Performance Feedback Without Politics

Performance conversations go political when they become vague, late, or surprising.

Engineers can handle hard truth. What they cannot handle is fog: “be more proactive,” “improve communication,” “raise your impact” — with no examples, no path, and no shared definition of success.

Leadership work, whether Staff coaching or EM accountability, is making feedback usable.

#Specific beats clever

Good feedback points at work:

“In the last two incident reviews, the postmortem missed the customer-facing impact.”

“Your PRs are strong technically, but reviewers wait days because context is missing in the description.”

“You owned the migration plan end-to-end — that is the bar for senior delivery.”

Personality labels invite defense. Observed behavior invites change.

#Timing is part of the craft

Annual reviews should never be the first time someone hears a concern.

The durable pattern is small and frequent:

1:1s that include growth, not only status

Review comments that teach

Praise close to the moment it was earned

Course-correction while the work is still recoverable

Late feedback is not “careful.” It is expensive. It forces managers into documentation theater and engineers into damage control.

#Separate support from consequences

People deserve clarity about both:

What “good” looks like in this role

What support is available to get there

What happens if the gap remains after a fair window

Politics thrives when those three stay implied. Teams stabilize when they are explicit.

This is also where Staff leaders practice manager muscles before the title: you may not own formal performance, but you can still coach with evidence, advocate fairly, and refuse hallway narratives.

#Write less theater, more signal

When written feedback is needed, keep it boring and true:

Situation

Observed behavior

Impact

Expected change

Support offered

Skip the novel. Skip the score-settling. Skip the vague adjectives that sound sophisticated and mean nothing.

#The point is a stronger team

Feedback is not a ritual for HR. It is how you protect the people who are carrying the work — including the person receiving the critique.

A team that cannot talk about performance cannot talk about standards. A team without standards will invent politics to fill the vacuum.

I would rather have the uncomfortable conversation early than manage a surprise later. That preference is not soft. It is operational.