Stuck between mediocrity and excellence

Feedback can be a b*tch.  If it's positive, then the world is great.  If it's negative, or "constructive," as many of us like to say, then it can become instantly personal.  A lot of things have to be right for feedback to stick and be impactful.  Trust has to exist. Trust only comes through respect, credibility, integrity, and competency. Not a lot of people in the workplace score high in all of these categories.  Emotional intelligence has to exist . The ONLY being I know that that is truly in charge of his emotions is Mr. Spock from Star Trek. And he's fictional. The reality is that we are all emotional human beings-some more than others. The growth mindset has to trump the fixed mindset.  There is a book that is out called Ego is the Enemy by Ryan Holiday. It's probably for a good reason. In today's world of exhibiting false confidence and having swag, you eventually begin to believe how legendary you are. This immediately closes down all...

'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars And live in hilltop houses driving fifteen cars ~ Rockstar by Nickelback In any performance review process, there will inevitably be words that consistently pop up when describing how an employee has performed.  For those that meet expectations, you'll hear words like "solid," or "dependable," or "reliable."  If you have always been in the top 15% of your class, these words are nice words to hear, but not the ones you want to hear in a performance evaluation.  For overachievers, these words put you smack dab in the middle of the bell curve. You are the average now.  The employees that are considered to walk on water, however, will consistently be described by one word, "rockstar."  At my old firm, the word was used so much that we actually removed it from the language of any future assessment.  A universal truth is that performance reviews will always have some degree of subjectivity...

Performance reviews are viewed as a necessary evil.  HR needs documentation of your performance over time in the event hard decisions need to be made when it's time to cut staff.  Employees hate to hear negative feedback because after all, nobody is perfect. But the fact of the matter is that when performance reviews are done right, the employees are better off which directly affects the performance of the organization. How do you know if your performance review process isn't quite up to par?  Your fate has been predetermined. A old colleague of mine had a Japanese word for -- nemawashi--- these are the meetings before the meetings when the decision has been made on your rating and promotion. When these meetings go too far, it completely undermines the process if someone is doing their due diligence and trying to put together an objective view of an employee's performance.  There is zero accountability. If timelines come and go and nobody meets them when ...

As managers, you have probably been counseled to provide feedback in the form of a sandwich.  Start with what people do well first (i.e., strengths).  Then proceed to tell them what they need to work on. (i.e., weaknesses -- or the softer term - developmental opportunities.)  Finally, reiterate what they are doing well.  If this is the way that you provide feedback, please stop.  The issue with the feedback sandwich is that everyone wants to get to the meat and in this case, the meat is the negative feedback.  In addition, out of your entire conversation, it's the negative feedback that will be remembered because we've all been conditioned to work on our weaknesses.  Effective managers provide feedback along the way and don't save it for a performance review period. That includes both positive and negative feedback.  If the negative feedback is severe, then it definitely warrants a focused and separate conversation.  We work...

When someone tells you that the organization is flat, be cautious -- actually don't be cautious, run away. People want structure. People want titles. People want hierarchy. It sets a natural order to things.  When everyone has the same title, it actually can cause more confusion -- especially if you fill those titles with people of varying experience and tenure.  Confusion can cause speculation. Speculation can cause disgruntlement. Disgruntlement can cause toxicity.  That's speaking from experience and not observation.  What they don't tell you about the flat organization is there is a clear delineation between the top and the bottom. We'll call it "The Great Wall."  You are better off being hired directly into the top layer of a "flat" organization rather than trying to barge through that great wall.  So before someone sells you on the perks of working for a flat organization, look past the sales pitch and ask the hard qu...

The worst thing that can happen in a job is being asked to leave without knowing why.  In the past I've written about being rolled off of a project and describing it as one of those life failure moments.  In the world of management consulting where failure is not an option, being asked to leave before it's your time is the kiss of death from a career standpoint.  But we all know that that's not the case.  At least from a"being rolled off" standpoint, the Partner was good enough to sit face-to-face with me and tell me that I wasn't meeting his expectations. It didn't really feel good at the time and I still look back upon that moment as one that completely sucked, but at least I got honest feedback.  But what do you do if a client fires you and does not give you any reason whatsoever?  Is that and should that be acceptable?  In my opinion, as a grown adult, there should be reasons as to why someone is fired or rolled off. How likely is it ...