Way Before Giving Performance Feedback
-Communicate why, how, & process of evaluation to subordinate
-Why does the company (or you) evaluate performance?
-Who evaluated performance?
-How was performance measured?
-Establish validity & reliability of method to increase subordinate’s acceptance of evaluation
-The method chosen
-How performance was documented
-How performance was evaluated
Right Before the Feedback session
-Allocate Time
-Preparation time=1 hour
-Interview time=1/2 hour
-Schedule Interview
-Neutral, private place,
-Every 6 months or earlier for new employees
-Preparation
-Supervisor reviews ratings & reasons for rating
-Employee rates self & provides specific reasons for ratings
During the Feedback session
(Agenda)
-Review employee’s ratings and reasons
-Review supervisor’s ratings and reasons
-Give positive feedback before negative feedback
-Focus on behavior & performance rather than traits
-Discuss reasons for poor performance
-Job knowledge, too many tasks, external factors
-Feedback is candid, specific, behavioral
-Avoid FAE (Manzoni, HBR)
-Develop solutions to make evaluations higher next time
-Set goals
-For performance and behavior
-Discuss how to meet goals
-Goals should be concrete and Reasonable
-Should be accepted by employee
-Identify differences in supervisor and employee ratings and discuss reasons for those
Results of a successful performance feedback session
--Relationship between supervisor and subordinate is not damaged (e.g., trust increases)
--Subordinate accepts feedback
--Employee’s performance after the session improves
Purpose of Role-Play Exercise
 To practice the skill of performance appraisal
o Use the skill of problem solving
 To avoid typical failures of performance appraisal
interviews (see Manzoni HBR)
 Reducing FAE
 Improve/maintain relationship
w/subordinate
 Motivate subordinate to do well
Discussion Questions: From make-up class

Comment on the relative effectiveness of the second vs. first role-play on
performance feedback. What features of the recommendations made by the
professor & the readings were implemented in the role-play? How hard was
it to implement these recommendations?
o Student 1: The first role-play was unsuccessful because the manager was close-minded (the manager identified
the problem, had a fixed frame, cf. Manzoni) but in the second role play the manager first gave positive
feedback, and instead of attacking subordinate, asked subordinate to generate reasons for poor performance
o Student 2: Second role-play was more structured, there was a clear agenda, easier to plan ahead for it, was more
focused on behavior improvement. We set goals (collaborated on setting goals and how to achieve them, how to
match subordinates’ objectives with the supervisors’ objectives and how to achieve both parties’ objectives) -transforming the discussion into a problem to be solved rather than an unpleasant discussion to be conducted.
o Student 3: Manager did not take the perspective of the subordinate (even in the second role-play), committed the
fundamental attribution error and was very fixed in his/her view of the causes of subordinate’s performance
o Student 4: The first role-play was very circular—manager was very negative. In the second role-play manager
gave positive feedback first, manager had a clear agenda and knew what to raise in the discussion
o Student 5: The second session was more team-work oriented, mutual accountability was emphasized in the
feedback session (rather than blaming the subordinate)
First Role-Play Only Discussion Questions
 Describe an interview that went very well. How
did it start? Was there a critical point that turned
things around? How was the subordinate
reacting to the method used by the boss?
o Before beginning the feedback, the supervisor ensured the subordinate felt comfortable by tasking him/her
how she/he felt about the job, etc.
o Supervisor asked subordinate ‘broad’ questions rather than yes/no questions so that subordinate can
provide detailed explanations for performance.
o Broad questions also helped generate new points/solutions
o Supervisor ensured that subordinate understood and agreed on what has to be done to improve
performance.
o Supervisor did not merely criticize but also offered several concrete, alternative solutions on how to improve
performance in the future
o Supervisor offered a lot of praise so as to ensure that the subordinate was receptive. Informed the
subordinate what he/she was doing right.
o When subordinate got defensive upon hearing negative feedback, supervisor provided praise that helped
calmed the subordinate and ensured that subordinate listened to the supervisors’ suggestions
o Supervisor demonstrated that he/she understood where the subordinate was coming from, this made the
subordinate feel like supervisor was on his/her side and then made the subordinate more receptive to
criticism
o Supervisor asked subordinate for his/her suggestions on what should be changed so that subordinate would
be better able to implement and cope w/the changes that would help performance in the future (e.g., when
the problem was turnover, supervisor asked subordinate “why do you think they are leaving? How can we
stop them from leaving?” this enabled subordinate to generate solutions> the supervisor then combined
his/her solution w/that provided by the supervisor --- a truly integrative approach at solving the problem
o Subordinate was able to ‘re-state’ the supervisors’ statements and vice-versa. This enabled better
understanding and ultimately lead to a more problem-solving approach (e.g., when subordinate wanted to
make the supervisor understand that other managers were mis-using subordinate’s time and that the
supervisor needed to intervene and ensure this did not occur in the future)
o Supervisor asked subordinate about his/her direct reports’ performance. This provided subordinate to take
a supervisory perspective in commenting about others’ performance (and enabled a common bond between
supervisor and subordinate) – because they were solving a problem jointly
 Describe an interview that did not work out
well. How did it start? Was there a critical point
that turned things around? How was the
subordinate reacting to the method used by the
boss?
o The interviewer was critical – offered trait judgments of the subordinate. This made the subordinate very
defensive and angry. The subordinate spent most of the time defending his/her position (cutting off the
supervisor) rather than listening to supervisor or coming up with solutions to improve performance.
o The interviewer did not state of the purpose of the interview.
o Provide one-sided performance appraisals “tell & sell” supervisor told subordinates what was wrong and
how to fix it
o Although some supervisors were very direct in giving feedback, and letting their subordinates talk, they
didn’t ask subordinates about possible solutions nor did supervisors provide solutions themselves.
o Did not have complete information about the situation – supervisor made assumptions about what the
subordinate knew and the subordinate did not correct supervisors’ assumptions
o Supervisor did not know how to solve problem and did not offer solutions
 What could each person have done differently
to help the discussion?
o
o
o
o
Boss could have asked subordinate to generate solutions, add boss’s solutions to the subordinate’s solutions
Clarify the point of the meeting
Add more dialogue to the process and come to agreement rather than ‘telling’ supervisor
Offer solutions rather than just allowing subordinate talking about past performance and the reasons for it
o Try to be more ‘constructive’ rather than worry about hurting subordinates’ feelings and not providing
realistic feedback
o Give positive incentives for motivating change in performance e.g., promotion
o Focus on goal/task for performance rather than on traits
o Try to have a favorable relationship w/each other so that one can use a problem-solving approach in a
difficult situation like performance appraisal
Summary Of Issues

