Embedded Files
Why it is important for organizations to work WITH this method rather than against it
Summary
The intuitive and natural process
As they observe and interact with a given employee people automatically collect data not just about the results that the individual produces but also about a myriad of contextual but less tangible factors related to talents, personality, attitudes, etc. For example:
Attitudes (to anything and everything)
Intelligence
Initiative
Personality
Ability to accept criticism
Political savvy
Leadership ability
Interpersonal skills (for example, how confident, comfortable, and tactful he/she is in dealing with other people)
Personal grooming and attire
Ability to think and work independently
Communication skills (e.g., expressing ideas, persuading others verbally/on paper)
Way of dealing with issues such as conflicts, disagreements, ambiguity, etc.
Ability to make people feel good and look good in front of others
Suitability or “fit” with the position
Dependability
How he or she “comes across”
Ability to work well in a team
When managers analyze and interpret all this data, they inevitably form opinions and judgements about the employee in question. They use some pretty complex mental processing, some of which is conscious and some unconscious, to analyze all this data and make sense of it. The result (if done in good faith) are their honest conclusions about a given employee. For example:
Positive Conclusions
She’s very safety conscious
He’s very responsible
His writing skills are superb
She works well independently
She is very “quick”
She deals well with ambiguity
He likes a challenge
He has initiative
She’s very persuasive
He’s very good at seeing the big picture
She is fun to be around
He’s got good instincts
He is sensitive to client’s feelings
She has a very professional image
Negative Conclusions
She’s too “edgy”
He’s politically naive
She’s not cut out to be in Sales
He’s not motivated
She’s uncooperative
He’s too pretentious
He’s not a team player
She has no credibility
He’s not dependable
He’s too “smooth”
She doesn’t project the right image
She can't accept constructive criticism
He resists change
She thinks she invented “integrity”
From these kinds of individual opinions and judgments, managers then draw conclusions not just about this employee's current performance, but also about his or her potential and “fit” in the organization. This results in a subjective mental impression, or assessment, of how a given employee is doing. “He won’t make a good manager because he’s politically naive and believes he’s the only one who can do a job right so he’ll micro manage his team.”
What does a subjective mental assessment look like? If you were to ask a manager to tell you what he really thinks about an employee (and assuming he or she feels comfortable and safe enough to tell you the truth), it would probably be expressed along the following lines:
Jim is a pretty good supervisor. He runs a tight ship and I can rely on him to get the job done – he generally meets the production targets, etc. He has a lot of initiative when troubleshooting the inevitable problems that come up every day – probably because he has been in the position a long time and knows the operation inside out and backwards.
The problem with Jim is that he’s a real “know it all”. He always has to have the answer to everything (he pretends that he knows everything even when he doesn’t) and this means he sometimes even takes the credit for things that someone else has done in order to come off as "better" than he really is. Sometimes it’s so obvious that he is doing this that people are laughing at him behind his back. He's losing respect and credibility with the team.
He’s dropped hints about promotion, but this just simply isn’t in the cards. We need managers who have good people skills and he’s just blowing it. Too bad really, because if it wasn’t for this problem I think he would have potential.
Are mental assessments valid?
The inclination to simplify and summarize information in this way, while helpful and necessary in many respects, is actually at the crux of the root cause of the problem. This is because conclusions, whether positive or negative, represent the end of a thought process.
Managers therefore stop focusing on how they formed their opinions, and concentrate instead on the results of that process. The problem starts when they try to communicate these results “as is”. At first glance, this does not seem to be a problem because they appear to be relatively self- explanatory.
For example, even without knowing the situation or the employees involved, most people would have some idea of what the manager in the above example means by “labels” like runs a tight ship, has initiative when troubleshooting, and is a “know it all”. However, understanding this information is not as straightforward as it would seem.
Can you believe Sam’s opinions about Jim?
It depends upon two things - how well you know the situation and why you are getting the information. For example, you might:
Dismiss it because you don’t know anything about it and don’t care because you are not involved.
Accept it because you have no choice but to trust it (e.g., it was given as part of a verbal reference for a candidate you are interviewing for a job).
Agree with it because you know the employee and the situation and other people seem to think the same thing as well.
Partially agree because you know the situation and it makes some sense but it is not as bad as the manager is making it out to be.
Want more information because you are the type of person to who always wants an explanation to understand the evaluation.
Suspend judgement because you want to form your own conclusions and don’t like to be influenced by anyone else.
Explaining assessments to neutral third parties
For example, imagine that you were a neutral third party in this situation and the manager in question mentioned those two conclusions to you. While you would have a general idea of what he was talking about, you probably wouldn’t know exactly what the labels meant in this particular situation. Assuming you were in a position where you wanted to know more, you would probably ask for an explanation by asking a question such as, “What do you mean by that?”
Because the thinking process that creates mental impressions takes place over time, and because it happens both consciously and unconsciously, managers tend to forget, overlook, or not even be fully aware of the reasons that caused them to form their opinions in the first place. However, once prompted or challenged to validate such mental impressions by questions like, “What do you mean by that?”, they are usually able to “think through the labels”. For example:
“What do I mean by Jim has initiative when troubleshooting?”
