Evaluating Internal Employees

PERSPECTIVES

Employee feedback technologies in the human performance system

Nathan Baker*

College of Technology, Indiana State University, USA

(Received 1 January 2010; final version received 18 March 2010)

Many authors have noted that organizations are realizing that employees can be a major source of competitive advantage. A hidden source of advantage can be the improved utilization of existing human capital. A method common to most organizations for improving existing human capital is using employee feedback technologies. During a review of the literature it was found that employee feedback is an expanding and poignant subject. This paper describes some of the current leading technologies in employee feedback, including coaching, 360 de- gree feedback, as well as other techniques found in the literature. Methodologies of employee feedback including approaches and timeframes will be investigated at the system and process level. Finally, the opportunities for dealing with a problem employee using feedback are discussed.

Keywords: human performance system; employee feedback; human capital; performance review; feedback technology; performance evaluation

Organizations are finding the business climate to be more competitive in every category. As the competition increases business is searching for every possible method of optimization. More and more organizations are realizing that employees can be a major source of competitive advantage (Carmeli and Weisberg 2006). A hidden source of advantage can be the improved utilization of existing human capital. An organization must understand what the definition and end goal of employee feedback is before they can successfully develop an employee feedback system. The current leading technologies used by organizations for employee feedback include coaching, 360 degree feedback, as well as other techniques. An organization has several options for methods to optimize employee feedback delivery including how to approach an employee and the time elapsed between the employee output and employee feedback. These options will be investigated at the system and job performer level. Feedback does not always lead the performer to improvement even in a robust system. In the case of non-improving performers and in dealing with a problem employee using feedback is important to an organization. In the overall system of human performance technology feedback is a key step at the performer level between the management and the performers. In the Rummler and Brache (1995) model all processes can be refined to a human operation. Many processes involve the input of machinery or technology, but the final process output is dictated by the settings or involvement of a human operator. This creates a critical need for

*Email: [email protected]

Human Resource Development International

Vol. 13, No. 4, September 2010, 477–485

ISSN 1367-8868 print/ISSN 1469-8374 online

� 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13678868.2010.501994

http://www.informaworld.com

feedback to the human operator to create improvement in the human performance system.

What is the definition and end goal of employee feedback?

The human performance system is the system of input, process, output, consequences, and feedback that is performed by humans and is at the job/ performer level of the total system as defined by Rummler and Brache (1995). A company with a high performing human performance system has a greater competitive advantage. Integral in maintaining and improving the human performance system is feedback. Rummler and Branche (1995, 66) define feedback as ‘information that tells performers what and how well they are doing’.

Feedback needs to be tailored to the recipient with consideration given to the recipient’s generation and length of employment. Generation ‘Y’ is a technology savvy generation that has always had access to instant feedback through technology (Conrad and Matuson 2009). Managers and supervisors need to consider that Gen ‘Y’ is comfortable with instant communications like email and text messaging. Taking this into consideration a manager for generation ‘Y’ employees needs to give feedback more often with email or by other means that they might consider less ‘personal’, but is perfectly normal for a generation ‘Y’ employee. Other employees that are not generation ‘Y’ or have been in the workforce longer will not require as much feedback and may prefer a more traditional sit down/face to face meeting. To fully develop human capital the best method and amount of feedback need to suit the performer receiving the message and not just the supervisor giving the message.

Employee feedback is important not only to human capital, but also for the performance of the total corporate system. Feedback should give clear indications regarding the performance achieved as well as the performance that is expected (Jawahar 2006). The employee performance review should be an evaluation of how well an employee is meeting the performance standards that are documented in a company or work standard (Eryes 2005; Ridley 2007).

Some experts have stated that ‘coaching’ falls into a form of performance evaluation. Coaching in the business world has an emphasis on the process of development such as performance evaluations rather than the more limited scope of training (Hamlin, Ellinger, and Beattie 2008). Training is focused on a limited function or a singular specific job skill. Based on the evidence presented in the literature, coaching will be considered as a type of performance evaluation although it is more related to its own sub set of human performance technology.

Some research indicates that the average organization spends one to three years developing a feedback system and is still not satisfied with the results (Ridley 2007). This dissatisfaction can be attributed to a lack of understanding of feedback as well as a lack of a definition of what is being evaluated. The lack of a clear standard as well as the lack of clarity on what is being evaluated is a common feedback short coming. In order to benefit both the organization giving the review and the individual receiving the review the elements that are being reviewed must be clear and agreed upon.

