Taking the Awkwardness Out of Performance Conversations

Recently, I spoke with two clients who were grappling with challenges related to their performance reviews. One was worried about how a team member would react to a “meets expectations” rating. Both leaders were unsure what rating to submit with their self-assessment.

Both organizations have performance matrices that clearly describe ratings for each role and level, yet both leaders were uncertain about what to do. Even when the performance rating was part of a mid-year review and did not have implications for compensation, the stakes still felt high. 

As is common with these situations, the challenge partly came from the thorny emotions and relationship questions lurking behind the scenes.  

Will my team member feel disappointed? 

She values being seen as someone who does a great job. Even if “meeting expectations” is a solid rating, what will that mean for her?

Will my boss think I’m unreasonable or a self-promoter if I rate myself too highly?

I suspect it felt that way because very few people like walking into a conversation where the only clue they have about the result is that there’s a chance it could go totally wrong. It’s like having a “We need to talk” conversation every six months, where both parties are nervous!

For my clients, the missing piece was developing a clear performance contract. They were going into the performance conversation nervously because they hadn’t proactively said to their boss, “I think we should define good performance this year as achieving the following outcomes, completing the following projects, and having a team that has the following experience. Do you agree?”

If they had done so, the performance conversation would not carry the same amount of anxiety. If they had achieved their goals, there would be less worry about coming across as a braggart in their self-assessment because they would simply say, “Several months ago, we agreed on the definition of ‘crushed it.’ Here is the record of how I did.” It’s not a brag when it’s simply a statement of facts!

And if they were falling short of the performance contract, they wouldn’t be waiting on their boss's grade of their performance—they would be able to grade themselves. Either way, no surprises. 

Even better, they would have explicit, ongoing conversations with their bosses and team members about their respective performance contracts. They might even print out the performance contract and conduct an interim assessment of how things are going, outlining what someone could do to improve in each dimension.

However, when I have suggested this practice in the past, the most common reaction has been discomfort. If the semi-annual review is awkward, surely having more of those conversations wouldn’t be ideal.

But if you never have the performance check-ins, the reviews will always be awkward. In contrast, when performance is discussed regularly, it gets easier over time. 

All that said, for most of us, it’s worth pre-committing to a schedule and agenda for those check-ins. If we wait for a time where it feels easy to have them—and to have robust conversations during them—it’s easy to find ourselves in the very same position of performance uncertainty when the next review happens. As I asked one of the leaders, “If you don’t like how this feels today, what are you going to do to ensure that neither you nor your team member feels the same six months from now?”