Note: The views and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the authors employer.

What is Context Collapse?

Context collapse is a phenomenon that occurs when content meant for a specific audience is consumed by multiple audiences at once, each bringing their unique frames of reference and expectations. This term, which was originally coined to describe the dynamics of social media, highlights how a message can lose its intended context as it navigates through various social spheres. The implications of context collapse can be far-reaching, affecting not only how we engage online but also how we conduct essential organizational processes, especially performance reviews.

In the realm of social media, misunderstandings and awkward conversations might be the worst outcomes of context collapse. However, in the high-stakes environment of calibration meetings for performance reviews, the stakes become significantly higher, impacting careers, compensation, and overall team morale.

Picture this: a room fitted with five long tables arranged in a square formation, where twenty-five managers hunch over their laptops, illuminated by flickering overhead lights that buzz incessantly okay, perhaps Im exaggerating; many of us are now dialing into Zoom for these meetings. Nonetheless, its calibration day. The original intention is to establish an objective and fair assessment of performance. Yet, through years of experience in engineering leadership, Ive learned that the moment we congregate, the context tends to distort rapidly.

The Well-Intentioned Fiction

In theory, calibration meetings should function as sanity checks to prevent grading on a curve. However, too frequently, they devolve into what can be described as performance review theater. Managers come together to cross-verify each other's assessments, striving to align an engineer's exceeds expectations rating in Team A with a similar rating in Team B. Yet, the reality often turns into a competitive storytelling hour.

For instance, during one calibration meeting, a manager delivered an impassioned three-minute presentation regarding an engineers groundbreaking work on a caching layer. Halfway through, I couldnt help but wonder whether this work was genuinely groundbreaking or if the manager was merely employing the charisma of a Don Draper-like figure to spin a captivating tale.

Context Collapse in Action:

Just as a social media post can be misinterpreted by different audiences, so too can an engineers accomplishments become misconstrued when conveyed to managers from diverse disciplines in a calibration setting.

Some Dimensions of Context Distortion

Consider the following dimensions of context distortion that emerge during calibration:

1. Domain-Specific Blind Spots: Each manager possesses a unique specialty, whether in frontend development, backend, data engineering, or site reliability engineering (SRE). However, this specialized expertise doesnt magically expand during calibration; instead, it tends to dilute. For example, when feedback states, They built an offline-first feature for our mobile app, the true complexity of the work might not be fully appreciated by all. The engineer may have implemented local caching with conflict resolution, designed a resilient retry mechanism for unstable networks, and navigated OS-level limitations across Android and iOS, among other tasks. Yet, in calibration, a backend manager might dismiss it as just a client-side wrapper, reflecting a blind spot shaped by their data-centric perspective.
2. Technology-Specific Bias: Even within the same domain, variances in technology and environments can lead to significant misunderstandings. For instance, if a senior leader remarks that a long migration from MongoDB to PostgreSQL was merely moving some YAML files around, it stifles a critical conversation. The unrecognized complexities that prevented a potential catastrophe are lost in translation.
3. Visibility Bias: Certain contributions garner more visibility than others. A newly redesigned user interface may receive abundant praise, while behind-the-scenes reliability improvements that significantly reduce operational incidents might only get a brief mention. The engineer responsible for eliminating recurring on-call issues may save the company millions in avoided outages but is often overlooked in favor of flashier accomplishments.
4. The Advocacy Lottery: The effectiveness of a manager in advocating for their engineer can significantly impact performance ratings. A talented storyteller can transform a routine task like fixed some bugs into an impressive narrative about systematically eliminating critical customer experience issues. Consequently, two engineers with similar performance levels can end up with vastly different evaluations, depending on their manager's presentation skills.
5. Anchoring and the Quiet Compliance: The first strong opinion expressed in a meeting often sets the tone for subsequent discussions. If a senior director questions whether a particular performance qualifies as Exceeds Expectations, many in the room may suddenly find themselves engrossed in the carpet patterns, succumbing to the herd mentality.
6. Fifty Shades of "Meets Expectations": Every manager has their interpretation of rating categories. One managers Exceeds Expectations could be anothers Tuesday. This divergence creates a chaotic environment where engineers from different teams are effectively evaluated under disparate standards, yet judged on a supposedly unified scale.
7. The Time Squeeze: With multiple managers and a plethora of engineers to discuss in a limited time frame, complex contributions can be reduced to oversimplified statements. A years worth of intricate work might be summarized in a single line: They improved latency. This reductionism fails to capture the depth and difficulty of the work undertaken.
8. Misalignment on Growth vs. Impact: Some managers place heavier emphasis on an engineers growth trajectory, while others prioritize direct contributions to business outcomes. This philosophical clash can complicate assessments, as seen in cases where newer engineers are evaluated alongside seasoned veterans maintaining critical features.
9. The Game Theory of Manager Behavior: Calibration can inadvertently foster patterns of behavior among managers that distort the evaluation process. For instance, some managers may systematically inflate ratings, anticipating that their assessments will be negotiated downward in calibration, perpetuating a cycle of inflation.

The Real Cost

The consequences of context collapse extend beyond stressful meetings or hurt feelings. Talented engineers who feel misjudged may lose trust in the system and quietly update their LinkedIn profiles, while career trajectories can become biased due to the influence of charisma over actual contributions. Consequently, organizations may become blind to systemic issues, like skill gaps and emerging bottlenecks, which calibration could have illuminated.

Breaking the Cycle

So how can we address these challenges? Do we need to fix calibration as it stands, or should we rethink the entire approach? Here are several actionable strategies:

1. Addressing Domain and Technical Biases: Consider organizing smaller, domain-specific calibration sessions that allow the right experts to assess relevant work. Prior to formal calibration, implement cross-functional pre-reviews where engineers contributions can be translated into language comprehensible to diverse audiences.
2. Improving Context Preservation: Enable engineers to co-author their performance narratives, ensuring that their technical achievements and challenges are accurately conveyed. Establish standardized templates for achievements to minimize the impact of presentation skills on evaluations.
3. Recognizing Invisible Contributions: Create dedicated recognition tracks for contributions that are often overlooked, such as reliability improvements or mentorship. Offer workshops focused on storytelling techniques to help managers effectively communicate the impact of these contributions.
4. Making Calibration More Continuous: Transition from year-end assessments to ongoing calibration through quarterly check-ins, allowing for real-time insights while decoupling feedback from evaluation processes.
5. Addressing Systemic Gaming: Conduct audits to identify patterns of rating inflation and other systemic issues. Design promotion paths that allow for not yet outcomes without penalizing engineers, thereby reducing the incentive for strategic timing.
6. Focus on Values over Outcomes: Evaluate managers not solely on their teams performance but also on how they embody the desired values of feedback and development.

Key Insight: Context collapse harms not just individual careers but can also undermine entire engineering cultures by rewarding inappropriate behaviors and overlooking valuable opportunities for organizational learning.

Final Thoughts:

As we sit in calibration meetings in the future, its crucial to remain vigilant. Ask yourself: Am I accurately capturing the real story of this engineers work, or merely fitting it into a template? and Am I engaged in a game, or genuinely supporting my teams growth? By asking these critical questions, we can pave the way for a calibration process that truly understands the people in our organizations, rather than simply collapsing their stories into a ranked list.