The Feedback Loop: Effective coaching and performance recognition

Performance maintenance is a dynamic process with three parts — performance management, recognition, and discipline—that gives managers a full-spectrum of tools to manage the activities of others. The goal of each tool is productivity. These tools can be used for high, low, and average performers. Performance maintenance makes the assumption that most employees perform well most of the time and good supervision keeps them on track. However, for the 10-20% whose performance is noteworthy, or the 10-20% whose performance is off-track, managers must diagnose the situations and take action. On these occasions, managers take the extra step of recognizing and celebrating exceptional performance, or directing changes through performance improvement plans.

Feedback is a key to this. It’s the process of giving and receiving information that is pertinent to the work being performed in real-time: information exchange. The goal of this exchange is to ensure that there is a common agreement of what “good performance” looks like. It provides information about the quantity, quality, and characteristics of work, and attempts to steer performance in the right direction. When done well and in a timely fashion, feedback is ‘news one can use.’

Coaching uses the feedback process to direct and redirect work efforts and behaviors. Coaching provides this direction in the context of a relationship wherein the manager attempts to help the employee be the very best performer he or she can be. The traditional boss and employee relationship is an outdated metaphor when compared to the model of a coach and performer. Coaches instruct, train, develop, assist, and support performance. Feedback and coaching tell the employee what is good/bad, why it is good/bad, and what we are going to do about it, along with the information and support to change it.

A best practice performance management process is to require that at least one “noteworthy write-up” be on file during the performance cycle in order for an employee to be eligible for the highest rating, such as “exceeds expectations.” This is a good example where we see that recognition and performance programs are separate, parallel, and yet mutually reinforcing. Whatever this extra step is, it is recommended to be simple and easy to administer. For most occasions a simple “write-up” is enough. It can be limited to a paragraph or a page, enough to document what the supervisor deems to be good performance. A supervisor who has to take the extra step and sign their name certifying what they deem to be exemplary work communicates a lot about the employee’s performance and the manager’s standard. This testimonial is then available for external scrutiny.

When something notable happens, managers should ensure they stop and take time to commend employees. This occasion creates a trigger to document the good outcomes identified. This trigger also can be evidence used to help characterize performance at the end of the performance cycle. Such recognition is also good feedback and that undoubtedly encourages retention. Recognition makes people feel valued, so more emphasis should be placed upon the unlimited supply of recognition opportunities, instead of the limited number of financial or other rewards.

Good performance management and day-to-day management are designed to create and replicate good performance. When performance exceeds expectations, recognition is appropriate. When performance does not meet expectations, correction is due. So, any good performance management system must provide trigger mechanisms to call attention to the good and intervene when outcomes are poor. All three — performance management, recognition and discipline — work together to keep good performance on track.

What kind of recognition programs does your organization have in place? To learn more, you can check out Dr. Lee’s Performance Maintenance whitepaper.