Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They might just be asking you to fit into the current group at the company more. I mean, if the culture at the work place isn't a "go in, do my work and talk to no one, and go home", then that makes sense. Being introverted isn't negative, it depends on what your job and company are looking for.
I'm a project analyst and my job does not require that much interractions or public speaking anyway which is why I'm really puzzled by his comments. I don't have problem speaking/expressing views at our unit/departmental meetings, giving presentations etc, so I think he just wants me to be interractive in a social way with people outside my department i.e coffee, volunteering, attending happy-hour etc. I just don't believe in this kind of stuff. It's just a waste of time in my opinion. And I'm far from aloof; I greet everyone I pass every morning, I'm very polite and I smile to people. I also have coffee with my work friends. He says this doesn't help; that I should be strategic and get close with the people who can help to move me up the ladder. I believe my perfomance will help me move up the ladder. He says I need to be friendly with the managers on the Promotion Panel. Well, the Promotion Panel doesn't worry me a bit since I have never been promoted through a panel before. So far, all my promotions have been competitive i.e. I applied for jobs at the level I wanted to be promoted to.
And to be fair, he's really not a jerk. He is actually quite pleasant and I can tell he wants the best for me, and for me to succeed. However, I believe there are other ways I can succeed without having to alter my personality.
Surprisingly, my previous boss had no problem with this. He actually liked so much the fact that I keep to myself, focus on my job, and stay away from all the gossips, and he told me numerous times that my personality played a big role in his decision to give me a permanent position.
So I just completed my annual performance evaluation and while it was overall very good, I fail to understand why manager felt necessary to mention my reserved/quiet nature in each point he addressed in the report.
"MissLucky has a very quiet personality, however for the period under review she has produced a high quality work blah, blah, blah."
Same thing for evaluation point 2; "MissLucky is very reserved in nature and this has in no way impacted her abilities to do 1, 2, 3 blah, blah, blah."
Once again for point 3, "MissLucky is quiet but.." -the praises continued-.
He ended by recommending a number of public speaking classes I should take before our next evaluation in 12 months.
I would have understood if I was blind. Or deaf. Or retarded. I like my quiet nature and do not appreciate it pointed out as if it's a disability or disadvantage. Most supposedly social/outgoing people I see around here are clearly fake. I like what I am. I'm in no way scared of speaking/speaking out, I just like to speak when I feel I have something meaningful to say. He once verbally said that I needed to reach out more and "have coffee with more people. People have expressed their disappointments that every time they ask to catch up with you for coffee or something, you always decline". Very long lecture about how I need to come out of my shell followed. Well, I don't like to go and have coffee with random people just for a show. I like having coffee with people that I actually like having coffee with.
So now I sit here wondering; why the heck is this big deal? I obviously exceeded my expectations, met my deadlines, produced a high quality work, but apparently everyone is hung up on my "quiet nature".
Can anyone explain how having numerous coffee sessions with colleagues and random chichat can help accomplish organization's goals?? Any introverts here with experience to share on how you with deal with -unwanted- socialization at workplace?
I had a boss just like that. He would even criticize me for my lack of arguments and it was reflected on my performance review. I am extremely quiet and reserved, but I get my work done. I don't need to be outgoing, argumentative, in your face all the time to get stuff done.
I had to take presentation classes (which I didn't participate in, just showed up because I was quite mad), leadership training and others. Classes are not going to change your personality. You are who you are. If your review affects your raise or career it is time to move on.
He may have just been looking for excuses to give you a lower score. That would really get me fuming. I had other bosses like that that would never give high scores because nobodies perfect as they say.
So.. I wonder if you have ever been in management?
I hate review time-- partly because it takes a significant amount of time to really write meaningful reviews-- especially since rarely will it truly be appreciated.
I try to be very honest in my reviews-- and generally speaking it is not new news based on the sessions I have with my employees throughout the year. To some it is new news-- those that tend to not really listen to feedback. People also get review-itis-- where they think a great job 2 weeks prior to a review is going to merit them an awesome review when the rest of the year was average, but I digress.
Quite frankly, we can all conjecture why your manager gave you the comments about your nature and how it impacgts or doesnt impact your performance.
If you are uncertain about what your manager meant you should ask him directly. Explain you are trying to work on that or whatever... then you should have a dialogue about what he thinks is most important or what may present a problem with your performance.
