Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Aug 24, 2009 @ 05:34 PM
There always seems to be a certain level of tolerance for the smart and competent employee who exhibits bad behavior.
The higher ups in our organizations justify it by saying things like,
- Well, the work is getting done, look numbers have never been higher
- Jim's technical skills are so valuable we can't afford to lose him
- All of those problems in manufacturing with returned orders have been fixed
- It's easier to keep her than to find a replacement
- That's just how Sue is
- She doesn't mean any harm, she's just under a lot of stress
- Stop whining about Sue, focus on your work
- etc.
Well, sorry folks but there's evidence that bad apple employees can make the team 35 - 40% less effective. This flys in the face of most evidence collected over the decades which says that a good strong team can dilute a disruptive employee.
*A bad apple, at least at work, can spoil the whole barrel. And there's research to prove it. Host Ira Glass talks to Will Felps, a professor at Rotterdam School of Management in the Netherlands, who designed an experiment to see what happens when a bad worker joins a team. Felps divided people into small groups and gave them a task. One member of the group would be an actor, acting either like a jerk, a slacker or a depressive. And within 45 minutes, the rest of the group started behaving like the bad apple. (13 minutes)
Listen to the interview on This American Life, Ruining it for the Rest of Us. It's entertaining and provides evidence that allowing the bad actors in our organizations exhbit uncivil behavior exacts a price.
Source: Public Radio International, This American Life
Posted by Jamie Resker on Thu, Aug 20, 2009 @ 08:20 AM
3 Keys to Making Difficult Discussions Easier
It is clear that the key reason people avoid giving feedback is not because they don't understand the problem but rather because they don't know how to craft a message that is sayable and hearable.
Put the focus on the positive, desired performance rather than highlighting the current negative performance. The result is a message that you can deliver without having a bottle of Alka-Seltzer at your side and your staff can hear without going off the rails.
Key #1: Identify the Performance Issue
Identify the negative behavior that is holding the individual back not a problem for most people. Then describe it in the opposite, positive terms.
For example, if the employee lacks finesse when dealing with clients and behaves like a bull in a china shop the manager would ask for the employee to develop a more polished and professional style.
When an employee makes frequent mistakes the manager would talk in terms of developing more accuracy.
For the employee who chronically complains that everything is a problem, but never offers any solutions, the manager might ask the employee to develop a problem solving approach.
Key #2: Be Specific about the Desired Change
It is important to get specific about what you mean by a more polished and professional approach, more accuracy or a problem solving approach. For example, What I mean by develop a problem solving approach is that when you first notice a problem that is preventing you from getting your job done to first think through a solution and then approach me if it's something you need my help with.
Key #3: Detail the Benefits of Making the Change
Lastly, it is useful to explain to the employee the benefit of developing the performance area. Ask yourself Why do I want the employee to make this change?
In the case of the chronic complainer who never offers solutions their behavior most likely creates negativity, wastes time and garners complaints from co-workers who are sick and tired of listening to this person drone on about what's wrong.
So, the here's why I'm asking you to focus on this part of the message would sound something like this, The reason I want you to focus on solving problems is that people will notice and appreciate a how do I make things better around here approach, it will make more constructive use of the time we have and it will bring more positive energy into the team.
Notice how the message is still honest yet it talks in terms of what WILL happen when the employee develops a problem solving approach.
These keys are the core of the Performance Continuum Feedback Method, a step-by-step methodology designed to make anyone comfortable delivering even the most difficult feedback.
Conclusion
Talking in terms of the desired performance versus the current undesired performance serves two purposes:
- We are more likely to initiate the discussion because the wording makes it more comfortable to deliver the feedback.
- The employee learns what is expected (as opposed to focusing on what's wrong) with their dignity intact
Bypassing negative performance descriptions and the resulting negative employee reaction allows the employee to respond more positively; ultimately facilitating the move towards the solution phase of the discussion the ultimate goal of feedback.
A simple rule of thumb is to provide the employee with the opportunity to receive the feedback and make progress on the issue. Only when it is clear that the employee is unwilling or unable to make progress should more extreme measures be used -- such as disciplinary action or documented performance plans.
