09/ 20/ 2006
by Charles R. McConnell
An anonymous but wise individual once said: "Good management is not only the gift of identifying talent, but the art of selective recognition of strengths and weaknesses, and the proper encouragement of the best in any man or woman." This statement alone, especially the latter part speaks volumes about the importance of feedback on performance.
Although not always recognized as such, performance feedback is an important responsibility of those who manage the work of others. In the crush of activity that often seems overwhelming to the manager, it's easy to overlook the minor problems and infractions that occur and easier still to ignore the employees who seem to be doing a reasonable job while causing no problems. It has been said that the Pareto Principle, the well-known "80/20 Rule," can be applied to problem employees and employee problems. It says that 20 percent of a group's employees are responsible for 80 percent of the problems. As a result, the troublesome 20 percent command most of the manager's attention and attract the most feedback on both performance and behavior, while the non-troublesome 80 percent chug along with no one paying much attention to them.
The conscientious manager will remain aware that the principal task of management is to enable employees to perform their work as efficiently and accurately as possible. This suggests that in spite of conflicting pressures that constantly threaten to divert the manager's attention, it's essential for him or her to maintain a well-working, one-to-one relationship with each employee. This can be accomplished only if the manager remains in regular, constructive contact with each employee. The concept of maintenance as applied to relationships with employees is important. Just as equipment must be maintained to keep it functioning as intended, interpersonal relationships must also be maintained to keep employees productive.
Certainly, formal performance evaluations provide valuable feedback on performance. True but formal evaluations happen only once or twice each year. A great deal can happen between formal evaluations, so if the only performance feedback an employee receives comes with an annual or semi-annual evaluation, the relationship between manager and employee is seriously flawed. Hearing how they are doing, whether acceptably or otherwise, just once or twice each year is insufficient to sustain motivate most employees.
As suggested above, on average 20 percent of employees can be causing 80 percent of the problems. When one of these workers violates a policy, breaks a work rule or performs inadequately, he or she will usually hear about it from the manager in timely fashion. However, these employees don't cause problems all the time; sometimes they do things right. Often, though, the workers who hear about errors or infractions every time they occur don't always hear about the things done right. Again, chalk this up to the busy manager; it's necessary to address the negatives as they occur, but the positives don't demand immediate attention, so they frequently go unmentioned.
During a discussion of performance feedback in a management development session, one manager with a reputation for being tough and demanding claimed that day-to-day feedback was unnecessary, saying: "My employees know that coming from me, silence is praise." Ask yourself whether this applies to most manager-employee relationships; you'll find that it's largely untrue. Employees can differ greatly from each other in how they're affected by the manager's silence; some can go weeks or months without positive reinforcement while some require almost daily reinforcement. But sooner or later the manager's protracted silence—the lengthening period with no performance feedback—will have its demotivating effects on employees. Eventually each employee will come to wonder whether his or her performance is excellent, marginally acceptable or somewhere in between.
Some employees will be bothered very little by infrequent feedback, but without regular performance feedback some will become unnerved to the point of worry, discouragement, or apprehension and performance itself may suffer and errors and infractions may increase. The manager who has devoted the time and effort to getting to know the employees well will know who can be left alone for prolonged periods and who needs feedback on a much more frequent basis. However, this manager will also know that every employee needs performance feedback much more often than formal evaluations provide.
Even for the employees who always to do a decent job and simply chug along without causing problems, regular performance feedback has an important objective: to ensure that they continue in this satisfactory fashion. Performance feedback is essential for reinforcing appropriate performance and sustaining motivation.
