Posted by Jamie Resker on Sat, Jun 12, 2010 @ 03:53 PM
The traditional method of providing constructive criticism/feedback would sound something like this:
"John, we need to talk about how things are going. You made some careless errors on the last several reports you handed in. You factored in the production labor costs incorrectly. I had to get other staff to rerun the numbers and as a result Tammy had to drop her own work to fix the mistakes you made. Now I feel I need to go through your month end reports with a fine tooth comb before I pass them onto the CFO, etc....".
Or
"Ann, we need to have a discussion to clarify your role and responsibilities. I've noticed the following issues: You are missing deadlines, not keeping people in the loop when deadlines are not going to be met and not demonstrating a sense of urgency to get the press releases out on time. From my perspective it appears that you don't have good time management skills based on not accomplishing key tasks within specified timeframes. On top of all this your attitude seems really lax when you do miss deadlines. What is going on with you?..."
What the manager has said in the examples above seems accurate. Most managers have been taught to create a bullet-proof case revolving around a list of the employee's shortcomings. After all, you have to prove to the employee that they are underperforming. Is it any wonder that most feedback recipients get defensive and feedback providers find difficultly in achieving anything remotely resembling a productive outcome, never mind gaining agreement on what needs to change?
THROUGH THE EYES OF THE EMPLOYEE
Can you think back to a time when a manager talked to you about a performance issue and did so without any finesse at all? From the employee's perspective when their manager does initiate a performance discussion it can come across as finger pointing, fault finding and disciplinary. Poorly crafted and delivered messages can trigger feelings of self-doubt and worthlessness for the employee. This is particularly true if this is the first time the employee is hearing the information. The traditional approach to giving feedback often comes across in a harsh, "this is what is wrong with you" tone.
Expect a Defensive Reaction
Once employees are confronted with this type of information the natural response is to blame others, fixate on the details, make excuses, try to explain why the feedback is incorrect, etc. All of this adds up to an uncomfortable and often confrontational exchange between the manager and employee. Once a manager has been through this process once or twice it becomes easier to just avoid addressing employee performance issues altogether. Let's just say there is no real mystery for why managers tend to steer clear of giving feedback and why employees don't like being on the receiving end! The fact of the matter is that there is a better way to introduce feedback to employees.
The key is to use words to describe what you want to have happen.
I'm not sure where this quote originates so I cannot provide the proper credit, but I thought it was impactful: "A good leader can describe what successful performance looks like". If you are familiar with Marshall Goldsmith's work you're likely familiar with the term "feedforward", which means describing what you want to see for future. See this short video, How to Begin a Performance Conversation (and how not to), for specific language to introduce feedback in a helpful coaching type style.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Wed, Aug 20, 2008 @ 03:43 PM
What are the costs of avoiding performance issues? The top 3 that come to mind are:
- Falling short of organizational goals
- Stunted professional development
- Decreased employee retention rates
The evidence is clear. When performance issues are addressed instead of being swept under the rug, organizational effectiveness increases, development opportunities grow and retention rates improve.
Therefore, anything we can do to help managers identify key performance issues, craft the right words for the performance discussions, and manage the conversation and outcomes will provide huge organizational payoff.
Managers will come up with any excuse to rationalize their avoidance of addressing performance issues with employees - particularly those issues related to behavior. The case study that follows illustrates how this typically plays out in an organizational setting and the costs that avoidance exacts.
Case Study: The Cost of Avoiding Performance Issues
The Employee Perspective
Steve has been with his employer, a technology company, for more than eight years going back to when they were a start-up. He is a talented, post-sale technical support engineer who knows the product inside and out and is invaluable in helping customers solve technical problems. Steve sees a role for himself in the sales process. He wants to get out of the office and have the opportunity to make more money. He wants to get out of technical support and into sales as a sales engineer.
He has expressed this interest to his boss, who also manages the entire sales organization. Steve's perspective is that he has the skills for a sales engineering position and deserves consideration for an open sales engineer position based on his skill set, tenure, and contributions to the company.
However, Steve does not believe he is being given fair consideration for the position - a situation which Steve admits is affecting his attitude as of late. In fact, if the position is filled from the outside Steve would consider this the last straw and begin looking for a job outside the company.
The Manager's Perspective
Steve's boss is aware of Steve's aspirations but would never move him into a sales engineering role. While he agrees that Steve has great technical skills and could contribute to the sales process that is often very technical in nature, he also knows Steve has the tendency to clown around and act like a - even in front of people he is meeting for the first time.
From Steve's boss' perspective, this issue makes Steve's sales engineering aspirations a non-starter. His boss also has noticed the deterioration in Steve's attitude recently which is another strike against utilizing Steve in a sales engineering role and instead keeping him in his current role where his exposure to customers is post-sale and limited to phone and e-mail contact.
