How to give performance feedback on a very unpleasant colleague?
September 23, 2013 8:11 AM Subscribe
I just received a request for performance feedback from a manager at my company concerning an employee I've worked with in the past year whom I did not like at all. I am uncomfortable telling the manager what I really think. Before I started working with this person I was warned by others to expect a difficult relationship.
And sure enough: this colleague has a brash communication style, is quick to lay blame, loves catching people not doing what she thinks they're supposed to do and reporting them to their superior, and is a stickler for rules, even when applying them makes no sense. To illustrate the latter: ordinarily we review project design on site with the customer at the skeletal stage and at the final-design stage. The project we worked on together was very small and the skeletal stage did not warrant an on-site visit. She insisted we do it. The review was done very quickly and we had to come up with other things to talk about just to make our visit feel less like a waste of time.
Another issue with her is that all of us juggle multiple projects and regularly need to shuffle our priorities in order to meet deadlines. She does not accept pushback on her project. She says 'You knew your deliverables months ago when we set up the project plan'.
She is also particular about hours billed to her project - only allowing us to bill precisely as much as she planned for a given task and no more.
I'm sure this style enables her to get her work done and make her look good to her own superiors, but everyone who's worked with her that I've spoken with avoids her if they possibly can.
How do I express this to her supervisor while remaining professional?
And sure enough: this colleague has a brash communication style, is quick to lay blame, loves catching people not doing what she thinks they're supposed to do and reporting them to their superior, and is a stickler for rules, even when applying them makes no sense. To illustrate the latter: ordinarily we review project design on site with the customer at the skeletal stage and at the final-design stage. The project we worked on together was very small and the skeletal stage did not warrant an on-site visit. She insisted we do it. The review was done very quickly and we had to come up with other things to talk about just to make our visit feel less like a waste of time.
Another issue with her is that all of us juggle multiple projects and regularly need to shuffle our priorities in order to meet deadlines. She does not accept pushback on her project. She says 'You knew your deliverables months ago when we set up the project plan'.
She is also particular about hours billed to her project - only allowing us to bill precisely as much as she planned for a given task and no more.
I'm sure this style enables her to get her work done and make her look good to her own superiors, but everyone who's worked with her that I've spoken with avoids her if they possibly can.
How do I express this to her supervisor while remaining professional?
Is your management culture big on any of the buzzword-laden business theories that seem to be constantly making the rounds? (e.g., Six Sigma, Lean, Agile, or whatever.) I'd couch my description of her working style in those terms if possible, as that should help give you some cover in that you'll be talking about ways to make the system work in closer accord to the theory du jour, rather than making it personal.
posted by gauche at 8:22 AM on September 23, 2013
posted by gauche at 8:22 AM on September 23, 2013
Best answer: She is also particular about hours billed to her project - only allowing us to bill precisely as much as she planned for a given task and no more.
You should be more specific here. Does that mean if you ended up needing 10 hours to complete a task planned for 8 hours, she will require that you charge 8 hours to her project and 2 hours to another project/overhead? If so, you should absolutely make that known to the management because she's effectively lying about her own performance and costing the company money. If you mean she pushes you to complete an 8 hour task in 8 hours and as a result you actually take 8 hours, that seems like effective management to me.
posted by saeculorum at 8:29 AM on September 23, 2013 [14 favorites]
You should be more specific here. Does that mean if you ended up needing 10 hours to complete a task planned for 8 hours, she will require that you charge 8 hours to her project and 2 hours to another project/overhead? If so, you should absolutely make that known to the management because she's effectively lying about her own performance and costing the company money. If you mean she pushes you to complete an 8 hour task in 8 hours and as a result you actually take 8 hours, that seems like effective management to me.
posted by saeculorum at 8:29 AM on September 23, 2013 [14 favorites]
I'm sure this style enables her to get her work done and make her look good to her own superiors, but everyone who's worked with her that I've spoken with avoids her if they possibly can.
That is as may be, but as long as she's delivering her requirements to the bosses in an acceptable form, on budget, and in a timely manner. . . her performance is pretty awesome. If you want to give negative feedback, you need to be able to point to concrete things which have reduced the value of her contributions. "Being an unpleasant person to work with" is not necessarily a problem here.
Specific example: toward the end of his career, my grandfather's job description was essentially going into ailing business units and turning them around. This usually involved firing a ton of people, some of whom may have been there for a decade or more. Needless to say, this did not make him a particularly popular individual, but the C-suite loved him. It wasn't his job to be liked.