Feedback in the form of performance evaluations is the information that is given back to the performer. The performance evaluation is used to benefit both the performer and the organization. Both performer and the organization

478 N. Baker

should gain benefit by evaluating what has been going well, what can be improved, and what is expected. Feedback should be limited to a specific number of points that are clearly defined and directly related to tasks under the control of the performer. The end goal of feedback is to increase the human capital of the organization and increase the ability of the organization to be competitive in their market.

Technologies of feedback

Some of the most common feedback technologies are traditional or modified supervisor/associate assessments, 360 degree feedback, and coaching. There are strengths and weaknesses to each of these methods as well as similarities and differences. In order for companies to gain the most benefit from these performance evaluations there must be a measurable link between the performance results and the desired outcome.

Traditional supervisor/associate assessments are a meeting between an associate and their supervisor for a review of the associate’s performance over a defined past period. Often the discussion is driven by a questionnaire from the human resources department, filled out by the supervisor, pertaining to the performance of the associate. This method is very common in many businesses and industries for many different reasons. The most common reason traditional supervisor/associate assessments are used is simplicity. Organizations understand that feedback is important for human capital development and try to implement at least a minimal amount of assessment. A supervisor/associate assessment can be a simple generic questionnaire filled out by the supervisor, explained to the associate, and stored in HR. In this scenario, the assessment is completed quickly and economically. A weakness to this minimized feedback scenario is that limited feedback provides limited direction to the associate for career growth.

The traditional supervisor/associate survey output is limited to the effort that the supervisor or human resources puts into the finished product. The output and effectiveness to the associate is limited by only one data source providing input. One study has indicated that one manager providing an assessment provides approxi- mately the same amount of feedback as two or more managers assessing the same associate (Miller and Thornton 2006). Two factors have a greater effect on traditional assessments then the number of supervisors that are performing the assessment. The first factor is the amount of time that a supervisor has known the associate. The second factor is the complexity of the associate’s tasks. Another study has indicated that multiple supervisors performing an assessment is less accurate than one supervisor performing an assessment (Palmer and Loveland 2008). This study supports the hypothesis that a group discussion of an assessment will create a halo effect around the assessors that draws towards the negative aspects of performance and reduces the total accuracy of the assessment.

Some companies feel that to give a more balanced assessment it is better to use modified supervisor/associate assessment. This is when two or more supervisors will come to a consensus on the assessment score before presenting to the associate. The literature is mixed on the validity of this reasoning. Other reasons for modified supervisor/associate assessments are legal protection for the company. In the situation of legal action due to employee dismissal, performance evaluations may be submitted as evidence. The ideal legal history of poor performance according to

Human Resource Development International 479

Miller and Thornton (2006) will include multiple poor evaluations with each evaluation completed by multiple managers.

A weakness of the traditional or modified supervisor/associate assessment is the benefit of the feedback. Because supervisors often put minimal effort into the assessments, the feedback provides the associates with minimal benefit. In the 1980s human resource professionals started developing and implementing 360 degree feedback assessments. A 360 degree feedback session is meant to provide feedback to the associate from all perspectives. This method augments the traditional feedback from the associate’s supervisor, with feedback from non-traditional sources like peers, direct reports, a self assessment, and even customers (Robertson 2008; McDermott and Hasler 2004; Robertson 2008). This multiple angle feedback is meant to give the associate a more rounded picture of how they are performing.

The 360 degree feedback method can be used to better predict the future outcome of the associate’s performance more readily then the traditional supervisor/associate assessment. Complexities of the 360 degree feedback method make it a much more time consuming and costly method of feedback performance. Actual analysis time required by the associate is significantly greater than the traditional method of assessment. Time and cost limitations have caused many companies to avoid this method of assessment.

Coaching is a less traditional method of assessment. Literature sources define coaching as the ‘facilitation of learning’ (Hamlin et al. 2008). Coaching is an ongoing series of occurrences that happen within the flow of regular events (as opposed to traditional/modified assessments or the 360 degree feedback method, which are defined as ‘scheduled’ or ‘semi-formal’ events). Feedback from coaching is provided in an ongoing manner that may also have formalized segments, but is predominantly presented in a free flowing manner. The effectiveness of coaching can be limited to the ability of the manager that is mentoring the performer. Some supervisors may not have the time required to be effective as coaches. There can be cases of information overload where the performer is unable to process the feedback effectively and cannot therefore modify any output. There is also a risk that by not having a formalized feedback review like other assessment methods the performer may not focus on what the supervisor is expecting or desiring. Coaching has become desirable to business because it has been found to be an effective method of developing associates especially with soft skills, like leadership, that are difficult to nurture in a segmented, formalized process.

