TM - October 2007 - (Page 23) mon. Generally, feedback was directed toward employees who needed the kind of attention no one really likes. The other aspect of feedback we keep hearing so much about is how difficult it is for managers to deliver negative feedback to their employees. At the same time, employees give many managers poor marks for never having anything good to say about their work. Which is it? Are managers shy about delivering criticism, or do they only criticize and hold back praise? Today’s managers must treat every comment, suggestion, observation and criticism with care so as not to introduce discontent into the delicate fabric of employee morale or hinder engagement. Often, feeble attempts at humor are deconstructed, parsed and analyzed for insensitivity and prejudice, and stoicism is frowned upon as being out of step with workers’ needs. More and more, managers are graded on their ability to motivate and retain critical organizational talent. They are beginning to be evaluated on a set of specific employee communication competencies, and gaps are being addressed with a new breed of soft-skill training designed to provide tools to help managers become better communicators. The ability to have a critical conversation (one meant to address issues that might be challenging, frustrating or even frightening for both manager and employee) is one of those new competencies that is starting to show up on the manager’s performance review form. Everyone knows what it feels like to have your boss awkwardly invite you into his or her office and utter those seven deadly words, “Close the door and have a seat.” Both the manager and the employee dread the closed-door meeting, but it’s much better than what many do when confronted with a tough workplace issue: avoidance. The strategy here is to hope things work themselves out and that employees put the good of the company ahead of their personal issues (such as petty office politics, unfair treatment, compensation issues, or being overwhelmed and underappreciated). It also would be great if managers immediately addressed their own missteps in failing to deal with underperformers or allowing the office bully to run over good workers, or if they apologized for not recognizing a superior effort. There are many great managers who are accountable and immediately come clean when they make a mistake, and there are many great employees who put the good of the team ahead of their personal issues. But avoiding these direct and difficult conversations can lead to resentment and disengagement on both sides. Eventually, one side cracks, and what might have been a conversation turns into a confronta- tion. At this point, when dialogue and understanding become most important, we get anger, frustration and, more often than not, damaged relationships and deteriorating morale. Other tactics are less feeble than avoiding the situation, but they are ineffective nonetheless. Both leaving a voicemail or sending an e-mail involve a hit-and-run. The former can communicate nuances in a message because the receiver can hear tone, and attempts at humor or levity come through as intended. The latter is just bad form for addressing employee problems — E-mail can be helpful. It allows the sender to choose words carefully, but the risk of misinterpretation and the potential for long e-mail chains can be extremely dangerous. Let’s re-examine the point that managers seem to criticize too easily and hold back praise but simultaneously struggle to deliver negative feedback. On the surface, it seems as if this is inconsistent behavior. What it really reveals is a stark difference in formal versus informal feedback. Unfortunately for managers, just about everything they do sends a message — every sigh, every joke that cuts a little too close, every unreturned e-mail or dropped hint all send informal feedback messages to employees. A good example of this formal/informal feedback issue can be witnessed at any baseball game. Imagine you are given an evaluation form and asked to rate the umpire’s performance in several dimensions, including accuracy of calling balls and strikes, rule interpretation and calls on the bases. Even if your child got called out on a close play at first or your team lost because of a called third strike 6 inches outside, you’d take the entire performance into account before making your evaluations. You’d think, “Yeah, he missed a call or two but, overall, he was consistent and called a good game.” In contrast, during the actual game, your feedback might be slightly biased — you’d point out where you feel the umpire is underperforming. How often do you hear a fan yell, “Great consistency, ump! Your strike zone is awesome today!”? In fact, conventional sports wisdom says that if the umpire was invisible (received no feedback), he had a good game. Although these are a few favorite bits of feedback that came from the bleachers, you wouldn’t see the following comments on an umpire’s performance review: • “Hey, blue! I’ve seen better eyes on a potato!” • (Holding up your cell phone) “Hey, ump! Is this your cell phone? Thought it was yours — it’s got three missed calls!” • “I thought only horses slept standing up!” This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the difference between formal and informal feedback — the latter isn’t all that useful for developing a better October 2007 talent management magazine www.TalentMgt.com 23 http://www.TalentMgt.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.