Shari, this piece hits like light through blinds. “Gentlemen’s C” as a ticket to power. “Regatta” hiding inside a test for runners. And then your killer phrase: Drive-By Evaluation. That’s the system in one image…vibes as verdict, careers stalled by adjectives.
Two lines you dropped that I’m stealing for life:
• “Residency means you should be able to make mistakes.” If training forbids errors, that’s not development. That’s surveillance.
• The 360 that says “not leading” with zero evidence. That’s not feedback. That’s a stereotype in a suit.
Here’s the flip I want to run off your framework: a No-Adjectives Rule for reviews. No “executive presence,” no “too focused,” no “not a leader.” Only behaviors, evidence, and a next step with a date. Pair it with a Belonging Check: what percent of critiques include a teachable action within 7 days? If the number is low, the problem isn’t the talent. It’s the manager.
One question for you: if we could change one line on a standard 360 tomorrow, what would you swap “leadership” for—what exact, observable behavior should replace it?
Your work makes people braver at work. I’m locked into this.
Your work has provided me so many critical insights that even though I am retired and quite concerned about the future, I could no longer consume your ideas and not be a paying subscriber. I bought your book too. Good job!
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
Stephen Jay Gould
New Scientist, March 8, 1979 — essay “Wide Hats and Narrow Minds”
Shari, this piece hits like light through blinds. “Gentlemen’s C” as a ticket to power. “Regatta” hiding inside a test for runners. And then your killer phrase: Drive-By Evaluation. That’s the system in one image…vibes as verdict, careers stalled by adjectives.
Two lines you dropped that I’m stealing for life:
• “Residency means you should be able to make mistakes.” If training forbids errors, that’s not development. That’s surveillance.
• The 360 that says “not leading” with zero evidence. That’s not feedback. That’s a stereotype in a suit.
Here’s the flip I want to run off your framework: a No-Adjectives Rule for reviews. No “executive presence,” no “too focused,” no “not a leader.” Only behaviors, evidence, and a next step with a date. Pair it with a Belonging Check: what percent of critiques include a teachable action within 7 days? If the number is low, the problem isn’t the talent. It’s the manager.
One question for you: if we could change one line on a standard 360 tomorrow, what would you swap “leadership” for—what exact, observable behavior should replace it?
Your work makes people braver at work. I’m locked into this.
Those are great additions. Get the book, there's a lot more there.
Your work has provided me so many critical insights that even though I am retired and quite concerned about the future, I could no longer consume your ideas and not be a paying subscriber. I bought your book too. Good job!
It's deeply appreciated!
Love your work!
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
Stephen Jay Gould
New Scientist, March 8, 1979 — essay “Wide Hats and Narrow Minds”
SMART Goals & planning.
Shari, your excellence shines.
RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES NOW