Which method is more likely to occur?
o
Tell and sell, because boss’s discomfort makes it
difficult for him/her to adopt a more effective
strategy
 What steps can the supervisor take to
encourage a problem-solving discussion?

Share feelings more openly & honestly
 Ask employee what boss is doing to
contribute to this problem
 Ask employee to conduct a self-appraisal
first, let employee try to define the problem
(don’t use trait type appraisal)
 What steps can the supervisor take to
encourage a problem-solving discussion?
 Separate the evaluation of the
subordinate’s performance (including
discussion of salary increase in a separate
session) prior to performance review
 Make the focus of the performance review
the future, not the past (don’t focus on the
past as much – i.e., give subordinate some
chance to explain, but focus on ‘solutions for
the future’)
 What steps can the supervisor take to
encourage a problem-solving discussion?
 Identify objectives toward which the
subordinate can work toward
 Encourage as much subordinate
participation in the performance review as
possible. Use listening and interviewing
skills. Be sure that the subordinate does most
of the talking. If supervisor does most of the
talking the session has been a failure
 (ensure talking is about solutions rather
than explanations)
Questions for Observers
 What did the interviewer do, if anything, to
create a permissive atmosphere?
 Did the interviewer state the purpose of the
interview early in the session?
 Was the purpose of the interview clearly stated
and concisely?
 To what extent did the interview learn how the
subordinate felt about the job in general?
 Did the interviewer use broad general questions
at the outset?

Did the boss criticize the subordinate?
 Was the interviewer acceptant of the
subordinate’s feelings and ideas?

Which one talked the most?

What other things did the interviewer learn?

Did the boss praise the subordinate?
 To what extent did the boss arrive and a fairer
and more accurate evaluation of the subordinate
as a result of the interview?
 What things did the boss do, if any to motivate
the subordinate?
 Were relations better or worse after the
interview? If worse, why did this occur?
 In what ways might the interviewer have done a
better job?