Read the blog article on how to translate behavior based issues into SMART goals
Posted by Jamie Resker on Thu, Aug 20, 2009 @ 07:56 AM
We all know who the offenders in our organizations are. They are the employees and managers who make it difficult for others to get their job done. It is easy to identify the bad actors in our organizations who exhibit bad behaviors, but most people who could intervene fail to do so because they are uncertain about how to deal with the problem. That's because most leaders charged with addressing behavior-based issues have little or no experience or training in dealing with this challenge. Consequently, we often see patterns of disruptive behavior emerge when they could have been prevented through the right kind of early intervention.
Bite Me
We recently had a conversation with a nurse and asked her to share a story of unprofessional behavior she observed. Her story: "We had this guy who was promoted to clinical coordinator for the surgical facility; a job that oversees the scheduling of patients and staff for patient surgery. As nurses we knew which anesthesiologists, physicians and nurse teams worked best together and we would request changes to the schedule to insure a high quality patient care experience. The clinical coordinator would respond with, "Bite me". He was a complete jerk and to add insult to injury his behavior was well known but it took two long years before he was demoted from the position and replaced by someone who was both competent and professional".
Technically Competent but Sucking the Life Out of Everyone Else
It can be a challenge when our most technically competent employees (even those of senior rank) exhibit behaviors that are disruptive. These are the employees who have all of the skills and talent you want, but whose attitudes and issues drain your energy, contribute to creating a toxic environment and suck the life out of your high and mid-level performers. Our work days are filled with enough stress, uncertainty and tension. Make the work environment as collaborative, supportive, collegial and pleasant as possible by addressing and stopping bad behavior in its tracks.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Wed, Aug 19, 2009 @ 02:14 PM
When we think of goals we typically think of areas of performance that are quantifiable and measureable. Reduce errors by 50% or increase sales by 15% are examples of measurable goals. The two biggest challenges in creating behavior based goals are setting the time frame and measuring the behavior change. Here's how to do that:
- The measurement is "observation and feedback"
- The time frame is "now - ongoing" (unless training is required beforehand- the training takes place and then the behavior should be observable)
Here's an example of a behavior based performance issue translated into a SMART goal (you'll probably get that this person was rude and nasty in his email communications):
Goal: Jack is most effective when dealing with colleagues/peers in person. When conflict arises I would like Jack to forgo email communications as a first resort and instead utilize his in person communication skills where he comes across as collaborative and respectful. Increase of in person communication with an emphasis on consistently utilizing respectful business language communication skills. Hold off resolving conflict with email as the primary communication medium.
Complete By: Now- ongoing
Measurement: Observation and Feedback
Backing up a bit this was an area for development for this individual and what you see above is that information translated into a SMART goal.
Conclusion
When goals are put into writing there is a better chance that the employee will successfully meet the new expectations. Behavior based goals can and should be translated into specific, measurable, attainable relevant, attainable and time bound objectives.
See our Creating Behavior Based SMART Goals Workshop description. Any behavior based development issue can be translated into a goal- we'll show you how.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Sun, Jul 26, 2009 @ 01:44 PM
In my career I worked in retail, an international non profit and in technology. I saw bad behavior that was clearly recognized by all but went unaddressed. Here's a snapshot of my career and bad behavior observations:
RETAIL
I worked in several well known Boston based retail stores where bad behavior was the norm. I thought it was attributable to the:
- transient nature of the people we attracted
- low pay
- militant managers (including my own boss!)
- standing on one's feet all day
- having to work holidays and every Saturday
It was quite common for people to compensate themselves by stealing cash or merchandise. Calling in sick, coming in late and using every excuse in the book to leave early was the norm. At one of the big department stores I worked at we had an answering machine to take the sick calls. During the holidays where we had the highest number of staff we usually had 50 calls a day. One of the most memorable bad behavior cases involved a cantankerous employee working behind the men's tie counter who became annoyed with a co-worker and was fired for hitting her over the head with a box. During his termination he emphatically said, "but the box was empty, she wasn't hurt". This employee was a known troublemaker yet it took hitting someone over the head with a box to get rid of him.
NON PROFIT
I then went to work for an altruistic international non profit doing work in developing countries. I thought, "well this is going to be a place where we everyone is pulling in the direction of the greater good". Wrong. Bad behavior was rampant and stemmed from a power hungry finance group that were, well, rude and nasty to everyone in their path. Employees felt like they were being beat up and bullied on a daily basis. You never knew when they'd be coming for you or make it difficult if not impossible to get your job done. The president just stood back and allowed the finance czars set the tone for the organization: fear, back stabbing, disrespect and blame.
