Effective feedback is central to the process of helping people  – both for those working ‘on-site’ and especially those working remotely.  Indeed, it is the most effective way for employees to learn about themselves and the effect their behaviour has on others. On receipt of such feedback one can assess its value and the consequences of ignoring or acting upon it.  But the bottom line is that if one is not open to feedback and/or does not receive it, one’s scope for development is severely restricted.

Of course, the reality is that constructive feedback can increase self-awareness, raise options and encourage personal development.  Hence, it is especially important for people managers to know how and when to give it.  Unfortunately, many don’t. As a result, some managers avoid the process, whilst others try and end up delivering what is often destructive and detrimental. The upshot of badly delivered feedback is that it leaves staff feeling upset, resentful, with nothing to build on and maybe even considering their options in a buoyant jobs market. 

‘Feedback’ and Performance Management ⚓︎

One of the more high-profile allegations in respect of a failure to furnish feedback arises with the annual announcement of Performance Management and Development (P.M.D.S.) system ratings across the Irish Civil Service. As the title suggests, the P.M.D.S. is the main tool deployed for managing performance and the personal development of ~40,000 civil servants. On foot of its latest release (for 2018), the Secretary General at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform felt obliged to go public and point out that the number of staff rated as ‘underperformers’ was not in keeping with what one would expect for such a large organisation. This negative assessment of the P.M.D.S. process is nothing new, and was in response to data showing that a mere 0.17% of civil servants received an ‘unsatisfactory’ rating, with the balance of 99.83% receiving a ‘satisfactory’ rating (and as a consequence securing their annual pay increment). Notably, 27 of the 44 departments, agencies and offices operating across the service allocated a 100% ‘satisfactory’ rating to their staff.

The Secretary General’s assessment tallies with the conclusions reached in a recent research paper produced by the University of Limerick for the aforementioned Department. Based upon a survey of over 21,000 civil servants, their research found that there was a reluctance among managers to ‘deal with under-performance’, noting that many of those surveyed regarded P.M.D.S. as a ‘box ticking exercise’ that ‘failed in its objectives to increase performance and support career development’. There’s nothing new in this assessment, as it dovetails with the (2011) research findings of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the same subject - and those of many equivalent reviews in other jurisdictions over the years. 

‘Feedback’ and Legal Decisions  ⚓︎

At a further practical level, it’s notable that the provision – or absence - of feedback is central to determinations from third parties. For example, the dismissal of a long-serving Operations Manager was upheld recently at the Workplace Relations Commission (W.R.C.), because the respondent employer was able to show that the dismissed employee was invited to attend performance review meetings on 6 occasions (ADJ-00013504).

Around the same time, an accountant’s dismissal was upheld by a W.R.C. Adjudicator as he noted that the complainant had been placed on a performance improvement plan and provided with an internal mentor to assist her (ADJ-00017850). A similar scenario unfolded recently at Google, in the rejection of a race-related discriminatory dismissal claim from a Kenyan citizen working in a ‘user advocacy’ role. In this instance the Commission’s Adjudication Officer rejected the claim and upheld the dismissal, putting store in the fact that ‘Google raised performance issues and dealt with such via a process’ (DEC-E2017-088).

In a subsequent case before the Commission, an Adjudication Officer’s fair dismissal finding drew attention to the fact that a personal improvement plan had been initiated in respect of the complainant ‘after a series of one to one meetings’ (ADJ-00008157). Shortly thereafter, another case before the W.R.C. claiming disability discrimination was successfully defended, with the employer showing that he had implemented a performance improvement process with the employee that involved ‘regular meetings’ (ADJ-00018924). Likewise, in 2018 the Labour Court confirmed that the dismissal of a Supervising Pharmacist at Boots chemist was fair, noting that he had been placed on 5 separate performance improvement plans between 2010 and 2016.

Notably, the other side of the same coin - involving the absence of feedback and appropriate communication - has also featured in recent decisions from the W.R.C., with verdicts going in the claimants’ favour. For example, the Head of Business Development in a credit union was found to have been unfairly dismissed, as the Commission’s Adjudication Officer could find ‘no record of any formal communication with the complainant that actually put him on notice of the specific concerns’ (ADJ-00013116). Subsequently, in a separate case concerning a manager working for a drugs rehabilitation service provider, the Adjudication Officer held that the employer should have warned the employee that her job was in jeopardy (ADJ-00017882).