HR's Perspective
The HR Director is also familiar with this situation and with the perspectives of both Steve and his boss. Additionally, the HR Director has become aware of an instance where Steve had been invited on a customer visit to address some technical issues and allegedly used his "informal office personality" in front of the customer. Word of this filtered back to Steve's boss who mentally erased any consideration for Steve's sales engineer aspirations.
From the perspective of the HR Director, Steve has considerable talents, has contributed significantly to the success of the company and possesses potential as a sales engineer. Additionally, such a move would represent a logical step up for a valued long-term employee.
She views this behavioral issue as fixable and she faults Steve's boss for not having coached Steve prior to his customer visit. She believes that with the appropriate coaching Steve's boss could help him overcome tendencies which are problematic to the customer-facing role of sales engineering. She also understands that replacing Steve would be more costly to the organization than coaching him, which would be a win-win.
The Solution
Most motivated employees can manage and improve an area of weakness, but only if they are made aware of the issue and are coached.
In our case study example, the opportunity existed to make Steve - to improve his customer facing demeanor and provide him with an opportunity to grow within the organization. Instead Steve's prospects for moving into a job that matches his interests, ability and potential have been short circuited.
It is important to note that Steve's boss was keenly aware of the issue but chose instead to sweep it under the rug rather than use the information to help Steve overcome his reputation for behaving like the "class clown."
HR's Role
Encouraging and enabling effective, on-going performance discussions and coaching between managers and employees is a perfect place for HR to step up and contribute to organizational success.
HR is positioned to bridge the communication chasm between employees and managers which was illustrated in our case study and is very common in the real world. Managers are in a unique position to know their employees strengths and areas for development. Most employees who are aware of their one greatest area for development can and will make progress.
HR has the opportunity to take a more active role in ensuring that managers are regularly communicating key messages to their employees and not relying solely on the once-or-twice-a-year formal performance review process.
Furthermore, HR needs to ensure that managers have the know-how and skills to take their observations about performance and confidently and effectively engage in these discussions with positive outcomes (click here for Tips for Effective Performance Discussions).
In the case of Steve, a technical support engineer aspiring to a greater customer- facing role but lacking the professional presence and polish required for such a position, HR needs to take the lead in getting Steve's manager to talk about the one area for development and provide Steve with coaching. At the very least Steve should have the opportunity to become aware of his manager's perceptions and be given the chance to work on translating his informal office personality into a appropriately professional business demeanor. Given how motivated he is to move into the sales engineering role there would be a good chance that he would be successful.
Final word
The cost of avoiding performance feedback is very high for both individuals and organizations. We all have a responsibility to take on those performance conversations no matter how daunting they might seem.
It is always a disservice to the employee and the organization to take the path of least resistance and sweep these types of issues under the rug.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Jul 21, 2008 @ 01:33 PM
Most of us would rather have a root canal than give an employee feedback about poor performance. Yet, we will eagerly discuss - or is it complain - about these issues with colleagues or loved ones. What stops us from providing feedback?
Clearly, identifying the performance issue isn't the roadblock. Ask any group of co-workers what the problem is with a difficult employee and they usually can name it without hesitation:
- You, mean Mr. Know-It-All? If he would ask for help instead of pretending he knows how to do everything maybe he would meet his deadlines.
- She stresses about everything. I just want to slip a valium in her diet coke.
- He's mastered the art of looking busy.
- She's an excuse expert.
- Oh, he will promise you anything, just don't hold your breath waiting.
So, why do we all steer clear of challenging performance conversations?
Why People Avoid Giving Difficult Feedback
Over the years we have heard many reasons for why people avoid or delay providing feedback. Here are some of the more common reasons:
- I don't know what to say
- The employee is due to retire in two years anyway
- I'm worried about the employee's reaction
- What if I make things worse?
- This person has been here a long time and who am I to bring up the performance issue?
- What about legal ramifications?
- It will demotivate the employee
- I hate conflict
- Maybe the problem will fix itself
- I don't think the employee is capable of changing
- I don't know what the solution to this performance issue is.
Even the most seasoned managers can come up with a million excuses for avoiding or delaying a difficult performance conversation. We believe the problem lies more with the method we traditionally use to provide feedback rather than with some shortcoming of the individual responsible for orchestrating the performance conversation.
The Traditional Method of Performance Feedback and Why it Doesn't Work
The traditional method in which managers provide performance information to employees, usually referred to as constructive criticism, is often the very reason we avoid or delay giving feedback in the first place.
Most of us believe we need to create a bullet-proof case revolving around a list of the employee's shortcomings. Is it any wonder that most feedback recipients gets defensive and we find it difficult to achieve anything remotely resembling a productive outcome, never mind gaining agreement on what needs to change.
Once you have been through this process once or twice it becomes easier just to avoid addressing performance issues altogether. Let's just say there is no real mystery for why we tend to steer clear of giving feedback about poor performance!
Read the blog on How to Have a Difficult Performance Conversation