TECHNOLOGY
OK, so on I went to a technology company. It was a time when we couldn't find enough people fast enough, the stock price was going through the roof and technology was the place to be. Who could have the time and energy to behave badly? As it turned out, lots of people.
One might chalk it up to all of the engineering types we had, because we know how those engineers can be: really brilliant but not so great with the people skills. I found this not to be the case. It was mostly the non-engineering employees who exhibited bad behaviors: sales, marketing, manufacturing, purchasing, finance and even HR (and I was in charge of HR!). I remember acquiring a new company on the West Coast that came with an HR Director who was a total mismatch for the job. She did a great job on all of the operations type issues, and as a result of the acquisition there were many. The issue with this person? She didn't like people. She didn't want to give employees the time of day. What? An HR person who doesn't want to deal with people? She had to go.
It's common to make excuses for why bad behavior exists and persists in our organizations. Here are some comments we've heard to rationalize why bad behavior exists:
- We're a non profit and don't pay well
- We're a hospital and with the nursing shortage and stress...
- We're a financial organization and you know how those financial types can be
- We have mostly technical people here and there not known for their people skills
- We have a lot of younger employees who act immaturely
- We're really nice around here and we like to avoid conflict (my personal favorite)
Stop the nonsense! In our work we find disruptive behaviors in all organizations: government, for profit, non profit, technology, manufacturing, retail, healthcare, etc. The common denominator: Where there are people there is the opportunity for bad behaviors to surface. Of course behaviors are difficult to talk about, so oftentimes they are allowed to continue.
Download our Guide for Addressing Disruptive Behaviors
Posted by Jamie Resker on Wed, Jul 22, 2009 @ 06:08 AM
The traditional performance review, evaluation or appraisal form always ends with an overall performance rating. So what should happen when making a significant change to a performance review process or document? Should employees be rated or given a grace period? During a recent webinar on Breakthrough Performance Management that is Simple, Effective and Easy hosted by the Northeast Human Resources Association the following recommendation was made:
Provide a Ratingless Grace Period When Making a Significant Change
When making significant changes to the performance review process and related forms provide a 1 year grace period on assigning performance ratings.
Predictably this recommendation elicited some questions.
The main question being, "if we don't assign a rating then how will we determine pay increases?" This is a valid concern because traditionally pay increases have been decided based on comparative performance ratings (a good reason to conduct focal reviews as opposed to reviews spread throughout the year and based on hire date). Naturally, the employee who is rated as Outstanding would be eligible for a larger pay increase than the person who is rated as Meets Expectations.
The Known Problem With Ratings and Pay Increases
We all know that the problem with this common practice is that managers and employees know the rating correlates directly with the pay increase.
- What heartless manager wants to label someone a "Meets Expectations" and hurt the employee's ability to get as much money as possible, especially nowadays where if there is money to go around there's very little of it?
- As the manager am I really going to give an accurate rating for the mediocre employee and have them wind up with a 1.5% raise and suffer the consequences of being seen as the bad guy?
- Not likely, instead I'm going to inflate that person's rating and give them a Meets Expectations so that they can get the 2.5% increase.
- Let's not forget the propensity to sweep performance issues under the rug to avoid a confrontational exchange between manager and employee. Yet another aspect of performance management that leads to inflated performance ratings.
Not only is the rating inaccurate it also encourages the rater to tailor the review comments and content to reflect a rosy picture of how this employee is performing. Rating inflation cancels out the rationale for the performance conversation which is to cover what is going well, the TRUE area for growth and development and the resulting goals and milestones that will help the employee make progress towards the area for development.
It's time to rethink the performance rating system.
It doesn't work and we know it. Why continue with something that is known to be ineffective? It still begs the question of how to compare employee performance and how to dole out the dollars based on performance effectiveness. A better approach is to conduct a talent review. Simply use the Employee Performance Continuum four square model and plot your employees and discuss the overall effectiveness and value of each person. Your top, high potentials, mid-level, developing and low performers will quickly become apparent. The pot of money can then be divvied up accordingly.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Oct 27, 2008 @ 09:21 AM
Development and retention of employees has become an important goal of most HR managers, but success lies in getting managers to address the hard to discuss performance issues with their employees. When these performance issues, which are often behavioral in nature, are addressed with employees instead of being swept under the rug, managers also open up the potential for employee development and improved retention rates. Helping managers identify the one key performance issue, craft the right words for the discussion, and manage the discussion and outcomes is the best strategy for developing and retaining employees.
