One pattern that sometimes emerges in feedback and when assessing performance with more senior people is what I define the “shadow of brilliance”. What happens is that during feedback or reviews it emerges that there’s something to work on: a negative feedback, something that isn’t going quite well, or maybe something that didn’t land well with others. So far, nothing special. With the right support and in the right environment, these are good opportunities to grow.

Here’s the catch: this isn’t negative feedback like any other. When looking closely, it becomes clear that the issue is tied to one of their most developed skills, something they truly and deeply excel at.

Some examples I’ve encountered, anonymized:

• A designer is wonderful in organizing workshops. People are almost excited when they run them, they really move the work ahead by miles, and the outcomes are always really good overall. At the same time, this person got some feedback that they seem producing very limited design output, and some would appreciate more visually detailed blueprints.
• A business analyst is incredibly detail oriented. They work very efficiently too, and they can produce powerful and insightful analysis in very short amounts of time. At the same time, this person got some feedback that they seem to be missing the big picture, and sometimes their work overwhelm people.
• A CPO is extremely efficient in reviewing processes and writing. Their work saved the company lots of time that people reporting to him can use for more important things. Their preference for documentation made sure transparency is at all times high. At the same time, this person got some feedback that they felt distant and sometimes dismissive when an answer to a question was already in writing somewhere.

At a first glance, these all seem easy to solve problems. Get the designer prepare more visuals, have the analyst summarize more, and the CPO stop writing so much. These would be however all superficial fixes, that could turn detrimental as they would negatively impact their most powerful skills.

Let’s dive deeper.

How to tell if it’s a shadow of brilliance

First of all, it’s important to notice that this usually emerges with senior people. The key difference is that normal feedback, when reviewed together with the full picture of the person, stands on its own and can be effectively addressed without impacting any positive skill. Even more, if the person isn’t performing well at all, then fixing and growing is what’s needed.

Instead, feedback that is a shadow of brilliance, is feedback that in the full picture shows itself linked as a byproduct of one of their most developed skills.

In short, two criteria:

• There’s a skill where the person excels
• There’s negative feedback on something that is linked to that skill

Sometimes the link is evident, sometimes it takes more digging and more experience working together, but once surfaced, it becomes clear how they are related.

What to do with a shadow of brilliance

It seems a case of “if the only tool you have is a hammer, treat everything as if it were a nail”. But is the solution always just taking the hammer away or stopping using it in some instances?

The first thing is to never try to fix this negative feedback in isolation. Doing so can make the skill everyone is happy about less effective in ways that can be unpredictable. Instead, when discussing possible ways to address this together, keep in check their skills and make sure that any change isn’t negatively affecting it.

The second possible approach is to just embrace it. This advice is not something some people, especially managers, like to hear because it’s counter-intuitive: the simple approach is that if it’s a problem, fix it. But unless the issue is major and critically affecting people, are you really willing to trade a marginal improvement for lost brilliance in a desirable skill?

Let’s go back to our examples above:

• To the designer, we can pair them with someone whose skill is to create detailed designs, or if not possible, try to see if there are ways to create the kind of output some people expect or… review with the people that provided feedback what they are missing from the work. Sometimes even just a chat can solve a problem! At the same time review if there’s a reason why they shy away from detailed designs, or if it’s just external perception.
• To the business analyst, we discuss and it surfaces that they wouldn’t feel they have done a good job if they didn’t explore all the detailed possibilities. So, instead of cutting their work short, we devise better ways to organize content, even maybe splitting that in two documents, in order to not diminish the depth, but reframe for different audiences. Instead of limiting their ability, we developed their writing and communication strategy.
• To the CPO, we have run a workshop with their reports to identify the different preferences and styles of collaboration, and elicit a mutual understanding of skills. At the same time, the CPO also started doing open office hour slots that people can book, and instead of always letting their report take the stage when presenting, they started to MC these events.

As these examples show, none of these actions requires them to become smaller and limit their brilliance: they instead find strategies, some direct and some indirect, to find solutions that everyone is happy with. Yes sometimes it might mean to use that specific skill less, but it’s not always a given.

You can also see from the examples that not always these actions are fixes for the problem, nor they grow their skills. Some are simply lateral thinking ideas to address the other person feedback in the best possible way.

Ultimately, the most important thing is to not dim the bright light, but let it shine and support it. Rarely things are zero sum games.

Thanks to Tutti Taygerly for giving me the spark for this article.