Performance feedback is one of those “sleeper” issues in employee engagement. Get it right, and often it isn’t one of the more important drivers of engagement, because other issues become more salient. Get it wrong, and it can prove to be a key obstacle to higher engagement. However, there is mounting research and practice that’s turning performance feedback and management on its head, which includes revamping appraisal processes, and moving to “career management” as opposed to “performance management”.

1. TURNING PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
INTO POSITIVE EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
Monthly Webinar Series
February 4, 2016

2. 2
Topic Agenda
Item Time
(min)
Introduction/Why the Topic? 5
Performance Feedback and Employee
Engagement
10
The Trend in Performance Appraisals:
Some Case Examples
10
Lessons Learned 5
Q&A 5
Norm Baillie-David
SVP Engagement - TalentMap
Monica Helgoth
VP Engagement - Western Region
Agenda

3. 3
15 years in business
7,000+ employee engagement surveys
since inception
1,000,000+ employees surveyed
500+ employee engagement surveys
annually
Only 1 Focus
TalentMap by the Numbers

4. 4
Sample Clients & Benchmark
Award Programs Technology & Engineering Not-for-Profit & Association
Financial Services
Health Sciences
Other

5. Why the Topic?

6. PRIORITIZING OPPORTUNITIES: WHERE DOES
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK FALL?
Improving
engagement should
be focused on
dimensions
exhibiting a
combination of low
performance scores
and strong drivers
Focusing on the
lower dimension
scores exclusively
may not fully
address what is
needed to target
and improve
engagement
“Maintain:
Keep doing well”
“Leverage &
Expand”
“Medium/
Low priority”
High
Performance
Low
Performance
Weak Driver of
Engagement
Strong Driver of
Engagement
High need for
improvement
coupled with
powerful drivers of
engagement
Opportunities
For
Improvement
6

7. EXAMPLE 1: HIGHEST CLIENT IN BENCHMARK 7
COMPENSATION
WORK ENVIRONMENT
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
WORK/LIFE BALANCE
INFORMATION &
COMMUNICATION
TEAMWORK
INNOVATION
CLIENT FOCUS
IMMEDIATE
MANAGEMENT
SENIOR LEADERSHIP
ORGANIZATIONAL VISION
Strong
Engagement
Driver
Weak
Engagement
Driver
Worse Than
Benchmark
Better Than
Benchmark

8. EXAMPLE CLIENT 2: PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK AS
OPPORTUNITY AREA
8
TOTAL REWARDS
WORK ENVIRONMENT
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
PROFESSIONAL
GROWTH
WORK/LIFE BALANCE
INFORMATION &
COMMUNICATION
TEAMWORK
INNOVATION
MEMBER FOCUS
IMMEDIATE MANAGER
SENIOR LEADERSHIP
ORGANIZATIONAL VISION
CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
Low
Performance
Score
High
Performance
Score
Strong
Engagement
Driver
Weak
Engagement
Driver

9. 271 respondents selected a theme for this comment
How could your performance feedback be improved?
39%
32%
25%
18%
16% 15%
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
It meets my
expectations
Improve
evaluation
process
More
recognition
Improve
management
More feedback Better
communication
Other
%Frequency
Benchmark
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK: COMMENTS 9
“The performance appraisal process can be improved by bringing back the 5 tiered
measurement. No additional pay increase but it really changes the morale of appraisals. As
it stands now, you are either in the 90% of workers or the 10% exceptional. If you bring back
the middle zone, it will help the morale of those that do work hard.”
“Less negative feedback, balance it with positive feedback. “
“Performance evaluation / feedback is done at the very last minute, right at the deadline.
The process has little value. Continuous, less formal feedback would be much better”

10. EXAMPLE : MORE TYPICAL CLIENT – AVERAGE
ENGAGEMENT
10
COMPENSATION
WORK ENVIRONMENT
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
PROFESSIONAL GROWTH
WORK/LIFE BALANCE
INFORMATION &
COMMUNICATION
TEAMWORK
INNOVATION
CUSTOMER FOCUS
IMMEDIATE
MANAGEMENT
SENIOR LEADERSHIP
ORGANIZATIONAL VISION
Strong
Engagement
Driver
Weak
Engagement
Driver
Worse Than
Benchmark
Better Than
Benchmark
Not perceived well, but not
enough of a driver to focus
on as priority

11. 29
26
26
36
29
27
21
34
23
28
45
53
41
42
43
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Overall Performance Feedback
I understand how I will be measured or
evaluated at work.
My performance evaluation process is
fair.
My performance evaluation process
helps me to be more productive.
The frequency of my performance
evaluation is about right.
% Frequency
Unfavourable Neutral Favourable
-6 -16
-1 -17
-13 -20
-1 -8
-9 -18
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK 11
Data is rounded to the nearest whole number
* Number indicates % Favourable score +/- CLIENT
2014*
+/- TM
Benchmark