Excuses and More Excuses
Managers will come up any excuse to rationalize their avoidance of addressing performance issues with employees, particularly those issues related to behavior. When the performance issue revolves around technical job skills, responsibilities and meeting goals, managers are usually very willing to raise, the issue with the employee. But when it comes to issues such as tone, approach, interpersonal skills or motivation the issue is typically avoided because managers are uncomfortable broaching the subject. While this avoidance can cause problems within the organization, i.e. nobody likes working with Sue because she's a jerk, it can also limit employee potential and contribution to the organizational goals. In other words, failure to address an employee performance issue not only does a disservice to the employee and their co-workers, but to the overall performance of the organization.
Result
Letting employee issues slide hurts the employee because the same issue will most likely haunt them from job to job and ultimately the organization loses out on tapping into the full potential of the individual.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Tue, Sep 16, 2008 @ 10:24 AM
One of my clients recently told a story about her first day on the job as the head of HR. Before she had poured her first cup of coffee, a senior level director asked for help putting together an exit plan for a chronic under-performer.
She pulled the employee's file and found that the last 5 ratings were all Excellent. After questioning the director about the discrepancy, this senior level manager sheepishly admitted that he had never addressed the performance issue, but regardless the employee needed to go.
Having a good sense of humor but also wanting to make a point she said to the director, Well, given what I've just learned I'm wondering who we should be talking about an exit plan for?
It may be hard to believe that a senior level manager could ignore a performance issue to this degree but the fact is that managers at all levels, in all industries, avoid key performance conversations -- all the time.
Corporate Star or Slacker?
Was this employee a top performer as the consistent Excellent ratings would suggest? Or did the employee really need to go? In this case, the employee had been a strong contributor whose performance dropped after an organizational restructuring. Had the performance issues been addressed earlier, it is likely that this employee would have gotten back on track instead of being the target of an exit strategy.
It is important to recognize that effective employee performance discussions are critical to differentiating between chronic underperformers and employees who have potential to be more effective or even star performers. When managers avoid performance discussions with their teams, they risk pushing potential top talent out the door or creating a safe haven for underperformance.
Retaining Talent It's Not the Job of HR Alone
In most organizations the job of attracting, retaining and developing corporate talent falls into Human Resource's lap. They are expected to come up with the silver bullet that will have the best and brightest banging on their corporate door, and once in, never wanting to leave.
Interestingly, the most successful talent management initiatives I have witnessed have been those where HR turns the tables and gets the entire organization specifically people who manage employees - to take responsibility for attracting, retaining and developing people. Without this shift in ownership the most brilliant, well-funded, comprehensive talent management approaches will fall flat.
It's our managers who are in the unique position to separate the stars from the slackers. Every day they get a close up look at their employees' talents and areas that need development. They are the people who really know what is going on, but they often lack the skills and know-how to communicate the information that can help the employee to develop and improve.
When they lack these skills, critical but usually highly manageable performance issues get ignored, employees become disengaged and miserable and talent either walks out the door or incompetence finds a nice place to hide.
The Truth Will Set You Free
The key to effectively managing talent is getting those responsible for managing employees to tell the truth about performance issues. There seems to be no end to the excuses people will give for avoiding difficult performance conversations. But ignoring them is an enormous disservice to the employee, the organization and to the manager who is shirking his/her responsibilities.
While no one likes to hear how they may be falling short of the mark, the alternative an unexpected walk to the door is even less appealing. And what if you are actually walking strong contributors to the door because your managers don't have the skill set to address the stickier performance issues? Or, are writing people off because they haven't gotten the right feedback to get them back on track? You might even be harboring incompetence because your managers don't know how to move people up or out.
The Bad News
I have heard many creative solutions for solving performance issues:
- I won't ask her to be on a project team again.
- We'll keep our distance from Jim to minimize the amount of time we have to spend dealing with him.
- Let's just eliminate the job and the employee.
- We won't let him interact with clients anymore.
- We'll promote her into a job where she has minimal interaction with colleagues.
- I will call HR and ask them to fire her.
These classics and others like them are designed to avoid handling the root issue. In fact, the only thing these solutions accomplish is to allow the manager to bypass addressing the issue because they are afraid of handling it in the first place.
