Performance feedback (AKA constructive criticism) is not something leader or team members look forward to. Why when conventional wisdom makes it so popular?

Albert Einstein once said: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results."

Research on performance feedback indicates that it works about one third of the time, while about one third of the time it makes things worse, and about one third of the time it has no effect.

There are a number of beliefs about performance feedback that are not supported by research, such as "feedback leads to improved performance" and "immediate feedback is more effective than delayed feedback.

However, here is what is supported by research:

1) Feedback on process and successful results improves performance.

2) Feedback appears to have more effect on cognitive than physical tasks.

3) Feedback that is threatening to self-esteem has negative effects.

4) Feedback has a stronger effect on memory than rule-following tasks: it is more powerful in improving recognition and memory recall than application of procedures, principles, or problem solving.

5) Immediate feedback appears to be beneficial for simple or neutral tasks. For complex tasks it appears that delayed feedback is better.

6) Prepare the performer before training in terms of performance expectations on the job, (what is expected and why).

7) Common sense is not a good guide to performance improvement. A data-driven approach is better.

We should stop confusing Actions and Results. Most feedback systems combine both the Actions taken, (what we do), and Results (what we leave behind). Positive approaches treat both as important, linked, and different.

Think about it. You know of stories where a manager gets results, but leaves a wake of bodies or walking wounded. Results, getting the result versus Actions, creating a wake of walking wounded, both need to be considered. Ideally we want positive results without the negative actions.

While human resources often blurs the relationship of Actions and Results, this should change. We blur these by using Likert rating scales that force combining both Actions and Results into one rating.

Performance discussions should address Actions and Results separately. In addition real success will come from adding a focus on the expected outcomes and being value added. Not even the best-designed and slick training program will work if it has the wrong target.

Once a performance problem is defined, then select the best ways and means (Actions) to meet the needs should be used to close the gaps in achieving the desired outcomes (Results). Then describe why those results are important.

Moral: Performance improvement is vital and as Human Resource professionals we can add value. Don''t squander people''s time and the organization''s money on solutions that don''t solve the real problems. Another new form is not going to cut it.

©Copyright 2001 - Action Insight, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.