This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/antiwork by /u/Y2J_2nd_coming on 2026-01-31 00:03:07+00:00.

So I just had my annual performance review, and I’m honestly still processing it.

In the technical section of my evaluation, my Technical Lead rated me as “Needs Improvement.” The reason? Not because I miss deadlines. Not because my code is bad. Not because I break production.

But because I “only deliver what’s asked” and don’t show enough “proactivity” by going the extra mile or delivering more than what’s requested.

Let that sink in.

I complete the tasks assigned to me. I deliver what’s specified. I meet expectations. I do the job I’m paid to do. And somehow that translates into a negative technical rating because I’m not voluntarily doing extra unpaid labor beyond scope.

Apparently, doing exactly what’s required is no longer considered “meeting expectations.” Now the baseline is: do your job plus more, or you’re underperforming.

What frustrates me the most is that this logic makes no sense. If I’m consistently delivering what’s asked, how is that “needs improvement”? Improvement relative to what? An unspoken expectation that I should be constantly exceeding scope without it being formally required, recognized, or compensated?

It feels like they’ve quietly shifted the standard from:

• “Do your job well”

to

• “Do your job well and constantly prove you deserve to be here by overextending yourself.”

And if you don’t? You get penalized.

I tried explaining this to my manager and she just said that she can’t do anything since that is my tech lead’s final decision.

Has anyone else experienced this? Being rated poorly not for failing your responsibilities, but for refusing to give unpaid “extra mile” labor?