Analysis-

This type of scenario in the performance evaluation process is not unusual. Several problems exist here, and each compounds the other. First, it is wrong to wait two years before you give feedback to an associate. Jason is apparently like so many “executives” who simply do not believe they should be required to do formal performance appraisals. If they do conduct formal performance appraisals, it’s when they “have the time.” Jason’s appraisal was weak in many respects, but the manner in which he brought up the feedback on the “fun to work with” allegation was wholly unproductive. What that means is anybody’s guess. Had he taken the time to pursue the question with his direct reports, he might have been able to offer meaningful and constructive feedback. Instead, he left it to Cathy to figure it out.

On the receiving end, Cathy did not react well. An emotional retort is not constructive. Her lack of composure prevented her from finding out what the feedback meant because her boss told her to do nothing … another boss blunder. The end result is the feedback is both disconcerting and useless to everybody concerned, most importantly to Cathy.

So what can Cathy do? Cathy must go back to Jason, after she has cooled o” and thought through her response. She needs to ask Jason what the feedback really means, and what he suggests she do to correct it. My guess is Jason has no clue as to what it means. It could mean that she is obnoxious and impossible to work with, or she is so focused on work and achieving her goals she has very little sense of humor. It could mean she is competent but literally no fun. Jason’s response would be dramatically different depending on which extreme might be true.

Whatever the case, Cathy and Jason must decide how she should proceed. Cathy cannot continue to be upset, and she should not be prevented from determining what the feedback means. It is Jason’s responsibility to clarify the feedback, and it is most critical for Cathy to understand and deal with this perception.