Feedback – a process that, incidentally, both the person who is giving and one who is receiving dread. What makes feedback so difficult for both the parties? It is primarily because both people do not know what to expect. When the associate walks into the room, she is unsure of how her manager interpreted her performance over the period. Similarly, manager is unsure of how her comments would be received by the associate. Both the parties are walking into the room expecting a confrontation, which creates a tense environment. Not a great place to begin having a feedback conversation.
Let me play out a typical scenario:
Raj (Manager) walks into the room to have feedback conversation with Jennie (associate). Raj is confident as he has prepared well for the meeting. He has all the details, data points captured well. He structured his conversation with all the right words. He sits down with Jennie and takes her through his evaluation. Jennie interrupts multiple times to ask questions. They disagree on many points as she has a different interpretation of the events from Raj. Raj, being the manager, finally prevails, gives her the rating, talks about what Jennie should be focusing on for next 6 months. Raj walks out of the meeting relieved that it is finally over and that Jennie would work on the action items for next 6 months. Jennie walks out of the meeting feeling angry that her performance has not been evaluated right and since there is no buy in on the points mentioned by Raj, there are no action items for her.
Where did this conversation end? What is the outcome of the time spent by both the manager and the associate? For both of them, it is an ordeal that has to be done with. Raj can now focus on other things for next 6 months and for Jennie, she will get over her anger (over time or through a role/job change) until it is time to have another conversation with her (old/new) manager.
How could this change where the feedback conversation is not an event but a process? Into a meeting that both the manager and associate could look forward to, a conversation that could translate the potential of the associate into performance, a conversation that would setup the associate for greater success?
Following are few building blocks that could make this conversation more effective:
Trust – Foundation for any effective interaction is trust. There has to be trust between manager and associate. Manager trusting associate that he/she has the right intent, willing to do what is right for the organization and for herself; and associate trusting manager that he has the right intent and is willing to invest in associate to be successful. More often than not, we find this missing. There are always questions about the intent. Manager has to take the first step to build this trust. This has to be done over a period of time (and not just at the merit or bonus time). Manager has to invest time to understand the associate – who she is, her aspirations, objectives, strengths, weaknesses, what excites her and what would not interest her etc. The best way to do this is through Listening. We usually find managers talk more while associates listen. To build trust and to understand the associate, it is important for manager to listen and for associate to talk. This should ideally be done through frequent short conversations as against one very long conversation.
Timely – It is important that manager shares his observations in a timely manner - as soon as he observes – both good and not so good behaviors/actions/outcomes. None of us are perfect and there are areas where we do well and areas we struggle. Manager has to be objective and share his observations with the associate in a timely manner. Doing it once in 3, 6 or 12 months brings in recent effect (where only actions/outcomes of the recent past are remembered or measured).
Fact based – While sharing observations it is important for Manager to be fact based. The conversation has to be data driven (as against based on interpretations). Managers always have to be cognizant on where they are operating on ladder of inference. Higher we are on the ladder, we are looking at the events based on filters/lens that we wear and hence we would be on a very slippery ground. It is important for manager just to be focused on the underlying data (without any filters). How many times have we seen that a manager does not find any weaknesses in a top performer and does not find any strong areas in a weak performer? Manager has to be data driven to ensure that there is a balanced view.
Team approach – Manager and associate have to work together as a team. It is important for the manager to give an opportunity to the associate to react to the data points (Note: Not interpretations). Manager and associate have to come to an agreement on what has worked well and what are the opportunities for the future. Through this approach, if there are certain points that do not have an agreement, it is ok. They should agree on an approach to observe together in those areas and to bring them up in their regular 1-1s. For the areas (both strengths and weaknesses) that they have agreement on, they should formulate an action plan and work on it. Action plan should have items both for the associate and for the manager.
Future oriented – One key aspect of any feedback conversation is that it should be future oriented. Past is gone and nothing can change it. It is important to focus the conversation on how it could mean a better future for both the associate and the manager as against focusing on the past mistakes/outcomes.
The above steps would make the feedback, a conversation that both the manager and the associate look forward to, a conversation that would happen many times a year (as against just around merit or bonus). More importantly, these steps would make feedback an easy and healthy conversation and such conversations would have significant impact on retention. How has been your experience on giving/receiving feedback?
No comments:
Post a Comment