If you don't do that you will end up missing the mark in what he may think you understand.
I had an employee that had problems with communicating. He never agreed and he thought it was some personal thing against him due to an issue that had transpired in the past. What he didn't understand is that he had a tendency to ramble and lose focus during meetings he led or presentations. People would up coming back to him for clarification and when it was still unclear they would come to me or someone else on the team. I had to give him some very specific examples since he didn't believe this happened. I also provided the feedback I had been give by others who worked with him (my boss, our client management teams, etc).
I told him he could take it in a negative light that we were just trying to keep him down or he could really examine what we were trying to say and explain. He had two choices really--- 1. he could just ignore it, ***** about it with his family and friends and in the end he would get the same feedback for other reviews 2. he could work on something he felt was necessary to work on and in the end ignore the feedback given to him-- so then he was putting in an effort for something that was not what his peers, customers, and management felt needed to be addressed or 3. he could brainstorm and work on ways to mitigate him rambling off during meetings, not being able to keep his thoughts focused.
He tried number 3 and he has made great improvements. He solicites feedback after his meetings and presentations-- he also makes himself a strict agenda and notes so that he doesn't wander in meetings.
My point is that none of us know why your manager has brought it up or if it is something that could hurt your performance. We can make guesses or just assume it is some jerk manager who just wants to keep you down. But without having an open dialogue with your manager you will more than likely end up doing scenarios 1 and 2 and not end up figuring out what competencies your employer sees as needing improvement.
Now granted, you could very well have a jerk for manager who is just writing it to write it-- or there may be a nugget that you can learn and improve.
Yes, I am in Management. There are some companies that I have worked for where reviews really are meaningful. Exactly the way they should be. But, if they are attached to any bonus system, raises, or anything else dealing with money they end up being a load of crap. I give honest feedback, but there are many times at least with my present company that I have to find faults with someone so that they don't qualify for a huge raise or bonus, etc. It royally sucks and I end up passing on my true appreciation for their Birthdays and Christmas based on their performance. That is the only way that they really do get what they deserve. We are forced to give two Performance Reviews a year. We can't do anymore than that.
But, it is a red flag that the OP has the same type of company philosophy because if you truly are doing a review based on genuinely caring about your employees and their progress, you won't half ass it with some statement about attending dumb Toastmasters meetings. It was obvious from the OP that this person is not in a giving presentations type of job. That is something my superiors suggest as a way to add some defects to a review.
I had a boss just like that. He would even criticize me for my lack of arguments and it was reflected on my performance review. I am extremely quiet and reserved, but I get my work done. I don't need to be outgoing, argumentative, in your face all the time to get stuff done.
I had to take presentation classes (which I didn't participate in, just showed up because I was quite mad), leadership training and others. Classes are not going to change your personality. You are who you are. If your review affects your raise or career it is time to move on.
He may have just been looking for excuses to give you a lower score. That would really get me fuming. I had other bosses like that that would never give high scores because nobodies perfect as they say.
I have to say that I agree with this. It is funny how many people out there believe that you can truly change someone. I work with someone that is confident through e-mail but verbally not so much. She believes that she will progress up to a position that requires a lot of people contact and customer service/problem resolution in a face to face manner. She can take all the classes she wants to, but she isn't going to progress. It may seem harsh but I have worked long enough in my industry to know when someone will accomplish that and when they won't.
Regardless, employees shouldn't be required to fit the mold. If volunteering isn't your thing, than it shouldn't be expected. As long as my employees have a good attitude, do a great job, and get things done in a timely manner, I am really happy about it. It is those that are lazy, take forever to do things, waste time that I have a problem with.
Yes, I am in Management. There are some companies that I have worked for where reviews really are meaningful. Exactly the way they should be. But, if they are attached to any bonus system, raises, or anything else dealing with money they end up being a load of crap. I give honest feedback, but there are many times at least with my present company that I have to find faults with someone so that they don't qualify for a huge raise or bonus, etc. It royally sucks and I end up passing on my true appreciation for their Birthdays and Christmas based on their performance. That is the only way that they really do get what they deserve. We are forced to give two Performance Reviews a year. We can't do anymore than that.
But, it is a red flag that the OP has the same type of company philosophy because if you truly are doing a review based on genuinely caring about your employees and their progress, you won't half ass it with some statement about attending dumb Toastmasters meetings. It was obvious from the OP that this person is not in a giving presentations type of job. That is something my superiors suggest as a way to add some defects to a review.
