LEADERSHIP & CAREER · LESSON 07.07intermediate

Performance reviews — giving + getting.

Specific behaviors, real impact, and clear changes for next cycle.

↳ tl;dr

Most performance reviews fail at the same place: vague feedback that can't be acted on. The fix: specific behaviors, impact on the business or team, and concrete changes the person can make.

Giving good feedback

  1. Specific behavior. "You interrupted three times in the architecture review." Not "you're too aggressive."
  2. Impact. "The two engineers stopped contributing for the rest of the meeting."
  3. Change. "Try counting to five after someone pauses before adding to the conversation."

No surprises

Anything in the formal review should have been said in 1:1s months earlier. Surprise feedback at review time is the manager failing — they should have surfaced concerns the moment they were forming, not stockpiled them for the once-a-year ritual.

the strengths trap

Reviews that focus only on areas-for-growth crush high-performers. Reviews that focus only on strengths leave weaknesses unaddressed. Both should be specific. Generic praise ("great team player") is as useless as generic criticism.

Getting feedback

Receive feedback by listening fully before responding. Ask clarifying questions. Resist the urge to defend or contextualize in the moment — even when you have legitimate context. The vulnerability earns honesty next time.

// sources

Sources cited

  1. [01]
    The Manager's Path: A Guide for Tech Leaders Navigating Growth and Change

    Fournier, C. · O'Reilly Media · 2017 · retrieved 2026-05

  2. [02]
    An Elegant Puzzle: Systems of Engineering Management

    Larson, W. · Stripe Press · 2019 · retrieved 2026-05

    Definitive reference on org design + management for tech leaders.

// sources

Further reading

  1. [01]
    The Manager's Path: A Guide for Tech Leaders Navigating Growth and Change

    Fournier, C. · O'Reilly Media · 2017 · retrieved 2026-05