Now it doesn't sound like this person's job description is to go around firing people, but at the same time, if she's getting the job done on-time and under-budget, the fact that she isn't the best for morale isn't necessarily going to mean a whole lot to the people who are evaluating her performance. Quality deliverables cover over a multitude of professional sins. As such, if you can't follow gauche's advice, giving negative feedback on her performance is going to be tough.
posted by valkyryn at 8:30 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
That is as may be, but as long as she's delivering her requirements to the bosses in an acceptable form, on budget, and in a timely manner. . . her performance is pretty awesome. If you want to give negative feedback, you need to be able to point to concrete things which have reduced the value of her contributions. "Being an unpleasant person to work with" is not necessarily a problem here.
Specific example: toward the end of his career, my grandfather's job description was essentially going into ailing business units and turning them around. This usually involved firing a ton of people, some of whom may have been there for a decade or more. Needless to say, this did not make him a particularly popular individual, but the C-suite loved him. It wasn't his job to be liked.
Now it doesn't sound like this person's job description is to go around firing people, but at the same time, if she's getting the job done on-time and under-budget, the fact that she isn't the best for morale isn't necessarily going to mean a whole lot to the people who are evaluating her performance. Quality deliverables cover over a multitude of professional sins. As such, if you can't follow gauche's advice, giving negative feedback on her performance is going to be tough.
posted by valkyryn at 8:30 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Use something along the lines of behaviour category, FACTUAL example, impact on project, client team- all factual, no conclusions, their line manager can draw those and use the examples as they see fit as part of the meeting. As others have said she may not need to be liked to be good at her job and unless you can factually demonstrate negative impact...
posted by koahiatamadl at 8:31 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by koahiatamadl at 8:31 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yeah - specific instances. The pattern I've been taught for giving feedback is to describe the specific situation, describe the specific behavior, then describe the impact that behavior had.
Or, on preview, what koahiatamadl just said.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:32 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
Or, on preview, what koahiatamadl just said.
posted by rmd1023 at 8:32 AM on September 23, 2013 [2 favorites]
"I found her difficult to work with. She's inflexible about priorities, actions, and billing, and autocratic in her manner." Follow with specific examples.
You can criticize anyone in a business context by phrasing it in terms of how it affects the success of the business, and sounds like a neutral observation that particular has negative consequences.
posted by fatbird at 8:35 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
You can criticize anyone in a business context by phrasing it in terms of how it affects the success of the business, and sounds like a neutral observation that particular has negative consequences.
posted by fatbird at 8:35 AM on September 23, 2013 [3 favorites]
What you bring up depends on your corporate culture. Really, it does. In some cultures, being an asshole is perfectly fine. In some cultures, it's unacceptable. At my company, if someone is "hard to work with" to the point where everyone avoids her, that's a huge red flag issue that needs to be addressed by management. We need people to work well together. Your company may be quite different.
I agree with other commenters in separating her personality issues (she's a rules lawyer, she's a tattletale, she's an asshole) from business and customer issues. Wasting the customer's time and potentially giving the customer a bad impression is a big deal. Having harsh personal rules about billing hours is a big deal, especially if she is shifting time to other line items on the sly! Impacting other projects to prioritize her own is a big deal.
If you're not sure how to play it, I would stick to the deliverable issues (customer interaction, billing, etc.) and mention her difficult personality as a minor additional issue. If you have the sense that the reviewer wants more detail, then be more candid.
posted by mindsound at 8:52 AM on September 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
I agree with other commenters in separating her personality issues (she's a rules lawyer, she's a tattletale, she's an asshole) from business and customer issues. Wasting the customer's time and potentially giving the customer a bad impression is a big deal. Having harsh personal rules about billing hours is a big deal, especially if she is shifting time to other line items on the sly! Impacting other projects to prioritize her own is a big deal.
If you're not sure how to play it, I would stick to the deliverable issues (customer interaction, billing, etc.) and mention her difficult personality as a minor additional issue. If you have the sense that the reviewer wants more detail, then be more candid.
posted by mindsound at 8:52 AM on September 23, 2013 [5 favorites]
You need to evaluate your situation politically. Does it do you good, nothing, or harm to be forthright about your colleague?
This depends on the standing of your colleague, the past behavior of your manager, the past behavior of your colleague's manager, and your reputation in the company.
posted by zippy at 8:52 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
This depends on the standing of your colleague, the past behavior of your manager, the past behavior of your colleague's manager, and your reputation in the company.
posted by zippy at 8:52 AM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
Is there anything unusual about the timing of this request? In other words, is this a one-off request or is it part of your regular end-of-fiscal-year review process? If it's the former, this employee may have gotten "difficult" with the wrong people, is in trouble, and management is likely looking for ammunition to add to her personnel file. Or on the opposite end, she is being considered for a promotion into a leadership role and they are trying to determine if she is good with people. If it's the latter, a lot depends on how your reviews are structured. I've never worked anywhere where they just ask for a freestyle review - there is always a template with specific questions, and those questions always include at least a few "personality" type assessments such as communication style, leadership, etc. (so I disagree with those that say you have to limit your review to strictly performance). Even if there isn't a template, you can ask your manager for guidance and try to infer what specifically they are trying to get at.
posted by rada at 9:51 AM on September 23, 2013
posted by rada at 9:51 AM on September 23, 2013
Best answer: I'd be as non-commital as possible. I doubt very seriously anyone is planning to do anything about her.
