No... it isn't "all about the conversation"… how the myth of the conversation gets in the way of performance.
Sergey Gorbatov, Ph.D.
Talent & Leadership Strategist | Author | Speaker | Transforming Human Capital
By Angela Lane & Sergey Gorbatov
The authors have a point of view on feedback. We love feedback.
What we don't love is the view that the so called "conversation" is everything. In fact, if we could ban the expression, "it's all about the conversation" we would. In fact, we wonder how HR let it seep into usage.
Why does “it’s all about conversation” sell? Three reasons. First, it’s easier. It takes the heat out of important performance conversations that bad managers now don’t have to have. Second, business leaders get swayed to believe by popular books and “gurus” that performance can be improved by “conversations” by-passing the important processes of goal-setting, measuring and giving clear feedback on performance. Finally, some 3rd parties are keeping themselves relevant by “helping” companies change their performance management practices; again.
We love feedback because we love performance.
If you want to improve performance, it isn't all about the conversation. And it is superficial to think so.
Performance requires that you translate specific feedback into
- a clear expectation of change, and
- a plan for change and, ultimately
- well ... actual change; real, observable, results-impacting change.
Let's look at what is wrong with perpetrating the myth of the "conversation".
Talking is important. It is the basis of most human interaction. Some denegrade it to the level of “chatting” and “informality”. This is where we want to make a point. What is a conversation? According to the Oxford dictionary, it is "A talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged". Ok ...so here are the three elements we don't like;
- "a talk". Feedback, if it is to be fair talk, has to be clear. “This is what I have seen or heard”. Specifically. “Here is how it impacts performance”. High integrity Leaders want to let their reports know what they should focus on. “Here is what good performance looks like”. It isn't conversational. It must to be more declarative than that. Otherwise you risk the message being blurred.
- "usually informal". Spontaneous, in-the-moment feedback is productive and helpful. It should still be developmental: (1) here is why this is important, (2) here is what I observe, and (3) here is what I expect. But in-the-moment does not make it informal; merely unplanned. Yet, being a Leader, your feedback is always important and, we assume, is intended to be acted upon. As such, it is always on record.
- "ideas are exchanged". If it is an exploration, then it is open for the parties to decide that it is, or isn't important. And even worse, it can become a negotiation. Neither is feedback. There is no fairness in passing feedback off as an exchange of ideas. It is an important performance message.
So why the emphasis on conversation all of a sudden?
It is part of a bigger trend to replace processes with arguably more humane systems of appreciate feedback, often focused on strengths, with regular frequency and with the goal of taking the edge off, by removing ratings or distribution curves, to arrive at a more mature, user-friendly approach. However, would anyone here raise their hand to argue that more than 5% of their manager population can deliver pithy, helpful, timely, fair performance feedback without the support of a rating? This is called sacrificing performance on the altar of pleasing the customer. CEB found that “employee performance drops by around 10% when ratings are removed because of breakdowns in managers' ability to manage and a fall in employee engagement”. Let’s be true to science, facts and common sense and do what is right vs. “we are here to please”.
Being honest. Reaching agreement. Holding one another to what is agreed.
It isn't conversational. But actually it is mature, and, if not exactly user-friendly, it certainly is fair.
After all - without it - you just might get blah .. blah .. blah ..
*This post represents the authors’ personal opinions and not those of their employers.
** Want to join the #conversation on "the conversation". Share this post and feel free to leave comments!
I'll jump on the controversial bandwagon although I understand the intent of the article and agree that casual chats won't create needed change. In any "conversation" surrounding performance, great managers ensure that there is a clear understanding of the problem and defined steps for improvement. Some managers are clearly not be doing it well but it doesn't negate the need for there to be a real conversation surrounding performance. The exchange of information in the conversation doesn't make this a negotiation and it can provide better clarity on the root cause and what will be effective in terms of corrective action. It will always be important for me as a leader to engage in conversation with my directs that is meaningful, actionable and leads to higher levels of performance. Engaging them in the conversation and ensuring we're finding solutions together is half the battle.
Executive Coach - Course Leader ?Actuate Global | Bespoke Business Solutions | Unlocking True Potential.
8 年Sergey Gorbatov - Thanks for sharing this interesting article. I really like the fact that you're challenging the notion of "conversations" in feedback. I agree that it needs to be more focused than just a pure "chat" in order to achieve the kind of behavioural changes that will ultimately end up in performance enhancements. If people don't know what to change, how can you expect anyone to change. You also need to take into consideration the "cultural" context when addressing others, some want to have more "circular" conversations before getting to the point, others will want you to go directly to the point. My experience is that for feedback to have a direct impact on performance, it must be done as often as possible and addressing what people can actually change and not what they "might" be able to change. Facebook did away with performance ratings and then decided to reinstate it as people were concerned with the fact that it became too opaque and the top performers weren't fairly recognised. Also, I believe that they probably felt highly uncomfortable giving feedback that was not only based on data.
Talent & Leadership Strategist | Author | Speaker | Transforming Human Capital
8 年Greg Beckman, appreciate the comment and bringing in the WHAT and HOW into the discussion. Both are important. Our position is that neither is happening enough to effectuate meaningful behavioral change to bring about greater performance. The HOW is, of course, situational and the message may be adapted to a specific person/circumstance, but it must be delivered in a clear and straightforward manner: tell me why it matters, tell me how i did and tell me what i need to do differently. It's not a chat about "well, how did you think it's going" that many are advocating for.
As a leader and developer, I inspire others through curiosity and partnership
8 年I do agree that the fundamentals must be secure. Both the leader and the recipient of the feedback must be grounded in what is the be discussed and how it was generated. I respectfully disagree that the communication ability of the leader or the quality of the communication is not impactful. Too often, accurate and actionable feedback is delivered in an androit style devoid of customization to the situation. I do not believe you are saying - just read the statements and move on - however, the ability of a leader to not only understand the context of the feedback to improve performance but the sensitivity to delivery it effectively is paramount. Managers observe and comment on performance - leaders communicate and create the psychological shock necessary for discretionary effort in reports. Always love these posts. Thanks for writing.
AI Mobility / Business Development Manager @ TomTom
8 年Very inspirational. Thanks for sharing!