Grow at work: results, relationships and influence

Performance asks whether you deliver what your current role requires. Readiness for a different scope asks whether you can handle different or more complex responsibilities. Opportunity asks whether the organisation needs and can recognise that scope now. Promotion may depend on all three, under the organisation’s own rules.

For example, Joana resolves support requests well and receives praise. A broader role might require investigating recurring causes, coordinating a change across teams and helping colleagues handle exceptions. Resolving more requests alone does not demonstrate those capabilities. Even with evidence, a position or budget approval may be missing.

Ask separate questions: “How am I performing in my current role?”, “Which responsibilities distinguish the next level?” and “Does the team need that scope?” Request examples and identify who decides. GitLab’s public policy provides a concrete example of separating readiness from business need; it is not a rule your employer must follow.

If the answer is “not yet”, find out which dimension is blocking progress. Another course does not automatically create a vacancy; waiting for a vacancy does not resolve a skill gap. The distinction helps you choose an action matching the problem.

Activity is the work performed; output is what that work produced; outcome is an observed change in something relevant. “Attended six meetings” describes activity. “Created a form with required fields” describes output. “Incomplete requests fell from 20 of 200 to 16 of 200” describes an observed outcome.

Explain the relationship. The form may have contributed to fewer missing details, but other changes may have happened simultaneously. Saying “the measure declined after the change” differs from proving the change caused the entire decline.

A useful account combines problem, action, output, outcome and limitation: “I identified missing fields, proposed a revision with support and followed two comparable batches. The incompleteness rate fell from 10% to 8%; the team also received guidance, so we did not isolate the form’s effect.”

Not every contribution has a simple number. A documented decision, resolved exception or risk found before implementation can provide evidence when you explain what was observed and who can confirm it. Do not invent a financial value to make the contribution seem important.

Choose a situation the person observed and a capability you want to understand. “How can I improve?” is broad; “in the form review, which part of my explanation helped the decision and which left questions?” provides a concrete focus.

CCL structures feedback around situation, observable behaviour and impact, with a question about intention where relevant. Use the distinction to request facts without making someone complete a form. “Can you recall a moment when I was unclear? What did I say or omit? What effect did that have?”.

Vague reply: “You need more presence.” Clarification: “Does presence here mean explaining a recommendation, asking questions or owning a decision? Could you give an example?”. If the person did not observe your work, seek another source of observation instead of treating an indirect impression as definitive evidence.

Finish with one possible adjustment: state the recommendation before the detail and check whether the requested decision was understood. Seek an observation of that adjustment in a relevant situation. Feedback does not require changing your entire personality or accepting personal attacks as useful guidance.