I'd ask, "What kind of feedback? What are you trying to understand." Address only what it is that they want to know.
From what you've said, I'd do a very cursory. "Lisa is process oriented, sometimes this leads to time spent on tasks that seem unnecessary, such as a project design review on-site that takes only five minutes. A bit more flexibility might save time and money. Lisa is very conscious of billable hours, and while that's admirable, sometimes we encounter issues that require additional hours devoted to them to insure a pain-free product delivery. Lisa is focused on her deliverables, to the detriment of other projects that we may be working on."
And that's it. The rest of it is annoying but not quantifyable and if you can't quantify it, management doesn't really know what to do with it.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 10:00 AM on September 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
I'd ask, "What kind of feedback? What are you trying to understand." Address only what it is that they want to know.
From what you've said, I'd do a very cursory. "Lisa is process oriented, sometimes this leads to time spent on tasks that seem unnecessary, such as a project design review on-site that takes only five minutes. A bit more flexibility might save time and money. Lisa is very conscious of billable hours, and while that's admirable, sometimes we encounter issues that require additional hours devoted to them to insure a pain-free product delivery. Lisa is focused on her deliverables, to the detriment of other projects that we may be working on."
And that's it. The rest of it is annoying but not quantifyable and if you can't quantify it, management doesn't really know what to do with it.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 10:00 AM on September 23, 2013 [11 favorites]
Managers don't want to hear about personal issues, so I wouldn't say anything at all. It can only hurt you. If you report problems and managers can't or won't do anything about it, they can try to undermine your credibility, making you look like a malcontent or a troublemaker to excuse their inaction.
posted by AlsoMike at 10:12 AM on September 23, 2013
posted by AlsoMike at 10:12 AM on September 23, 2013
Response by poster: Thank you all, very helpful comments. To clarify, this is for an annual performance review, and this person will be asked to comment on my performance as well. We are given very specific points to comment on. Really my concern was how or even if to say anything critical. I like Ruthless Bunny's approach of starting positive but then turning it around.
posted by Dragonness at 11:11 AM on September 23, 2013
posted by Dragonness at 11:11 AM on September 23, 2013
Best answer: You can always point out that while see seems very dedicated to her own deliverables, she doesn't always take into account that other people have deliverables too.
posted by valkyryn at 11:39 AM on September 23, 2013
posted by valkyryn at 11:39 AM on September 23, 2013
I work at a company where we routinely give feedback on peer annual reviews.
Beyond "the facts", I usually try to give some "soft feedback" for context. If I didn't like working with them, I might say something like:
posted by sarah_pdx at 12:05 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
- Facts or it didn't happen. Mention actual events to back up any criticism (or praise).
- If criticizing, be specific about what could done have been differently/better.
Beyond "the facts", I usually try to give some "soft feedback" for context. If I didn't like working with them, I might say something like:
- "Given a choice, I would not choose to work with this person again on a project."
posted by sarah_pdx at 12:05 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
this person will be asked to comment on my performance as well
Aha. Well, given your description of her, I'd probably be mindful of anything that she might try to spin-doctor in her review of you.
For example, she might try to spin you as being a deadline-flake (vs. being flexible in balancing shifting responsibillities) or not very client-oriented (vs. being flexible about not holding early-stage design reviews if they aren't necessary).
Depending on how important it is to you to have your perspective on those situations known by management, you might want to cite them, and describe your side of it. Quantifying everything, as others have suggested.
posted by nacho fries at 12:35 PM on September 23, 2013
Aha. Well, given your description of her, I'd probably be mindful of anything that she might try to spin-doctor in her review of you.
For example, she might try to spin you as being a deadline-flake (vs. being flexible in balancing shifting responsibillities) or not very client-oriented (vs. being flexible about not holding early-stage design reviews if they aren't necessary).
Depending on how important it is to you to have your perspective on those situations known by management, you might want to cite them, and describe your side of it. Quantifying everything, as others have suggested.
posted by nacho fries at 12:35 PM on September 23, 2013
If her personality (or lack thereof) means she doesn't get her work done, or prevents others from same, you state that. You review her the same way you would review everyone else: Calm, emotionless, factual. Keep repeating that mantra, over and over.
posted by brownrd at 2:39 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by brownrd at 2:39 PM on September 23, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older Am I the type that always wants what I don't have? | Iconic Images of People Celebrating or Otherwise... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Criticizing her performance based on her personality style may reflect poorly on your commitment to "the corporate goals".
posted by uncaken at 8:21 AM on September 23, 2013 [4 favorites]