How to build an effective performance and feedback culture
At least once a year, employees and managers alike are horrified by one of the central instruments of personnel management, the appraisal interview. By March of the new year at the latest, the performance of the employees is to be evaluated and their development prospects discussed in a constructive exchange of ideas - at least that is the theory. In practice, however, employee appraisals have many pitfalls that call their usefulness into question in many ways.
The problem of appraisal interviews
The discussions sometimes take a lot of time, require careful preparation and are all too often perceived as unpleasant. Despite extensive preparation, the differences in self-perception and external perception can create a large discrepancy between the manager and the employee. As a result, employees tend to fundamentally question the objective judgement of their interviewer: "He had so much to do over the year anyway... He couldn't have noticed everything I did... Besides, she never saw me in Project xy...".
In most cases, the chance of a truly constructive exchange with the manager is not taken advantage of. Instead, there is uncertainty as to whether and in what form feedback can or "may" be returned to the manager. Against this background, an asymmetrical relationship creeps in almost automatically in the course of the conversation. The employees feel pushed into a kind of justification position, which is favoured not least by the perception of the interview as a pure performance assessment "from above".
On the other hand, each time the manager is confronted with the individuality and a different degree of critical faculties of his counterpart. Again and again she has to ask herself: "Touch with kid gloves or draw attention directly to the construction sites?"
Through the widespread use of phrases requiring interpretation, the problem is often circumvented on a situational basis, especially when there is an absolute need for negative feedback. However, the interviewer will never be able to clearly see the urgency of a change in behaviour in this context. Likewise, some employees seem to have developed some kind of immunity to external feedback. Both praise and criticism seem somehow to be accepted, but not accepted.
One of the reasons for this immunity is undoubtedly that a strength-oriented management style that really builds on strengths and does not act deficit-oriented is far too rare. In this way, most of the discussions are spent with the deficits to be remedied, instead of talking about the real strengths and talents and trying to expand and expand them. But Steve de Shazer's sentence still applies: "Problem talk creates problems, solution talk creates solutions".
In short: appraisal interviews are relatively expensive and involve many hidden pitfalls for everyone involved. In most cases, the problems identified lead to the talks often having little effect. Desired and even necessary behavioural changes do not occur. In extreme cases, this can lead to stagnation or even a reduction in performance. In this way, employee interviews become a waste of time - an important instrument of strategic personnel development.
Feedback + healthy working climate = higher work quality
A study by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs was able to prove a positive correlation between the perceived quality of work and the conduct of appraisal interviews. Where such discussions took place with a certain regularity, the employees showed a higher job satisfaction, a higher enthusiasm for their work and a higher willingness to remain in the company than employees with whom no discussions were held (2016). From this positive correlation, however, it cannot be concluded that an implementation per se increases job satisfaction. The higher quality of work perceived by employees can rather be interpreted as the effect of a healthy working atmosphere that facilitates constructive feedback communication between management and employees. Put more simply, if a company's culture encourages exchanges between employees and managers, their employees (including managers) are more satisfied than in companies where exchanges do not take place.
Thus, despite their problems, appraisal interviews should not be dispensed with. However, a culture should be created that stimulates communication between managers and employees. In practice, this raises the question of how you can design effective feedback communication without getting caught in the pitfalls of an appraisal interview.
How to build an effective performance and feedback culture
The concept of a "healthy organization" is based on the principles of "relationships at eye level" and "community culture", which promote a continuous, constructive exchange based on trust and respect. Errors are seen as learning opportunities. In this way, a corporate culture is established in which feedback is not limited to instruments such as employee interviews, but is integrated as an integral part of everyday working life. In this cultural environment, employees develop a distinct ability to reflect and criticize.
The following are some of the impulses that can help to shape such a culture:
- The previous hierarchical feedback communication allows you to view the perspectives of colleagues and customers. In the course of digitization, it is becoming increasingly easy to obtain permanent feedback through appropriate apps in order to obtain a comprehensive perspective on a person's behavior and performance. For example, after the completion of a project, the people involved can be invited to provide brief feedback. Feedback can thus be given easily and independently of time and space. Such 360° feedback gives employees and managers a much more comprehensive and valid picture. Development opportunities can thus be better shown in detail. You can also counteract the doubt of a one-dimensional evaluation by a supposedly purely subjective view.
- Another instrument for establishing a sustainable feedback culture is the open evaluation of performance at team level. Since individual goals no longer make sense in today's complex working world (and have never really made any sense - apart from a few exceptions), there is an open exchange at team level about who contributes what to success within a project or a certain period of time. In this way, the assessment of performance is de-hierarchized, made transparent, the employees' sense of community is strengthened and differences in performance at colleague level are encouraged.
- The temporal separation between development and evaluation interviews makes psychological sense. Two effects play an important role here. If the employee does not agree with the evaluation of his performance, the necessary opening will be limited with regard to his further development. This can lead to a threat to self-esteem that creates an immediate protective mechanism in which constructive exchange is not possible. Subsequently, development measures are agreed upon, behind which the employee does not really stand. If the performance rating is positive, the undesirable effect can creep in, which is why someone should change if the desired performance is achieved.
On the management side, on the other hand, there can be reward effects to make the employee feel positive. However, the measure, e.g. a seminar, does not always fit the person and their working context.
The separation of development and evaluation also enables a clear focus within the discussions and leaves room for personal needs and preferences.
- The distinction between rule feedback, event feedback and spontaneous feedback can help to establish the desired feedback culture. Rule feedback refers to the regular appraisal interviews. Event feedback refers to certain situations, such as project completion. Spontaneous feedback is given out of the situation. For all types of feedback, it has proven useful to agree on a simple model throughout the organization. The 3-W model (perception, effect, desire), for example, is concise but still contains the most important elements for professional feedback. Encouraging all employees that feedback does not only take place in "regular conversations", but in numerous situations, with simultaneous application of a uniform model, can contribute significantly to a natural handling of feedback.
Conclusion
Employee interviews are time-consuming and can miss their true purpose if used incorrectly. Correctly implemented, they contribute significantly to higher job satisfaction and become the central instrument of feedback communication. A fundamental prerequisite for an effective performance and feedback culture is the creation of a collaborative culture in which employees and managers can meet at eye level and engage in constructive exchange. A healthy organisation is characterised by the fact that feedback is firmly integrated into everyday working life, takes place at all company levels and between all employees.
If you are interested in this topic or have questions, then please inform yourself further about our services in the area of strategic personnel development or simply contact us.
Literature:
- Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (2016): Research monitor "Personnel Development and Continuing Education".