Member Essays Jamie Resker Jamie Resker is Principal of Employee Performance Solutions, and is the originator of the Performance Continuum Feedback™ Method (PCF); she works with organizations ranging from Fortune 1000 corporations to medium sized businesses and non-profit organizations that want to step up their efforts to proactively manage employee performance and development to meet business and workforce goals and objectives. which works with organizations that want to step up their efforts to proactively manage employee performance and development to meet business and workforce goals and objectives. She was interviewed in our May 2007 newsletter. Why "Constructive Criticism" Backfires: How to Bypass the “Criticism” and Get Better Results From Feedback Discussions Most managers would rather immerse their hand in boiling water than give an employee feedback about poor performance. Yet most managers will comfortably discuss those issues with a sympathetic ear, either an HR contact, a peer manager or even someone at home. What is clearly uncomfortable for the manager is having a direct conversation with the employee who has the performance issue. Often managers ultimately become so frustrated with the employee’s performance they seek HR support to begin the process of terminating the employee. Upon questioning the manager and reviewing the personnel file, HR will often find that the employee in question was never provided any information regarding the seriousness of their performance deficiencies.  The manager may admit they have not raised the issue with the employee or at best hinted at the issue in the past.  In other words, the employee has no idea they are in danger of losing their job.  The traditional method in which managers provide performance feedback to employees is often the ultimate cause for why key information is often withheld.  Most feedback providers have been taught to give constructive criticism which involves creating a bullet-proof case revolving around examples of the employee’s shortcomings.  Even though the intent is to provide “constructive” information, these messages come across as feeling like discipline and criticism.  Naturally, this approach usually results in a defensive reaction from the feedback receiver which makes it difficult to gain agreement on what needs to change.  It’s easy for these discussions to escalate into a confrontational exchange. Once a manager has been through this process once or twice it becomes easier just to avoid addressing employee performance issues altogether.  Let’s just say there is no real mystery for why managers tend to steer clear of giving feedback about poor performance!    The good news is that managers are able to recognize and describe performance problems.  Replace constructive criticism with a more productive approach by using positive words that describe the desired performance rather than off-putting words that describe the current underperformance.  For example, if the employee lacks finesse when dealing with fellow employees and behaves like a “bull in a china shop,” the manager would ask for the employee to develop a more polished and professional style.  When an employee makes frequent mistakes the manager would talk in terms of developing more accuracy.  For the employee who chronically complains that everything is a problem the manager might ask the employee to develop a problem solving approach.  As these behavioral descriptions are broad it is important to further explain what the manager is looking for by providing specific positive examples of what they mean by a “more polished and professional approach”, “more accuracy” or a “problem solving approach”.  Again, these examples should demonstrate positive behavior examples. Lastly, it is useful to explain to the employee the benefit of developing the performance area.  The manager must simply ask themselves, ‘Why do I want the employee to make this change?”  In the case of the employee who makes frequent mistakes the manager may reason that in the finance environment accuracy is essential, therefore the month end reports must represent complete and correct data.  This approach makes it easier for managers to address performance issues by talking in terms of the “desired performance” versus the “undesired performance’.  It also specifically describes to the employee what the manager expects in terms of performance.  Because it bypasses the negative descriptions and resulting negative reaction the employee is more likely to respond positively to the feedback.  A simple rule of thumb is to provide the employee with the opportunity to receive the feedback and make progress on the issue.  Only when it is clear that the employee is unwilling or unable to make progress should more extreme measures be used such as disciplinary actions or documented performance plans.   Copyright © 2007 Employee Performance Solutions