Bonus! Five more reasons why discussing weaknesses with employees is absurd and damaging
In my previous post, I described five reasons discussing weaknesses with an employee often seems so awkward, despite the best intentions. Yet, managers are frequently asked to do so on an employee’s annual review form, which, by design, creates some unnecessary and damaging conversations. Here are five more reasons discussing weaknesses with employees fails: Read more
Five reasons why focusing on weaknesses with employees is absurd and damaging
Many managers are asked to discuss with their employees the various strengths and weaknesses of the employee. This often backfires, as the employee is appropriately suspicious of the manager’s intent when discussing “weaknesses”. The reason: This will appear on the employee’s annual performance review, and becomes part of the employee’s “brand” going forward – even if the weaknesses are irrelevant or nonsensical. As a result, any discussion about an employee’s weaknesses should be for the purpose of identifying and planning strategic needs of the organization. Instead what happens more often than not is that a discussion of an employee’s weaknesses is performed simply to document bad things about an employee. But why would you want to do that? You don’t. And here’s why not: Read more
The myth of “one good thing, one bad thing” on a performance review
A mistaken notion that many managers have is the belief that on a performance review they need to comment on and provide examples of both the good things and the bad things that an employee did over the course of the review period. This is sometimes taken to the next level, where the manager says one good thing and one bad thing about each area of the employee’s performance.
Here’s an example of something a high performer might see on a review:
Jeff exceeded sales expectations by 15%, placing him in the top 10% of the sales force. Jeff was below expectations in submitting his weekly status reports on time, and the reports he did submit were wordy.
This is a mistake and this practice should be stopped.
Providing corrective feedback: Trend toward tendencies instead of absolutes
An important skill of any manager is the ability to provide performance feedback. However, many managers prefer to delay providing performance feedback because of fear of the impression it creates to address an issue with an employee.
For example, managers will delay providing feedback based on fears that the employee will think that manager has forever judged the employee as doing the job incorrectly. Or, perhaps, since the evidence is there that the job is being performed at a lower level, the manager will, indeed, judge the employee as forever being less capable of doing the job. That is, if the manager is providing feedback, they have rendered final judgment. With attitudes like this, you could see how both the manager and the employee dread performance feedback conversations.
Neither of these interpretations of what performance feedback achieves is appropriate. Providing final judgment of the employee is not the point of performance feedback. Providing performance feedback is a discussion aimed toward changing behaviors for the better, and has been discussed in this blog previously, the more specific and more immediate, the more artful the feedback. Once performance feedback has been provided, if the job performed improves, then that dreaded final judgment is, by definition, wrong.
So how to help get past this “final judgment” issue? In today’s post, I provide a way of talking about the behaviors of an employee that is less absolute and provides a more likely path for improvement for the employee. Here’s the tip:
As you transition to making the evaluation and correction, provide qualifiers – “it is a trend” or “it’s a tendency” — that do not imply absolutes. Read more
How to use behavior-based language to lead to evaluation and feedback
In the previous post, I provided some markers of behavior-based language that will help managers avoid the pitfalls and tendencies (documented here and here) of providing performance feedback incorrectly. In today’s post, I’ll discuss how using behavior-based language makes it easier to transition to evaluating and providing performance feedback to an employee. As a manager, you are expected to evaluate an employee’s performance as part of the performance management process, so getting to the point where you can do this to your employee is important. Here are some tips for getting to that evaluation using the set-up of behavior-based language.
I advocate for starting a performance feedback discussion with observations using behavior-based language, which isn’t always easy, but worth the effort. Here are some examples of starting a conversation with behavior-based language.
“I heard you say, ‘I plan to slack off work next week.’”
“I observed that you came in late in each of the past three days.”
“I saw that you were setting up the presentation in advance.”
“I observe that you code has not broken the build all month.”
When you use this behavior-based language, you naturally build a case toward an evaluative and corrective conclusion.