I struggled with the first review I did. Partly because everyone did a decent job, they all worked hard, etc. They all for the most part met the goals of the job. There was really only two employees who I knew how to rank immediately. One was the obvious best worker on the team and the other was the obvious weakest performer. It was the folks in the middle that I struggled with with regards to meeting budget expectations.
If I have 8 employees and say 80,000 to give in increases-- it would not be fair to give them all 10k. Not all of them work at the same level. True there are some teams where I can imagine every single person is the super star-- I have never been a part of one or really have seen one personally, but I am not going to deny that potentially it can exist.
I don't look at ranking employees based on the goals of the company, the competencies of the job, or even against the team as finding ways to figure out how to not give them a higher review. On the same hand, I also try to ensure that the feedback has been consistent throughout the year-- that I have not been saying Billy you are doing so awesome and then pulling out your communication sucks at his annual review. I also look at the total compensation someone is getting. Someone who is getting paid at the lower tier but is a much higher performer, I am going to reward that person with a higher increase. On the converse someone with a lower performance but making close to the maximum, I am not going to reward them with a huge chunk of a raise. To me that is far more equitable than just trying to give everyone an equals share of the raises.
I had a manager acquaintance who tried to give her whole team the 2 highest rankings. Her VP (her manager) made a good point, someone who is an average performer I don't hear negative things about them, someone who is higher than average I have at least heard about them through you, the team and someone who is the highest performer I have generally experienced their work, I know what they do and how they do it-- groups outside of our chain even know this person's work and request their participation in projects, meetings, etc. She then mentioned that half of the people she had never heard a word about and there were 4 of the 15 who she always heard about. So the ratings were changed because the manager then made a matrix of all of the job competencies and ranked people objectively based on their performance 1-5. She ended up having 2 st the highest level, 5 at the second highest and the rest received the average score. She had no one performing lower than that. I thought the VP's thought process was sound. I have used that myself when I was ranking my employees and providing scores. Some may have gotten an average rating but a higher increase than usual because they were performing at a higher than average level but not at for example the very next level.
I think the OP's original message did not give enough information about what the manager was trying or not trying to do. It could be that he was attempting to give specific feedback but the OP took it another. It could very well be that he is a jerk. I can say, that based on a more introverted personality those that I have given reviews to with that type of personality usually don't ask questions during the review, no matter how much I try to get them to open up. Usually they have to absorb and come back and ask questions, versus someone who is more confident and extroverted would typically ask clarifying questions in the middle of the review.
I don't even know if the manager was saying Toastmaster or if he was offering classes like my own company does about effective communicating, business presentations, managing meetings, and many others. Not to say she may ever be great at playing an extrovert and definitely may not want to, but it is not to say that the manager's first intent was basically trying to give pithy feedback either with a lame suggestion.
Now having read the OP's follow up, it could be that the manager is trying to help her develop so that others take notice of her and her work. Some jobs especially those that may be of a more solitary nature do not lend themselves naturally to being exposed to more people and having more people exposed to her. Personally, I think building relationships at work is far more advantageous then sitting in the background hoping your good work will just shine for itself.
you mentioned that your boss started each category with the fact that you are reserved, then followed it with a compliment means that the reserved/quietness is noticeable or an issue(not necessarily bad at all) and that you are indeed a capable productive worker. i don't see anything of malice other than in the event you went for a big promotion and they reviewed your eval's they might say you can't have the job because you're too quiet OR they may ask you how you plan of doing a new job when you are a quiet type.
IMO it's a sincere honest eval. a lot better than the horror eval's i've had over the years that were distorted. who knows, perhaps you boss thinks you are capable of doing more and thinks your reservedness is holding you back
He may have tempered his comments and given you an overall positive review this time around, but I suspect that will change next year, if you ignore his recommendations about public speaking training. And like it or not, he is the one who decides what is important, not you, and not a bunch of anonymous people on an internet forum. If you want to keep your job, you would be wise to head his advice.
I was told today at my job that I was quiet and reserved and I wondered what in the hell does that mean . Is that suppose to be a negative or positive but did again who really cares. If that means that I do not gossip, I choose my friend that I want to let in my inner circle, I like to observe people but I am far from being anti social. I love learning new skills and meeting new people. Unfortunately I am extremely nice person and users try to attach to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO the fact that
