The situation
My annual review was much harsher than I expected. Some of the criticism is fair, but some of it feels unfair and ignores the things I did well. I’ve been angry and hurt ever since, and I don’t know whether to push back or just accept it.
Your situation, reframed
AI interpretationFeeling hurt and angry after a harsh review is natural, especially when you have worked hard. In Stoic terms, the review is someone else’s judgement, and that judgement is not in your power; what is in your power is how honestly you sort it and how well you respond. The fair points can make you better, and the unfair ones cannot make you worse.
The dichotomy of control
AI interpretationYours to act on
- Sorting the feedback into what is fair and what is not
- How and when you respond, and in what tone
- What you choose to work on next
- Gathering the facts about your actual results
Not yours
- What your manager believes and has recorded
- The rating already on record
- Whether they change their view after you respond
The Stoics said
Verbatim from the source · full citationsMarcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.21
If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.
Seneca, On the Firmness of the Wise Person 16
… If deservedly, it is not an insult, but a judicial sentence; if undeservedly, then he who does injustice ought to blush, not I. And what is this which is called an insult? Someone has made a joke about the baldness of my head, the weakness of my eyes, the thinness of my legs, the shortness of my stature; what insult is there in telling me that which everyone sees? We laugh when tête-à-tête at the same thing at which we are indignant when it is said before a crowd, and we do not allow others the privilege of saying what we ourselves are wont to say about ourselves; we are amused at decorous jests, but are angry if they are carried too far.”
Epictetus, Enchiridion 42
When any person treats you ill or speaks ill of you, remember that he does this or says this because he thinks that it is his duty. It is not possible then for him to follow that which seems right to you, but that which seems right to himself. Accordingly if he is wrong in his opinion, he is the person who is hurt, for he is the person who has been deceived; for if a man shall suppose the true conjunction to be false, it is not the conjunction which is hindered, but the man who has been deceived about it. If you proceed then from these opinions, you will be mild in temper to him who reviles you: for say on each occasion, It seemed so to him.
What this means here
AI interpretationMarcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.21
Marcus commits himself in advance to changing his mind whenever someone can show him he is wrong. The point for you is to read the review looking for what is true, not for what can be dismissed. Accurate criticism, however bluntly delivered, does you no harm; holding on to a mistake because the messenger was harsh does.
Seneca, On the Firmness of the Wise Person 16
Seneca offers a simple test for any criticism: is it deserved or not? If it is, it is not an insult but a fair verdict to act on. If it is not, the shame belongs to the person who judged unfairly, not to you. That question lets you take the review apart point by point, instead of swallowing it whole or rejecting it whole.
Translation note: A judicial sentence here means a fair verdict; to blush means to be ashamed.
Epictetus, Enchiridion 42
Epictetus asks you to remember that the person who criticised you was acting on what seemed right to them. If they misjudged your work, they are the one who has been deceived, and the error is theirs to carry. This is not a reason to stay silent about mistakes of fact, but it can take the heat out of your reply, so that you correct the record calmly rather than angrily.
Translation note: Reviles means insults or speaks harshly of. The conjunction is an example from logic: a true statement stays true even if someone wrongly believes it false.
The three passages work as a sequence. First, look for the truth in the review and be willing to change, as Marcus resolves to do. Then ask of each point whether it is deserved, which is Seneca’s test. For the parts that are not, remember with Epictetus that the reviewer acted on how things seemed to them, and that their error does not diminish you. That leaves you free to improve where you should and to disagree where you must, without carrying the anger for weeks.
One action for today
AI interpretationWrite it down
Tonight, copy each criticism from the review into one of two columns: deserved and undeserved. Pick one point from the first column to work on this month. For the second column, wait at least a day, then write a short, factual reply with concrete examples of your results and ask your manager for a conversation about it. If the review affects your pay or starts a formal process, look up your organisation’s appeal procedure or talk to a union representative.
A line to carry
“If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured.”
— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 6.21