Performance evaluation technologies are important to nurture human capital and give feedback to associate output. Traditional and modified supervisor/associate assessments are more formalized, questionnaire based assessments performed by one or more supervisors of an associate. The literature reveals distinct disagreement as to whether modified or traditional assessments are more accurate. 360 degree feedback is a method of providing assessment feedback to an associate from all angles of interaction – supervisor, peer, direct report, customer, and self assessment. The 360 degree feedback method provides the ability to address feedback from multiple sources before the issues arise. Coaching is less formalized, and more of an in- process feedback method that is very effective at developing soft skills like leadership, but may cause information over load to the associate. There are different time and financial costs associated with each method from the traditional methods being low cost, but potentially the least effective, to the 360 degree feedback method with higher costs, but the highest feedback gain potential.

480 N. Baker

Methodologies of employee feedback

Feedback is a critical tool for sustaining and improving the human performance system. Consequences related to performance tie into feedback and influence performer action when combined with the process input. If there is no feedback in the human performance system there is no hope to improve or even sustain the system. Once the feedback within the human performance system is verified the method and type of information conveyed back to the performer can be optimized.

In the human performance system most of the performer failures can be attributed not to a lack of performer skill, but to a lack of guidelines and parameters that define and facilitate performance. A performer that is not receiving feedback is not able to optimize their performance and not able to optimize output for the company. Often, early feedback at the beginning of the system can lead to a quick correction and minimal cost or disturbance to the total operation.

Effective feedback must be related to the performer with the following five components (Rummler and Brache 1995):

. Relevant

. Accurate

. Timely

. Specific

. Easy to understand

When performer feedback meets all of these requirements it will be useful to the performer and have the potential to increase performance. When one or more of these items is missing the feedback may be ineffective or have a negative effect on future performance. These five points for effective feedback share many similarities with effective communication. The human performance system requires effective feedback in the form of communication to increase performer ability.

Feedback to a performer needs to be relevant to the performer and to the process. Relevant is defined as not only meaningful to the performer, but also to the process in total. Each performer has a goal and the feedback should be directly translatable to that goal. When the feedback is not related to the goal, the desired behaviour change may be irrelevant to the goal at best or a distraction at worst. Feedback should keep the performer on track or improving a process relevant to an end goal. By keeping the feedback relevant to the performer related to the established goals the feedback will be most productive.

Accurate assessment and feedback are important to the performer. Inaccurate feedback is not only irrelevant to the performer it will most likely become a distraction as the performer tries to modify a behaviour based on the inaccurate assessment. A performer that receives inaccurate feedback will also begin to question the entire system. At a later time when management does provide accurate feedback the performer will be less likely to act on this feedback due to the lack of trust. Once trust or faith is lost in the feedback system the benefit of the feedback will be reduced until trust is regained (Jawahar 2006). It is a better option for management to take time to validate information before giving feedback that may be inaccurate.

Time frame of feedback is important to the performer. Often it is best to give feedback as promptly as possible. In some operations like industrial production or order fulfilment there have been great improvements based on production systems

Human Resource Development International 481

like Lean or Toyota Production System. Both of these systems advocate performer collected feedback, so that any negative performance is found quickly and the consequences are minimized. In-process gauging, kanban, and poka yoke are tools that minimize the time for feedback (Liker and Meier 2006). There are instances where minimal time for feedback is not desirable to maximize the process. Many experts agree that yearly performance reviews are not enough, daily or weekly is too much, and monthly to quarterly is the best option (Sordill 2009). Performance reviews that are given too often or include too much information can lead to the performer feeling overwhelmed with too many things to improve. When performance reviews are given infrequently there may not be enough input given for sustained improvement. The timeliness is affected by the performer and other cultural influences. Younger workers prefer more specific feedback more often, although not necessarily in traditional methods (Conrad and Matuson 2009). Older generations may prefer more general feedback, delivered traditionally, and much less frequently than the younger generation. Other considerations are the cultural standards of the business location that may affect how frequently a manager needs to give performance feedback (Kowske and Anthony 2007; Chang 2007; Borgham, Weel, and Weinberg 2006). Geographically and socially there are different expectations of interactions between performers and managers. This needs to be considered for the performance review timeframe especially considering that many businesses have become global operations. An excellent performance review system in one country may not be adequate for use in a different country.