Often managers solve one problem only to create a bigger one. One vivid example of this involved an accounting manager who excelled at the technical side of the job but was a nightmare when it came to managing staff. After five long years in the job, his boss came up with what he thought was a creative solution. The accounting manager was promoted into an individual contributor role with responsibility for generating financial reports.
On the one hand this employee was removed from supervising employees but whenever an accounting operations manager position opened up this employee would apply. Each time he applied HR would cringe and have to rationalize why someone else was selected. This employee could not move past the fact that he was no longer managing people. From the employee's perspective this creative solution was a failure.
Most employees pick up on surreptitious changes to their role in the organization. As a result, these employees often disengage and under-perform to an even greater degree. There is no substitute for making the employee aware of the issue and providing the opportunity to improve.
So, the bad news is - ignoring performance issues doesn't work.
The Good News
Three truths represent the good news on why effective discussion is the key to improving employee performance.
- For each of their employees, managers have the best perspective on the greatest opportunity for performance development. Therefore they have the best opportunity and the responsibility to communicate high value developmental feedback and provide performance coaching to their employees.
- When performance feedback is delivered in a performance coaching manner (I want to help you out fashion) the employee can usually make significant progress on the issue.
- Giving difficult feedback doesn't have to be so hard (see last month's article The Three Keys to Making Tough Performance Conversations Easy).
Most people, if they are motivated enough, can manage an area of weakness. It is the job of HR to give managers the skills and tools to effectively address employee performance issues and not push potentially good talent out the door.
Call us if you need help with a performance conversation or other performance management issues.
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 Wed, Jul 30, 2008 @ 02:44 PM
Most managers would rather immerse their hand in boiling water than give an employee feedback about poor performance. Yet most managers will comfortably discuss those issues with a sympathetic ear, either an HR contact, a peer manager or even someone at home.
What is clearly uncomfortable for the manager is having a direct conversation with the employee who has the performance issue:
- Often managers ultimately become so frustrated with the employee's performance they seek HR support to begin the process of terminating the employee.
- Upon questioning the manager and reviewing the personnel file, HR will often find that the employee in question was never provided any information regarding the seriousness of their performance deficiencies.
- The manager may admit they have not raised the issue with the employee or at best hinted at the issue in the past. In other words, the employee has no idea they are in danger of losing their job.
The traditional method in which managers provide performance feedback to employees is often the ultimate cause for why feedback is not always provided.
Most managers believe they need to create a bullet-proof case revolving around a list of the employee's shortcomings. This approach usually results in a defensive reaction from the employee which makes it difficult to gain agreement on what needs to change. Once a manager has been through this process once or twice it becomes easier just to 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 about poor performance!
Feedback vs. Discpline
The good news is that managers are able to recognize and describe performance problems, but that usually means using language that feels like discipline. Sometimes we refer to this as constructive criticism. However this approach still feels like criticism and discipline.
Feedback: a better, more productive approach
Use positive words that describe the desired performance rather than off-putting words that describe the current underperformance.
Some Examples
- If the employee lacks finesse when dealing with fellow employees and behaves like a bull in a china shop the manager would ask for the employee to develop a more polished and professional style.
- When an employee makes frequent mistakes the manager would talk in terms of developing more accuracy. For the employee who chronically complains that everything is a problem the manager might ask the employee to develop a problem solving approach.
Be Specific
As these behavioral descriptions are broad it is important to further explain what the manager is looking for by providing specific positive examples of what they mean by a more polished and professional approach, more accuracy or a problem solving approach. Again, these examples should demonstrate positive behavior examples.
Explain the Importance
Lastly, it is useful to explain to the employee the benefit of developing the performance area. The manager must simply ask themselves, Why do I want the employee to make this change? In the case of the employee who makes frequent mistakes the manager may reason that in the finance environment accuracy is essential, therefore the month end reports must represent complete and correct data.
In Summary
This approach makes it easier for managers to address performance issues by talking in terms of the desired performance versus the undesired performance. It also specifically describes to the employee what the manager expects in terms of performance. Because it by-passes the negative descriptions and resulting negative reaction the employee is more likely to respond positively to the feedback. A simple rule of thumb is to provide the employee with the opportunity to receive the feedback and make progress on the issue. Only when it is clear that the employee is unwilling or unable to make progress should more extreme measures be used such as disciplinary actions or documented performance plans.
Click here to download our guide on Addressing Disruptive Employee Behaviors for more examples