Effective Performance Feedback discusses the key elements of providing constructive feedback, including being planned, focusing on behavior not personality, and emphasizing future improvement. It also addresses common barriers like discomfort, defensiveness, and reluctance to change, providing strategies to overcome these through preparing, being positive and perspective-taking. The presentation aims to help managers have productive feedback discussions that motivate employees to improve performance.
Survey Thank those who submitted responses. Does anyone else want to share an experience?
Ask the group to state what they think are the key elements?
Pea Humour!!
Planned Data gathered over time Conversation is mapped out and rehearsed Perfectly-timed Delivered as soon as possible after the event Delivered in the appropriate “Place and Space” Performance-focused Based on objective data, objectively gathered Target the behaviour not the person Pertinent Task specific ‘ Knowledge of Results’ Personalised Linked closely with the individual’s unique situation Personalised not Personal Perceptive Observations must be considered and insightful Perceptions of ‘self’ and ‘others’ must be first validated then aligned Picturesque Provide a rich picture of desired behaviour Model the behaviour required as a template for the coachee emPathic Deliver feedback with consideration given to the perspective of the recipient Purposeful Designed to reinforce (strengthen) desirable behaviour and extinguish (weaken) non desirable behaviour Achieve the desired outcomes Positive Build s elf-esteem into the feedback Progressive Leading to ‘recordable learning’ (‘Register of Accomplishment’) Ensure progress is achievable in the process Paced Move at a speed just above that of the coachee Reinforcement schedules
Time to Review – Feedback Dilemma Mitchell has been working in AEMO’s corporate finance department for 6 years. He is considered a top performer with excellent financial skills. To date, he has received exceptional performance review ratings. Eight months ago, as a result of his consistently high performance, Mitchell was promoted into a manager position supported by four analysts. Anne, Mitchell’s manager, believes Mitchell has done a great job transitioning from an individual contributor to a supervisory role. As evidence, she cites the strong business results that Mitchell’s team has achieved since Mitchell took over. In recent weeks, Anne was surprised to hear from one of Mitchell’s peers that Mitchell’s direct reports are unhappy with his management style. In preparation for writing Mitchell’s annual performance review, she sought feedback from his dotted line manager, other peers and clients. The feedback is consistent. It appears that Mitchell is a micro-manager and gets involved in every aspect of his direct reports’ day-to`-day decisions. In addition, the two female team members perceive that Mitchell works more closely with the male team members. Anne is perplexed. The feedback she has received from others clearly contradicts her own observations of Mitchell in his new management position. Anne is uncertain how to proceed in writing Mitchell’s annual performance review. She has openly praised him; a low People score will be a surprise and will result in a very difficult performance discussion. How should Anne proceed?