(Human resources) Treating performance

Good performance should always be treated differently than poor performance. For most of us, providing negative feedback is more difficult than providing positive feedback for two reasons: Most of us are uncomfortable dealing with unacceptable performance, and the correct response to unacceptable performance requires a critical choice between two types of feedback – redirection and negative.

Consider the following unacceptable outcome: A golf course maintenance employee fails to correctly complete a checklist of actions in the expected time. Our first response is to reprimand the employee. However, we must consider the context of the unacceptable performance. Compare:

1. Several of the actions on the list are relatively new to the employee, and several unusual situations were present. The employee made every effort to succeed.
2. The employee is experienced in all of the actions on the list, and no unusual situations were present.

Now let’s examine the two explanations for the unacceptable task completion.

• The failure to complete the list can be explained by the situation – the context of the performance. The employee wasn’t sufficiently skilled at some actions, and there were unusual circumstances; and
• The failure to complete the list can’t be explained by the context. The failure to complete the list can only be explained by the employee’s behavior. He didn’t make a satisfactory effort to complete the tasks, or he didn’t concentrate enough to complete the tasks correctly and on time.

In the first explanation, where we determined the failure to perform was caused by the situation or the context of the performance, redirection feedback is the correct response. With redirection feedback, we communicate:

• The employee isn’t at fault. It’s crucial the employee not feel he’s being punished. Instead, you’re committing to work with the employee to achieve successful performance;
• The performance, in this case the failure to complete the checklist, isn’t acceptable; and
• Changes are required in the context to enable successful performance. Training, coaching and encouragement are needed. In this case, the employee would be trained, coached and supported to master the required skills and learn approaches to handle the unusual situations.

Communicating a redirection feedback message – the performance wasn’t acceptable but the employee isn’t at fault – is a challenge. Positive feedback – about the appropriate attitudes and specific tasks that were completed successfully – is an important and complementary part of redirection feedback.
You’re also providing the training, coaching and encouragement required for the employee to succeed. The employee must believe he’s being treated fairly while recognizing he must improve performance.

The second explanation for the incomplete task list, where the context can’t explain the failure, calls for a different response. Because the context doesn’t explain the failure, the only remaining explanation is the employee’s behavior – effort level, commitment, motivation and concentration. Negative feedback must be used. The negative feedback – reminder, reprimand and punishment – must produce sufficient discomfort to cause a change in behavior that will result in successful performance.

The difficulty with any choice – in this case redirection or negative feedback – is that the wrong choice can be made. One incorrect choice is common and potentially disastrous. The frequent errors are explained by a fundamental characteristic of human nature:

• When explaining our own performance, we tend to overestimate the importance of the context and underestimate the importance of our behavior; and
• When explaining the performance of others, we tend to underestimate the importance of the context and to overestimate the importance of the behaviors.
In the supervisory situation with unacceptable performance, this means:
• The employee tends to blame the unacceptable performance on the context – lack of training, ineffective supervision, unpredictable circumstances, unreasonable expectations – and tends to not believe his behaviors are the reason for the unacceptable performance; and
• The supervisor tends to blame the unacceptable performance on the employee’s behaviors – effort, motivation and commitment – and tends to not believe the context had an impact on the unacceptable performance.

Think of a recent example when someone blamed you personally (provided negative feedback) when you felt the culprit was the context (should have received redirection feedback). We believe we’ve been treated unfairly. A perception of fairness is one  ingredient in building trust in any relationship, including the supervisor/employee relationship. Anytime feelings of unfairness appear, the relationship is damaged.

I suspect many supervisor/employee problems are a result of the supervisor’s use of negative feedback when the employee expected redirection feedback. This situation is common. What should the supervisor do? First, be careful of your use of negative feedback. Use redirection if there’s any possibility in your mind the context might be the cause of the unacceptable performance. Second, when delivering negative feedback, be sensitive to the likelihood the employee might be clinging to the context as the culprit and take the time to clarify why the context isn’t the cause of the performance failure.

Providing performance feedback to employees is like everything else – it has the greatest impact when done correctly every time. Keep the following in mind:

• Performance is influenced the most by consequences; and
• Choosing the wrong form of feedback or communication can damage the supervisor/employee relationship. The most damaging is the use of negative feedback when redirection is needed.

Correctly using these ideas can improve employee performance, employee and supervisor job satisfaction, and the supervisor/employee relationship significantly. Begin immediately by explicitly planning to do three things:

1. Focus on employee’s performance;
2. Provide copious amounts of positive feedback where appropriate; and
3. When you find performance is below expectations, decide whether redirection or negative feedback is needed. GCN

Robert A. Milligan, Ph.D., is professor emeritus from Cornell University and senior consultant with Madison, Wis.-based Dairy Strategies. He can be reached at 651-647-0495 or rmilligan@trsmith.com.