Well, for instance, we had a big unexpected rush last week. He managed to get it out on time even though it meant that he had to work though a whole bunch of problems to do it. He never had to come to me for help. He even thought to give a heads up to the Shipping Department so that they could prepare to ship so much extra stock”. I appreciated that.
“What do I mean by “know it all?”
Jim would rather give any answer to a question about a case than to admit he doesn’t know the answer. He never says, “Let me check”, or “I’m not sure”. (I think he feels inadequate when he doesn’t know so tries to make up for it by showing off). You want an example? Well, let me think. Oh yeah, in last staff meeting … he had lead someone to believe that he was the person to answer questions about the ABC Case when in fact he wasn’t. So, when he was asked a question he could not provide the correct information and ended up looking bad. I’ve got other examples as well …
The manager was able to deconstruct his thinking process, uncover the reasons behind his opinions, and therefore explain and justify them. Assuming that he formed those opinions in good faith, this explanation also represents what he honestly believes to be true about this employee’s performance (at least on these two issues).
Because most managers form their opinions in a similar manner, and can generally explain them to a third party in a way that makes sense it is possible to say that such assessments are valid. This is a good thing because for all practical intents and purposes, this is the way that employees are really evaluated in organizations regardless of the documented formal performance process may say.
The problem with this process
Just because the kind of mental assessments managers naturally form cannot be tied to standardized performance measurements does not mean that they can be dismissed because they are not “objective”. Provided that they have been made in good faith and can be justified to everyone’s satisfaction then they are perfectly valid. Indeed, such critical insights contain extremely valuable information that can help the employee to understand how people that matter (i.e., management) really perceive their performance, behaviour, and career potential. A reference after all is simply one person’s conclusion about how someone else has performed in the past and how they think will perform in the future.
The problem is that the employee in question rarely gets to hear these assessments, and when they do, they usually only hear the positive ones. Negative conclusions and perceptions are usually only shared in confidence between other people. Why?
Explaining mental assessments to the employee in question
Communicating positive labels like runs a tight ship or has initiative when troubleshooting is relatively easy. For example:
Jim, I just wanted to take a minute to let you know that I think that you really run a tight ship here. You usually meet the production targets, and you’re great at troubleshooting the inevitable problems that come up every day – probably because you’ve been in the position a long time and know the operation inside out and backwards. Keep up the good work.
It is unlikely that Jim would challenge any of this feedback by asking the manager to explain what he means by those positive opinions. In fact, he would be far more likely to accept them at face value. In the event that the labels were not clear, he would probably just substitute his own interpretation – which may or may not the be same. Even if Jim did want further clarification it would not be difficult for the manager to provide it by supplying some examples to support his opinions.
What do I mean by that? Well, for instance, remember that big unexpected rush we had last week? You managed to get it out on time event though it meant that you had to work though a whole bunch of problems to do it. You never had to come to me for help and you even thought to give a heads up to the Shipping Department so that they could prepare to ship so much extra stock”. I really appreciated that. Another thing is that …
However, communicating negative labels directly to employees is another kettle of fish altogether.
This is because managers now have to worry about the impact that the words will have on the person hearing them. When managers explain their negative conclusions to a third party in a safe and/or confidential way, they are free to explain themselves without censoring how it “sounds. However, this is no longer the case when talking directly to the employee in question. For example, if our manager used the same natural approach to communicate his negative opinion about Jim’s performance as he did to communicate his positive ones, then it would sound something like:
Jim, I just wanted to take a minute to tell you that you really have to try to stop coming across as a know it all.
Not only would it be extremely difficult (even brutal) for the manager to actually say that to Jim, but the chances are also good that he would not even get past this point. It is highly likely that Jim would challenge that opinion right away. He would probably ask something like, "What do you mean by that?"
Employees will challenge
negative opinions or conclusions
While employees tend not to challenge positive conclusions about their performance, they will generally challenge negative ones. In other words, they will not take a negative conclusion at face value or try to substitute their own interpretation of what it might mean. This is partly due to a need to try to make sense of what they are hearing, and partly as a defence mechanism.
None of these outcomes is conducive to achieving the goals that managers have in mind when they give corrective feedback. Consequently, most managers realize that they need to choose their words more carefully when giving it directly to employees.
The solution, obviously, is to try to say exactly the same thing but in a “nice way” – in a way that will be constructive, politically correct, and achieve the desired outcomes. However, this is one of those tasks that is much easier said than done.
Why it is so hard for managers to deliver corrective feedback in “nice” way
There is no doubt that some managers have a natural talent and ability to find the right words to discuss poor performance issues effectively. However, we only have to look around us to know that such managers are a rarity. In fact, most managers self report that they have at least some degree of difficulty in doing this, and many say that it is not only very challenging, but also extremely stressful. The result is that they find themselves between a rock and hard place!
Page updated
Report abuse