How to have a feedback conversation with an employee when the situation is complex
In today’s post, I’ll discuss how to perform the feedback conversation with your employee when the situation is complex.
This is the latest in a series of posts describing how to approach a situation where the employee appeared to do something wrong, but it could be that there are greater forces that shaped the employee’s behavior, and it is uncertain what the right thing to do is. But you, the manager, has to address it. The example used from previous posts is when an employee ambushes a VP (or the VP tells you, the manager, she feels she was ambushed). I call this a “complex feedback situation.”
In the previous post, I offered five questions to ask prior to having the feedback discussion with the employee. Doing this preparation makes the conversation more sympathetic to the employee’s position, and also sets you up better for the feedback conversation.
So here are the steps to take during the feedback conversation when it’s not clear what the right employee behavior is.
Step 1: Acknowledge that it is a tough situation and try to get the employee’s perspective
A tool to analyze the greater forces driving your employee’s performance
In my previous post, I discussed the scenario where an employee’s behavior is poor, but it is plausible that the employee acted consistently and as one would expect him to behave, so it really isn’t clear that the behavior is poor. The example I used was the case of Jacob, who makes a tactical error of taking efforts to get around resistances and get in front of the VP to get her attention on a proposal. The VP turns then turns around and asks you to rein in Jacob, although this tactic has worked before for Jacob. What do you do?
Do you tell Jacob that he did a bad job, that he upset the VP, and to not confront the VP anymore? Do you ignore the request by the VP to “rein in Jacob?” In this post, I’d like to discuss a way to analyze the situation. In the next post, I’ll describe how to approach the conversation with Jacob.
The Art of Providing Feedback: At least try to describe what to do instead
Providing performance feedback is a neglected art in people management. In a prior article, I discussed how the more specific and more immediate the feedback, the more artful it is. Today, I discuss something that should be obvious but isn’t always observed when managers provide feedback: At least try to provide the correct course of action. This is the constructive part of constructive feedback.
Many managers seem comfortable saying that they don’t like the output, actions or performance of an employee. They may even believe that this qualifies as providing feedback. Here are some examples of some less than artistic “feedback” managers may give:
“You didn’t do it right. Fix it.”
“I don’t like it.”
“I don’t agree with this.”
“This isn’t what I had in mind.”
“This is all wrong.”
“You suck.”
Another example of how to switch from the dreaded strengths and weaknesses discussion to a strategic, productive discussion
I have been writing a lot lately about how managers are requested to discuss and document employees’ strengths and weaknesses. My conclusion: This is absurd and damaging. However, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of your team is a necessary and important part of people management indeed. So instead of putting your team member on the spot to list out strengths and weaknesses and then documenting these with a development plan, I propose instead engaging in a strategic discussion with the employee on what’s best for the organization and the employee. Today, I’ll demonstrate how to transition from the dreaded annual review discussion of strengths and weaknesses to a more appropriate strategic discussion that provides value for you, the organization and your employee. Let’s go! Read more
Employee strengths and weaknesses discussions should be purely strategic — with examples!
In my previous posts (here and here), I explored the often absurd and damaging results that often occur when pursuing discussions about an employee’s weaknesses. In many cases, managers are formally requested to discuss with their employee’s strengths and weaknesses during the annual review process, with confusing, if not angering results.
Absurd, damaging, confusing, angering – these are pretty harsh words. But surely, Walter, there have to be times when discussing weaknesses with an employee is appropriate? Of course there are! They should be strategic and collaborative discussions that are designed to drive the organization forward using the abilities of the employee.
Instead of having a discussion about the employee’s strengths and weaknesses, the discussion should be centered around where the employee’s skills – whether strong or weak – best fit in the organization’s needs, and how they can be leveraged to the maximum benefit for both the organization and the employee.
Here are some example situations. 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: 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