Good Feedback Practices ⚓︎

Given that the provision of feedback is arguably the key component of every manger’s job, with significant implications for performance, personal development and perhaps even court room proceedings, it’s worth listing the key ‘good practices’ normally associated with giving feedback:

Ask, Listen and Keep Control

By using a structure via a series of prepared open questions, the employee may end up doing all the work, as they diagnose the problem(s) and then prescribe the solution(s) thereto (i.e. the self-diagnosis and self-prescription route). Should the employee refuse or fail to work it out for themselves, it is then important to have concrete examples to support one’s feedback. Effective listening also shows that one is making and taking the time to tune into an employee’s concerns and their take on the problematic issue(s). Related thereto, given the prospect of heightened anxiety levels, it is important to try to maintain an independent manner and tone and to avoid displaying or provoking negative emotions like anger, sarcasm or disappointment. In this regard, the avoidance of pre-judgements or arguments should help direct the exchange toward an agreed and effective outcome.

Tackle the Problem not the Person

In line with the aforementioned avoidance of pre-judgements and arguments, constructive feedback should focus on outcomes and impartial observations, as opposed to the employee's personality or personal attributes. By addressing the shortcoming in a factual manner, rather than one’s personal opinion about it, one can display a genuine concern about fixing the problem, rather than doing damage by trying to do the impossible (i.e. ‘fixing’ the employee's personality).

Praise

Give praise or positive feedback when and where appropriate. And ensure that the ratio of ‘positives’ far outstrips those of ‘constructive criticisms’. Indeed, as part of this process, if one can get the employee to talk about what they’re good at, then there’s some hope that they may open up about their ‘development needs’ (i.e. weaknesses). This balanced approach can also help ensure that one doesn’t criticise an employee’s overall performance, but focuses on aspects thereof that can be improved to the benefit of all. As Alex Ferguson - Britain’s most successful sports’ manager of the 20th century explains – ‘well done – those are the best 2 words in football’.

Be Direct and Specific

Fear of a negative reaction frequently forces managers into giving feedback indirectly or via technology (e.g. e-mail, text message or phone). If the issue is that important, find a quiet, private and appropriately laid out venue, where one can have an honest and appropriate 1:1 chat. Whilst it’s standard (and often appropriate) to establish rapport and ‘break the ice’ at the outset, one should avoid obfuscating and beating around the bush, in favour of conveying the all-important message directly.

If the employee can’t work it out for themselves, further to judicious prompts (or questions) from the manager, one has to tell the employee what warrants improvement – and why. That is, one should be crystal clear about what the actual shortcoming is. If necessary, outline how the shortcoming impacts on others and the overall business. The more specific the feedback is, the more helpful and actionable it should also be. This may give rise to setting objectives or targets with the employee, and the practical deployment of a joint problem-solving approach, via the S.M.A.R.T. mnemonic (i.e. objectives or targets that are Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Timebound).

Summarise and Record

As with any important exchange, it is advisable to summarise the key points at the end of the meeting. However, one should encourage the employee to summarise first. This is an effective technique for ascertaining how close or far apart the manager and the employee actually are (i.e. to what extent there really has been a ‘meeting of minds’ on the relevant issue(s)). Having an agreed summary of the meeting’s key points will ease any subsequent obligatory form-filling task. This record will ultimately prove crucial should ‘push come to shove’ with parties ending up before the courts. Of course, a manager with the requisite skills at giving - and receiving - feedback is less likely to find her/himself in such a confrontational and costly forum!

Conclusion
  ⚓︎

To conclude, it is evident that by providing honest and meaningful feedback to employees along the aforementioned lines, good managers can: 

• minimise the prospect of losing both the employee to a competitor and any legal action that may surface as a result of alleged mismanagement;  
• motivate staff in a manner that enables ongoing improved performance;
• help fix the problem, including those scenarios where performance is impaired by an employee’s personal problems (i.e. via the self-diagnosis and self-prescription route);
• enable staff development, by helping staff to exploit their strengths and to focus on their development needs;
• open lines of communication, as feedback is used as a ‘2-way street’, to the benefit of all parties;
• increase employee engagement, by acknowledging the employee’s value and agreeing how they can further maximise their personal progress and contribution to the organisation.

Source: McMahon, G., SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: EFFECTIVE STRATEGY, BEST PRACTIE AND KEY SKILLS, Liffey Press, Dublin.

How to... Receive Feedback, Dr Gerry McMahon

Feedback is the most effective way for us to learn more about ourselves and the effect that our behaviour has on other people. Therefore, it is important to know – both in the workplace and elsewhere - how to give, and how to receive it. Dr Gerry McMahon provides us with guidelines which may be useful for getting the best out of the overall feedback system and summarises with a 4 point checklist.

Read the full article