I'm not a fan of performance evaluation instruments. Too often they are shallow and anxiety provoking.  Too often the evaluation conversations are full of surprises. Too often they cause more trouble than positive outcomes.

So what's a more reliably effective (maybe even easier way) to receive feedback? If you're the employee, try asking for it. Sometimes it's just as simple as asking a supervisor, “How can I do better?” Or, “How will I know if I've done a good job?” If you ask those questions early and often, it helps define supervisory expectations and your own. If you're the supervisor, make those expectations clear, early and often.

Recently I looked over a friend's performance evaluation. It was so glowing, I was moved. There are three areas of competencies (I call them buckets) on which success is predicated. One is the “know your stuff” bucket. It's the technical expertise, the domain-specific knowledge. In this area, he excelled: capable, thoughtful, thorough, detailed. The second is the “get stuff done” bucket. The review was simple: there was no one in the business more reliable about deadlines and commitments. That third bucket–the nuanced emotional intelligence of interpersonal and collegial relations–is the hardest to fill. Raves filled that bucket for him, too: team-player, generative, supportive of the less-seasoned players, personal ambition never undercutting the needs of the team or the long-arc of the final project.

So what was the issue?

The boss had thrown in a new requirement for a rain-making component that was met with distress. As a supervisor, is it just a “comfort zone stretch” to ask someone to reach when they're already steady, when they're regarded so highly? I'm not entirely sure. Yes, there is an argument to be made–and I've made it in the past–that your good team members can play harder and better if they're challenged. But I've also made the claim that if someone is pressed too far outside their skill set, you end up with a mediocre result.

Put your star sales person, hotshot litigator or key fundraiser in charge of managing a team? Often, when it comes to setting aside their dazzling individual contributions to devote time to team needs, the soloist fizzles, unhappy and demoralized.

Or switch it around. Press someone into meeting rain-maker goals when they've got game at the team level? You lose on both counts when the team suffers the the loss of their steady hand at the helm and the sales don't shine either.

So, which is it?  It takes some emotional intelligence to discern the best direction. If you happen to be the employee, be self-aware enough to know your strengths and be willing to push hard into them. It's surprisingly difficult to truly understand your strengths.  It's worth the time and effort to figure that stuff out.  If you need a kick in the pants to take you in that self-awareness direction, you can always hire a coach. Or take a short cut and read (although it comes with my big fat warning that it's seriously full of profanities) this awesome Cracked post on how to be a better person.  And the (much more) sedate Harvard Business Review supports that view. If you're the supervisor, it takes some social awareness to note carefully where someone's performance really shines and understand why some stuff is at the bottom of his or her in-box.

I've learned this the hard way for myself. Give me a room full of people who are ready to be moved and inspired and I'm your girl.  Try locking me in a room with a bunch of spreadsheets and you'll see an unmitigated disaster. It's too simplistic to say that if you “follow your bliss, the money will follow,” because I do love the growth spurt that occasionally emerges from new demands and pressures as a loyal employee and manager. However, as leaders, we should be wary of pressing our seasoned team managers into roles about which they've expressed distinct discomfort. Encourage them instead to develop their existing strengths enough to become super achievers.