Behavior-based language primer for managers: How to tell if you are using behavior-based language
The Manager by Design blog explores the core skills that managers need to be good at being managers. A key skill is the ongoing use of behavior-based language. In previous posts, I discussed the kind of language that is decidedly NOT behavior-based: Language that makes generalizations about an employee’s behavior, and language that that makes value-judgments. In these posts, I make the case that there is no use for this, even in the effort to be efficient. In today’s post, I attempt to describe what behavior-based language is.
By its nature, language is a slippery thing, so I don’t make the assumption that there is a clear distinction between what is and is not behavior-based. What I advocate is for managers to at least attempt to slide in the direction of behavior-based language in performance discussions with their employees.
This is the first of two parts identifying if you are using language that is behavior-based:
Behavior-based language primer for managers: Avoid using value judgments
If you manage people, an important skill to have is the ability to consciously use of behavior-based language. This is also known as performance-based language.
This is the second of a series of posts providing tips on how to increase use behavior-based language. In the first post, I described how generalizations, in an effort to be efficient, tend to undermine the intent of changing the employee’s behaviors. A similar mistake that managers tend to make is using value judgments. Using value judgments is an effort to summarize the net impression that an employee is making, but the problem is that this summary completely clouds the behaviors that the employee is doing. Instead, if the value judgment is a negative one, it comes across as a personal attack to the employee. That’s because it is, in essence, a personal attack on an employee.
Here are some examples of value judgments a manager may make in regards to an employee:
You’re stupid
You’re not good enough
You don’t have what it takes
Your heart’s not into it
You’re not cutting it
You’re too wordy
Your work is shoddy
You’re magic!
You’re brilliant!
Behavior-based language primer for managers: Stop using generalizations
If you manage people, one skill you need to develop is the conscious use of behavior-based language. This is also known as performance-based language. This is the first in a series discussing how to transition your language to be more behavior-based.
Behavior-based language is using language that attempts to describe specific behaviors, rather than language that makes generalizations or value judgments. In today’s post, I’ll discuss a common management mistake: Using generalizations.
Examples of generalizations (or generalized language) a manager may use:
“You always show up late for work”
“You don’t seem to know what you’re doing.”
“You’re trying really hard, but it isn’t working out.”
“Your code isn’t up to par.”
“You’re doing a great job!”
“You’re doing a terrible job!”
Public feedback drives performance down and doesn’t count as performance management
My two previous blog posts have been about “public feedback.” Public feedback is the commonly observed phenomenon where a manager tries to correct the behavior of a few individuals through mass-communication channels such as email or a large-group meeting. Common examples are, “We have a dress code” or “We need to stop the gossiping.” In my first blog post on the subject, I describe how this doesn’t change – or even makes worse – the behavior of the people who are behaving incorrectly. In my second post on the subject, I describe the impact on those who are actually behaving correctly (it throws them out of whack).
OK, so it doesn’t work with the people who you are targeting, and it messing up with the people you aren’t targeting. But what about you, the manager? It messes you up too!
When giving public feedback, the manager is trying to take a shortcut and address several performance issues at once. We’ve already established that it doesn’t work, so that should be enough. Here’s how this short cut plays out. Read more
Four more reasons giving public feedback backfires
In my previous post, I described some examples where a manager tries to give “public feedback” in an effort to change the behaviors of a few people through mass communication. The communication may be efficient, but the outcomes are not there, and could actually make things worse. Today, I discuss four more reasons why public feedback is rife with unintended consequences.
“Public Feedback” is when a manager notices or learns something he or she doesn’t like on the part of a few, and instead of addressing it with those individuals, addresses it with the entire team. Three simple examples are:
1) Employees not following a dress code. Manager: “Reminder to everyone: Follow the dress code.”
2) Employees late on their status reports. Manger: “Everyone, I need the status report by end of week, no exceptions.”
3) Employees gossiping. Manager: “I will not tolerate gossiping from anyone.”
In the previous post, I detailed what happens with the people whose behaviors are targeted. But what is the impact on those who are actually doing things correctly? Not good. Read more
