Forums

I think that my employees would understand, if not appreciate the point of adjusting feedback.

However, as I start giving the feedback in my new role, I want to begin delivering affirming feedback and just started explaining the model in my O3s today.

The "explanation" seems kind of clunky to me.

Why not just say "Hey.. Good Job"? Why does it have to be in a "structured" format?

As a manager, I know why I want to do that; as an employee, I'm not sure I get the difference.

Any thoughts?

WillDuke's picture

It's a good question. I started typing in all the reasons, and then realized that Mike & Mark explained it more clearly and thoroughly than I would in the Feedback podcast.

Is there something there that doesn't work for you?

akinsgre's picture

I had listened to the cast right before doing this, but it just seemed harder to explain when I actually did it, than I thought it would when I listened to the cast

WillDuke's picture
jhack's picture

The keys to the MT feedback model are:

1. they are behavior specific. "Good job" is praise. "When you provide detail on how the project will benefit each department specifically..." tells the person exactly what they did right, so they can do it again.
2. the consequences of their behavior are made clear. "Good job" doesn't provide any information about outcomes. "...it's much more likely that your leadership on this project will be embraced and your promotion will be a slam dunk..." provides the real benefit to the direct regarding their specific behavior.
3. In adjusting feedback, the receiver also takes ownership of the corrective behavior, so they have a real stake in the changes.

Praise is good, but behavior specific feedback is going to be more effective in creating the performance you want from your people.

From the employee perspective, you are telling them exactly what about their presentation (for example) they did well, so they know that they should do more of that. Generic praise doesn't allow them to distinguish what parts of what they did were good from those which added no value or were negative.

John

juliahhavener's picture

Will,

Excellent link. I think I'll be pulling that out as a reminder.

akinsgre's picture

[quote="jhack"]The keys to the MT feedback model are:

1. they are behavior specific. "Good job" is praise. "When you provide detail on how the project will benefit each department specifically..." tells the person exactly what they did right, so they can do it again.
2. the consequences of their behavior are made clear. "Good job" doesn't provide any information about outcomes. "...it's much more likely that your leadership on this project will be embraced and your promotion will be a slam dunk..." provides the real benefit to the direct regarding their specific behavior.
3. In adjusting feedback, the receiver also takes ownership of the corrective behavior, so they have a real stake in the changes.

Praise is good, but behavior specific feedback is going to be more effective in creating the performance you want from your people.

From the employee perspective, you are telling them exactly what about their presentation (for example) they did well, so they know that they should do more of that. Generic praise doesn't allow them to distinguish what parts of what they did were good from those which added no value or were negative.

John[/quote]

Thanks John, that's exactly what I was looking for.

I "knew" that, but felt that I didn't really convey it well to my employees. Your "wording" helps me understand the approach a little better and will help me explain to my staff.