A fair number of people I know have been asking lately about performance feedback. What *is* the best way to give performance feedback?
Some people prefer to focus on an individual's weaknesses, some prefer to focus on strengths, some prefer to try to achieve "balance" between strengths and weaknesses, etc.
A lot depends upon your goal when you give someone performance feedback?
An analogy: when a child reaches towards a hot stove, do we take the time to praise them for their curiosity or their ability to climb up on the chair by themselves? No, because our *goal* is to make sure that they don't make that "mistake" (touching the hot stove) again. Conversely, when that same child draws a picture and proclaims it to be several fish swimming in the sea, do we criticize them for not drawing an accurate depiction of fish? Again, no, because our "goal" this time is to get them to begin developing their abilities to draw & color, use a writing implement, express themselves, etc.
So the way we handle feedback should be in with our goals for that particular feedback session. If someone has just made a mistake, and you want them to not make that mistake again - then by all means use critical feedback. The human brain is hard-wired to accept and remember critical feedback. From an evolutionary perspective, if I just ate a berry that made me sick - I really, really want to remember what it looked like so that I don't eat that same berry again. We remember critical feedback very well, it makes an impact on us. Properly timed criticism can be very helpful in ensuring that we do not repeat mistakes.
However, if you want your employees to grow and develop, you need to adjust your feedback strategy. Critical feedback makes everyone do the same thing (avoid the mistake). But it also has side effects: it limits experimentation, makes us less likely to communicate with others, and in many people has a negative impact on motivation and satisfaction. Positive feedback on the other hand ("here are your strengths") causes very different reactions: it makes us *more* likely to experiment with new ways of accomplishing tasks, more likely to incorporate new ideas and information into our thinking, more likely to connect and communicate with other people, and it tends to have a positive impact on satisfaction and motivation.
Positive feedback also allows us to better identify, understand and develop our own unique and individual strengths. Organizations are made up of many people for a reason, you don't *want* carbon copies of one person. The fact that organizations have a diversity of people means that they have a diversity of strengths, and a successful organization plays to this.
Another analogy: If you were managing a sports team, would you want your roster made up entirely of multiple versions of David Ortiz or Teddy Bruschi or Tom Brady? Okay, so I'm a New England sports fan, but still... You wouldn't want a soccer team made of carbon copies of David Beckham or even of Pele; you wouldn't want a basketball team made of multiple copies of LeBron James, or Shaquille O'Neal, or even Michael Jordan. Business organizations (like many sports teams) operate in a complex environment where they benefit from specialization.
So maybe you have direct report (let's call him "Bob") in your marketing department that isn't very creative at all, but is a great analyst. You have to do things: (1) you have to help Bob realize that he isn't all that creative, because to let him have a false sense of competence in a specific area isn't fair to him or to your organization; (2) you have to help Bob realize how his analytical abilities help the department as a whole, and how he can be even more help if he goes out and further develops his analytical abilities. Now, Bob is motivated to work on his strengths (because they have been recognized, and will help the organization), and is cognizant of his weak area (and so will allow others to be the strong ones in that area). Plus, because most of your feedback is focused on the positive, Bob is more likely to be proactive and creative in his use and development of his analytical abilities, will be more likely to step forward and communicate his skill to others, and will be more likely to reach out and partner with others who have complementary (rather than redundant) strengths.
The end result? A stronger team.
Much as I like David Ortiz, I don't want him trying to Red Sox entering into the post-season....
No comments:
Post a Comment