Motivating and Focusing Effort With Performance Feedback

The pandemic has resulted in more work being done remotely, with people out of sight with each other (except for images consisting of pixels). This physical distance makes transmission of meaning within communications more difficult, even though factual information may still be transmitted. There is less spontaneous interaction between people who must work together effectively, which often results in important things not being shared.

Research has shown that when someone knows what is expected and how well (s)he is doing on a continuous basis it maximizes the right kind of motivation. [see summary of research at CEBMa.org]. “What is measured and rewarded you most surely will get more of” is a principle that is also supported by research.?That mandates mutual agreement between the organization and the employee as to what is and what should be measured and rewarded. Motivation requires both effort and focus and it must be sustained for the appropriate time. Feedback is the engine for guiding effort and redirecting focus when required.

Recent pronouncements in the practitioner literature make the claim that continuous performance measurement and feedback is the new best thing. That is half right: it isn’t new, but it is a best thing. No organization can expect a performance management system to be effective if managers set expectations at the start of the year, do nothing during the year, and then evaluate performance at the end of the year. This will result in the employee and the manager attempting to re-create the year through memory. They will then meet to argue about whose recollections are accurate (neither will be).?

The factor that complicates performance management is that it involves people. Those people have intent, agendas, wants, and needs and this results in making it difficult to gain agreement on the quality of each individual's performance.

Cognitive bias causes people to:

1. Attribute success to their own efforts and attribute failure to uncontrollable external forces,

2. Retrieve positive memories and suppress unpleasant ones, and

3. Believe their performance is better than it is.

These pre-dispositions can make gaining acceptance of performance evaluations challenging. They also contribute to the reality that performance management is frequently the weakest component of workforce management. When our team was creating the SPHR/PHR certification program we found HR practitioners to be the weakest in performance management, followed closely by rewards management.

The model below provides a process that enables performance management systems to be effective. Its critical characteristic is continuous measurement and feedback. It is not a cure-all; participating parties still need to show up and perform their roles well. But it is a pre-requisite for systems to perform well.

Continuous measurement provides the necessary information and feedback signals the need to consider redirecting the focus when it is appropriate. If someone’s role changes it should be refined to reflect reality at that time. If objectives or their relative importance change that should be immediately redefined to guide future efforts.?Continuous measurement can be both objective and subjective. Sales volume lends itself to quantitative measurement. Evaluating the quality of a sales presentation requires subjective assessment. Once measurement occurs it can be used to provide feedback that informs all concerned how things are going, and perhaps what is needed to improve the results.?It can consist of good news (what went well), bad news (what needs improvement), alternatives for improving results, guidance for future behavior and the commitments required by involved parties. For it to be of value it must be accepted as accurate and equitable.

Claims that providing frequent feedback obviates the need for performance appraisals has no support from research findings. When performance appraisal ratings are no longer used there is a tendency for performance to decline. Without appraisals administrative actions must be left to managerial judgment. This can lead to inconsistent standards across the organization and result in inequitable outcomes. Organizations claiming to pay for performance must use credible systems that are credibly administered. Pay equity is a major concern today and attempting to defend pay differences across employee categories (gender, race, ethnicity, beliefs, age) without appraisals means justification must be done with claims that managers used their best judgment and were not subject to bias. This is a nightmare for the organization's attorney in pay discrimination litigation.?

What Constitutes Effective Feedback?

Feedback must be of the appropriate type.?Feedback can be evaluative (quality of performance), informative (re-establish expectations) or developmental (improve knowledge/skills). If an employee is making costly errors when using a new system, it may be due to a lack of skill/knowledge, a lack of effort or external factors. Measurement only establishes that errors are being made. Attribution is required to determine why performance was what it was. Causes must be diagnosed to determine why errors occur, so they can be corrected. A lack of skill may result in training being prescribed. A lack of effort requires counseling aimed at increasing it. And if the errors are not under the employee’s control, (s)he should not be held accountable for the outcomes.?

Feedback must also be delivered by the appropriate party. The provider must know what the results are relative to standards and to understand the likely causes. When subordinates are working on projects for different project managers the supervisor may not receive continuous information on their performance. This makes it necessary to mandate assessments by project managers that help the supervisor make an informed judgment about performance. When employees know they are being evaluated by someone who has accurate information they are more likely to believe in the validity of those evaluations.

The feedback must also be delivered in a manner that is viewed as accurate, equitable and respectful. A manager suggesting that an employee is making too many errors because he or she does not care about quality will not facilitate acceptance and openness to improvement. Since the manager has no way to know what the employee cares about that attribution is certain to be rejected. It is the responsibility of the appraiser to make accurate attributions concerning the cause of the errors and to ensure the employee understands they are being fairly treated. Feedback must be timely as well… rehashing events from times past accomplishes little.

All stakeholders in the performance management process must also understand their obligations, which is best accomplished by providing training. When assisting organizations with the training effort I insist that everyone is in the room hearing the same thing. This means that both managers and employees are present. Letting policies “trickle down” is apt to lead to distortion. Everyone must understand their responsibilities and know what is expected of them. When employees have permission to speak up if they are not clear on the current expectations, they become responsible for requesting feedback to rectify that.?

There is value in conducting “frame of reference” training for all parties who will appraise others. Inconsistency across managers when performance standards are created is a significant problem that must be addressed. If one manager rates 90% of his or her subordinates as “Outstanding” while another rates only 5% at that level it should prompt further analysis. Frame of reference training involves having managers work in groups to agree on the appropriate ratings for subjects in a case study, after having rated them individually. The dialogue contributes to standards that are more equivalent. Knowing managers have had their standards “calibrated” will increase employee beliefs that they are being treated equivalently.???

When something is committed to writing it becomes more "real." If an interim performance record is maintained during the year (a form of a CPR, or continuous performance review) it enables both the supervisor and the employee to make actual events available for review when appraisals are done. Giving both parties the opportunity to refresh memories prior to preparing an appraisal will enhance the chances that they will differ less in interpreting what occurred during the performance period. Using technology makes this record keeping practical.

Conclusion

Employees who know what is expected and how they are doing on a continuous basis are more likely to perform well and to be satisfied. Continuous measurement and feedback contribute to producing that desired state.?

About the Author:

Robert Greene, PhD, is CEO at Reward $ystems, Inc., a Consulting Principal at Pontifex and a faculty member for DePaul University in their MSHR and MBA programs. Greene?speaks and teaches globally? on human resource management. His consulting practice is focused on helping organizations succeed through people. Greene has written 4 books and hundreds of articles about human resource management throughout his career.

• Strategic Talent Management: Creating The Right Workforce
• The Most Important Asset: Valuing Human Capitol
• Rewarding Performance Globally [with Fons Trompenaars] ?
• Rewarding Performance: Guiding Principles; Custom Strategies? (2d Edition)

His latest book entitled "Strategic Talent Management: Creating The Right Workforce" with a promotional offer code from the publisher, Routledge is?available here .