Pocketblog has gone back to basics. This is part of an extended management course.
‘Feedback is the breakfast of champions’
This quote is most-often attributed to Ken Blanchard, but I have been unable to source it securely. But its meaning is clear: It is a diet of good quality feedback that helps us grow and develop into top performers.
Feedback is the perfect accompaniment to goal-setting (which we looked at last week). The two are so inter-twined and so fundamental that the very first Pocketblog started with an important experiment by Albert Bandura and Daniel Cervone that showed the power of these two in combination.
That post was called ‘Feedback Welcome’. This one’s title is a nod in that direction, but takes it a step further.
As a manager, you have a responsibility to the people you manage and lead. You must develop them, you must recognise their contributions and you must reward them for their effort. Feedback is the principal way you can do that.
Feedback can be:
- Judgemental (‘what you did well/badly was…’) or
Non-judgemental (‘I notice that what you did was… and this is what happened’)
- Positive (‘What you did that I liked was..’) or
Negative (‘What I would like you to improve was…’)
- Outcome based (‘You got a really good result with…’) or
Process based (‘I was impressed by the way that you…’)
- Comparative (‘Your work exceeded the standards for…’) or
Absolute (‘Your work was excellent’)
- Personal (‘I want to thank you for your excellent work’) or
Impersonal (‘You work met the highest standards’)
Give your Feedback a BOOST
Great feedback should give your colleagues a real BOOST.
It will not be surprising to you to learn that, on all of the five scales above, balance is key. Sticking to one style will rarely serve the person you are developing well. Each pairing represents a spectrum of styles and you must select where on each spectrum to place the balance, to get best effect. At different times and in different situations, a different point of balance will be appropriate.
Provide precise feedback based on genuine observation; rather than hearsay. The more evidence you can offer and the more precise that evidence is; the better your colleague will be able to calibrate their performance and understand the implications of their choices.
By this, I mean that it is important to give feedback on performance, rather than on the person. Compare these to examples of feedback:
‘The analysis you gave was confused.’
‘Your thinking was confused.’
The first is something I can fix and your feedback is based on something you can observe and evaluate. The second, even if true is harder to fix, but critical; you have no direct evidence: my thinking may be logical and rigorous, but my writing style confused – or maybe I was distracted – or maybe… The first can motivate me to sort out my work; the second will demotivate me, as I will feel it as a personal attack.
If my analysis was confused, I can only address it if I know how and where you assess my work to be confused. The more specific your feedback, the easier it is for me to fix my work – or the easier it is for me to understand what parts are good.
Deliver your feedback as soon as appropriate but not before. If the situation is not suitable, or if you do not have a robust basis for observed and specific feedback, then wait. But only wait as long as is necessary. Don’t put feedback off, or its value will diminish and may even be lost.