[rjmill]

Goodness, yes. The last time I put (genuinely constructive) criticism in a peer evaluation, it turned out to be the only non-positive thing that was said about that coworker. So it became a focus of his yearly review.

He later told me about how his review went (casually at a conference; he had no idea I was the source), and I fessed up and clarified what I actually meant. The HR process had twisted it to a much more extreme version of what I was getting at, completely undermining the utility of the feedback.

Nowadays, I'm just gonna give perfect scores and if I have feedback that needs to be given, I'll just tell the coworker directly. (And if I'm not comfortable doing that, then the feedback probably isn't important enough.)

[zo1]

I think a big factor of that is that usually most people just do the positive feedback and don't say anything negative or constructive. So when someone does do so, it's seen as "wow, this must be so bad that they just had to say something, no matter how delicately or toned-down it is being phrased as". These days I just mention the problems and concerns to the people making the decisions because yearly review time is the wrong time to do it. At best they've only been doing this "bad" thing for a month or so, and at worst almost a whole year and no one did anything.

[darkwater]

> I think a big factor of that is that usually most people just do the positive feedback and don't say anything negative or constructive.

You are most certainly right. But whose fault is this? HR and CxO.

[lupire]

Never give constructive criticism through management! Management will use it as evaluative feedback. Give constructive feedback directly.