Performance feedback that is specific to the performer or output is a much greater benefit then vague generalized statements. Feedback like ‘great job’ or ‘keep up the good work’ is suitable for short everyday feedback, but is too vague to have a lasting impact on performance. Positive, specific feedback can both increase performance and positively affect employee morale. Feedback such as ‘that was a good job on the follow up phone call to the Jenkins people’ has several benefits. In this case the performer knows that his actions are noticed and appreciated. A specific point is mentioned, the follow up phone call, which gives the performer feedback to continue this behaviour. Finally, the manager did not need to allot much of his time to give a short feedback that could increase performance output. A comment from the manager to the performer about the same situation like ‘great job’ does not send a strong message. A vague statement leaves the performer wondering what part of the performance was so great, and may miss the step that the manager was attempting to encourage.

The more formalized feedback from a performance review needs to also address performance specifics, but should focus more on the system or the big picture. Feedback about performance needs to have a direct correlation to the overall goals and targets of the organization. It is the business of the manager to express to the performer how the process and jobs that are performed align with and benefit the total organizational goals. When feedback is not specific the performer runs the risk of unintentionally performing in ways not aligned with company strategies.

Feedback needs to be specific, but it also needs to be understandable. It is desirable for a manager to be specific, as well as align with company goals, but if the information is not presented in a manner that is understandable there is no point in presenting the information. Some of the burden of clarity falls upon the manager. Company goals and targets often focus on the bigger picture and aim to convey meaning to a large group of people. A manager must translate this large picture into

482 N. Baker

clear, actionable targets to the performer and then assess, through specific feedback to the performer, how these actions are progressing. The performer must have an open discussion with the manager to be clear that both parties understand the message that is being presented. An action should be discussed, and a tracking method agreed upon. Many commonly accepted good communication practices overlap with skills for clear, understandable feedback. The company’s target may be product innovation including developing new products, processes, and materials. For feedback and performance improvement the manager of the sales performer needs to translate this innovation goal into a clear, understandable target for the sales performer. The sales performers’ responsibility for innovation is to sell the newer items. It is the responsibility of the manager to give feedback that is understandable to the sales performer as well as aligning with the company’s targets. When this feedback loop is not clear the sales performer may believe his performance is improving, when he is actually going in a direction away from the total company target.

In summary, in order for feedback to be effective it must be composed of the following five details: relevant, accurate, timely, specific, and understandable. These factors must be considered from the perspective of the performer that is receiving the feedback. The levels of specifics and timeliness may be impacted by the scope of feedback as well cultural or society factors. To verify that feedback is specific and understandable the manager and performer should be able to have a discussion about the feedback and discuss the points as well as develop action items from the feedback. Relevant feedback will have a direct correlation not only with the goals of the performer, but also with the goals and targets of the entire operation. Accuracy of feedback is important to maintain performer trust and maximize human performance improvement.

Opportunities for problem performers using feedback

The human performance system is a systematic approach to the utilization and optimization of the job/performer level of an organization. Job performance is often perceived to be an issue when it is more often the system that is limiting, constraining, or not directing the performer. Most performers feel that they desire to perform well, but are failed by the system. After the system has been evaluated, it is then time to address the methods of improving the performer. Some guidelines for intervention of problem performers are use of standards, performer responsibility, and traceable metrics.

Each human performer has a unique identity and self perception that is based on previous experience and social interactions. The performer identity caries over and blends into the work performance experience and perception (Carden and Callahan 2007). In the performer identity the desire to be accepted and perform in a positive manner is the norm (Chiaburu and Lindsay 2008). It is often the opinion of management that an output failure is due to the performer when more often it is the lack of a robust human performance system capable of driving the human performance improvement.

If a study of the five points of the human performance system has been completed, and the system found to be robust, then it is appropriate to review intervention techniques with the performer. An intervention with a performer should involve comparison of the performer output with the output standard. The output

Human Resource Development International 483

standard should define what output is expected in general, not what output is expected from a specific performer. Each performer is unique, but the output of all performers should be similar. If there is no defined performance standard, the human performance system is not robust and an output standard must be defined before any further intervention can be performed.

When the standards are defined relative to the specific output a statement of responsibility can be entered into with the performer (Eryes 2005). A statement of responsibility is a document, stating agreement between the performer and the manager that the performer is clear on the standards and responsibilities related to their output. Both parties should discuss and be clear on all points before the statement of responsibility is formally signed. The statement of responsibility should address between four and eight tasks and include details that are measurable, but not a hindrance to the everyday work routine. This statement will be used to gauge future work performance as a method to measure improvement.

