The Performance Review Mirror
TL;DR
Performance review season is on the horizon: that magical time of year when we’re asked to reflect on our performance and identify how we might become a slightly improved version of ourselves.
If you work in communications, you’ve probably gotten contradictory feedback. I certainly have. Here’s a snapshot of things I’ve heard over the years, not necessarily in the following order:
“Speak up more.”
“You’re too confident.”
“Be more strategic.”
“You need to execute more.”
Here’s the thing: Performance feedback can be useful, but it isn’t objective truth. It’s one person’s observation of you, shaped by their experiences, expectations, preferences, and definition of “good.” The same behavior can be interpreted very differently depending on who’s doing the interpreting.
The trick is figuring out what’s useful without letting someone else’s interpretation of you become your identity.
Feedback's information. Not Identity.
A supervisor tells you, “You’re not strategic enough.”
OK. What does that actually mean? Where did they expect a recommendation and get execution? Where could you have identified an opportunity sooner? What would they have wanted you to do differently?
Now we’re talking about behavior. That’s much more useful than trying to decode what “not strategic enough” says about your fundamental character.
Same thing with “too confident.” Did you dismiss someone’s input? Interrupt? Present an opinion as fact? Great. Something to work on.
The more you can move feedback from “this is who you are” to “this is what I observed,” the more useful it becomes.
the Comms Chameleon strikes again
This is where this connects to the Comms Chameleon concept I shared in last month’s newsletter. We’re exceptionally good at adapting to the environment around us. We adjust our communication style, learn what leaders value, read the room, and figure out how to get things done.
That’s a strength. It also means the same person can be evaluated very differently depending on the environment they’re in. One supervisor values challenge. Another values alignment. One wants you to bring the recommendation. Another wants you to execute the plan.
You haven’t necessarily changed. The lens has.
So the question isn’t, “Which version of me should I become?” It’s, “What am I learning from this feedback, and what do I actually want to change?”
So, How Do You Know When You’ve Adapted Too Far?
I’ve started asking myself four questions:
1) What did they actually observe?
Find the behavior underneath the label. If it's even there, that is.
2) Is there a pattern?
One person’s preference is information. A recurring theme is probably worth examining.
3) What does this tell me about their expectations?
Every supervisor has a definition of what “good” looks like. Probably shaped quite a bit by their early childhood experiences.
4)What do I want to do with that?
Not “How do I become the person they want?” What would actually make me better?Am I adapting strategically, or am I just going along?
If I tried to become every version of myself I’ve been told to be, I’d need to be more confident but less confident, more strategic but more execution-focused, more challenging but more receptive.
Yeah, that’s not physically possible.
Take the useful feedback. Look for the patterns. Own the things you need to own.
But remember: Sometimes feedback tells you something about your performance. Sometimes it tells you something about the person sitting across from you. Occasionally, it’s both.
