionable, and creates a continuous, transparent growth loop.
Most managers fail at feedback by avoiding conflict. A better framework combines three elements: toughness (directly confronting the problem), kindness (offering support to improve), and clarity (defining specific actions and the potential positive outcome).
In a supportive culture, managing underperformance starts with co-authored goals upstream. When results falter, the conversation should be a diagnostic inquiry focused on removing roadblocks. This shifts the focus from the person's failure to the problem that's hindering their success, making tough conversations productive.
When an employee isn't meeting expectations, it's rarely due to lack of effort. It's typically because they don't know *what* to do, *why* it's important to the larger picture, or *how* to do it. Addressing these three points provides clarity and removes roadblocks before assuming a performance issue.
Directly ask your manager, "When you talk about my performance in leadership meetings, what are the main points you emphasize?" An honest manager will answer directly, while a manipulative one will likely deflect or become defensive, revealing their lack of transparency.
Annual or quarterly performance reviews are high-pressure, judgmental events that create fear. A more effective approach is to reframe management as coaching. This means providing frequent, trust-based feedback focused on developing an employee's long-term potential, rather than simply rating their past performance.
To prevent defensiveness when giving critical feedback, managers should explicitly state their positive intent. Saying "I'm giving this because I care about you and your career" shifts the focus from a personal attack to a supportive act of leadership aimed at helping them grow.
The phrase "Can I give you feedback?" triggers a threat response. Neuroleadership research shows that flipping the script—having leaders proactively *ask* for feedback—reduces the associated stress by 50% for both parties. This simple tweak fosters a culture of psychological safety and continuous improvement.
The term "strategic" is often a catch-all excuse used by managers during performance reviews when they fail to provide concrete, coachable feedback. It's a sign the leader needs to clarify their own expectations before they can effectively coach their team member.