The statement of responsibility should translate into definable and traceable output metrics. Metrics are a clear way to track the progress of improvement. Both parties should agree on what is acceptable performance and then compare this to the metrics. Metrics will be different for every output. A salesperson may be measured on total sales produced whereas a CEO may be judged on company stock price. The metrics should again fit the output and not the performer. Because metrics will be used as feedback the metrics should correlate to the total company goals and share the five factors of feedback.

Conclusion

The human capital of an organization is a hidden source of competitive advantage. This capital can be better utilized by looking at the associates from the perspective of a human performance system. The human performance system is the system of input, process, output, consequences, and feedback and is at the job/performance level of the total business system (Rummler and Brache 1995). The feedback portion of the human performance system is critical to the improvement of job performers. Feedback in the form of performance evaluation is the information that is given back to the performer. The end goal of feedback is to increase the human capital of the organization and increase the ability of the organization to be competitive in their markets. Performance evaluation technologies are important for nurturing human capital and giving feedback on associate output. Traditional and modified supervisor/associate assessments, coaching, and 360 degree feedback assessments are the current leading technologies in employee feedback. There are different time and financial costs associated with each method from the traditional being low cost, but potentially the least effective to the 360 degree feedback method associated with higher costs, but potentially providing the highest feedback gain. In order for feedback to be effective it must be composed of the following five details: relevant, accurate, timely, specific, and understandable. These factors must be considered from the perspective of the performer that is receiving the feedback. The most common cause of output failure is due to system short comings and not the performer. Intervention for a problem performer should have the following guidelines: use of standards, performer responsibility, and traceable metrics.

484 N. Baker

References

Borgham, Lex, Bas ter Weel, and Bruce A. Weinberg. 2006. Interpersonal styles and labour market outcomes. The Journal of Human Resources 18, no. 4: 43.

Carden, Lila L., and Jamie L. Callahan. 2007. Creating leaders or loyalists? Conflicting identities in a leadership development programme. Human Resources Development International 10, no. 2: 17.

Carmeli, Abraham, and Jacob Weisberg. 2006. Exploring turnover intentions among three professional groups of employees. Human Resources Development International 9, no. 2: 15.

Chang, Wei-Wen. 2007. The negative can be positive for cultural competence. Human Resources Development International 10, no. 2: 6.

Chiaburu, Dan S., and Douglas R. Lindsay. 2008. Can do or will do? The importance of self- efficacy and instrumentality for training transfer. Human Resources Development International 11, no. 2: 7.

Conrad, Sean, and Roberta Matuson. 2009. Feedback loop. Mechanical Engineering 131, no. 8: 2.

Eryes, Patricia. 2005. Avoiding successful lawsuits by non-performing employees. Cost Engineering 47, no. 2: 1.

Hamlin, Robert G., Andrea D. Ellinger, and Rona S. Beattie. 2008. The emergent ‘coaching industry’: a wake-up call for HRD professionals. Human Resources Development International 11, no. 3: 8.

Jawahar, I.M. 2006. An investigation of potential consequences of satisfaction with appraisal feedback. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 13, no. 2: 15.

Kowske, Brenda J., and Kshanika Anthony. 2007. Towards defining leadership competence around the world: What mid-level managers need to know in twelve countries. Human Resources Development International 10, no. 1: 10.

Liker, Jeffrey K., and David Meier. 2006. The Toyota way. New York: McGraw-Hill. Maylett, Tracy, and Juan Riboldi. 2007. Using 360 feedback to predict performance. T þ D

61, no. 9: 6. McDermott, Anna, and J. Hasler. 2004. 360 feedback: How do perceptions of doctors’

attributes compare? Clinical Governance Bulletin 5, no. 4: 2. Miller, Corey E., and Carl L. Thornton. 2006. How accurate are your performance appraisals?

Public Personnel Management 35, no. 2: 10. Palmer, Jerry K., and James M. Loveland. 2008. The influence of group discussion on

performance Jedgemens: Rating accuracy, contrast effects, and halo. The Journal of Psychology 142, no. 2: 13.

Ridley, Stanley E. 2007. Selecting job elements to rate in performance appraisals: The human factors approach. Performance Improvement 46, no. 5: 6.

Robertson, Christina. 2008. Employee development: Getting the information you need through a 360 feedback report. Chemical Engineering 115, no. 4: 4.

Rummler, Geary A., and Alan P. Brache. 1995. Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organizational chart. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.

Sordill, Pat. 2009. Results-oriented performance management. Paper presented at the BSH Associate Development Program, New Bern, NC.

Human Resource Development International 485

Copyright of Human Resource Development International is the property of Routledge and its content may not

be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.