12. Source: TalentMap
text analytics
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK – KEY THEMES
12

13.  Example weak negative:
• “It seems like the evaluation process is just a formality…... The periodic one-on-one chats
with my manager are more constructive….Also, often the goals that are set are so far ahead
in time that when it comes time to compare accomplishments against the goals list, it just
looks bad because the goals weren't met, but it's not like we just sat around twiddling our
thumbs, we were working on other stuff (deemed more important by management).”
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK – SENTIMENT
ANALYSIS
13
8
39
6
11
11
Strong Positive
Weak Positive
Neutral
Weak Negative
Strong Negative
Sentiment Rating
(number of comments rated)

14. ENGAGES AND MOTIVATES
• (Very) Frequent feedback
• Informal conversations
• Informal recognition
• Avoiding rating scales
• Conversations focus more
on future, less on past
DISENGAGES AND
DISCOURAGES
• Annual review (with few or no
conversations)
• Ranking and percentile
methods (e.g. top 10%, median,
etc.)
• Rating scales which are seen
as limiting, arbitrary and/or
subjective
• Conversations focus on past
performance
• Emphasis on “strengths” and
“weaknesses”
SUMMARY: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN’T?
14

15. HIGHLY ENGAGED ORGANIZATIONS ARE
DROPPING THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW
15
Source: Quantum Workplace – The State of
Employee Feedback

16. 1:1s RANKED #1 COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
16
Source: Quantum Workplace – The State of
Employee Feedback

17. DEVELOPMENTS AND “BEST
PRACTICE” EXAMPLES
17

18. The GE Example
18

19.  Teams and departments were
focused on their own objectives –
resulting in entrenched siloes
 Annual objectives couldn’t keep
pace with changing demands
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS DRIVING
CHANGE
19
Remember this?

20. Managers and their direct reports
hold regular, informal “touchpoints”
where they set or update priorities
that are based on customer needs
Conversations are documented
using specialized app (including
voice recording – so no extra effort
required)
Development is forward looking
and ongoing; managers coach
rather than critique; suggestions
can come from anyone in an
employee’s network.
THE GE SOLUTION/APPROACH
20
Source: GE’s Real-Time Performance Development
by Leonardo Baldassarre and Brian Finken
August 12, 2015
Harvard Business Review

21.  We’re (also) learning a new vocabulary, dispensing with sticky labels
like “strengths” and “weaknesses”.
 “We focus instead on behaviors employees may want to “continue” as
well as changes they may want to “consider” making. This new
vocabulary focuses our teams less on backward looking feedback
and more on forward-looking actions. It frames feedback in a positive
way.”
“The shift from “command and control” to “empower and inspire” is
dramatic, and, as evidenced by our fivefold increase in productivity, it
is yielding significant benefits for our employees and customers.”
WHAT THE GE CONVERSATIONS LOOK LIKE:
21

22. 22
“
As managers, we need to be more vulnerable
and show our teams we are growing to give
them the license to do the same
”

23. The Deloitte Example
23
Source: Reinventing Performance Management
by Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall
Harvard Business Review, April 2015

24. 1. Survey of executives shows 58% don’t believe their current approach
drives either engagement, nor performance
2. Existing approach had little impact on future performance
(performance rarely changed dramatically)
3. Huge time investment in process (2 million hours per year, for 65,000
employees).
• That works out to >30 hours per person per year
• Most spent in conversation about rating employees very little time in
conversations with employees.
4. Research shows that performance ratings are more driven by the rater
than performance of the ratee.
• Source: Michael Mount, Steven Scullen, and Maynard Goff Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000.
OBSERVATIONS DRIVING CHANGE
24

25. Addressing frequency: The Weekly Check In
Every team leader is to check in with each team member
once a week. Not in addition to the work of a team leader;
they are the work of a team leader.
Check-ins initiated by the employee/team member, not the
leader. Recognizes a simple truth: the team member has
more interest in receiving the feedback than the leader has
in giving it.
THE DELOITTE SOLUTION
25

26. Addressing rating bias:
Leaders rate each project based on what they would do, not
what they think of the person:
1. Given what I know of this person’s performance, and if it were my money, I
would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus
[measures overall performance and unique value to the organization on a five-
point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”].
2. Given what I know of this person’s performance, I would always want him or her
on my team [measures ability to work well with others on the same five-point
scale].
3. This person is at risk for low performance [identifies problems that might harm
the customer or the team on a yes-or-no basis].
4. This person is ready for promotion today
[measures potential on a yes-or-no basis].
THE DELOITTE SOLUTION
26

27. THE LESSONS LEARNED
27

28.  Improving performance feedback and appraisals will
improve both engagement and performance
 Organizations with high employee engagement “get it” and
have intuitively shifted or augmented their approach
 Performance feedback and appraisal approaches are
evolving towards:
• Greater frequency
• Greater emphasis on future development, rather than past
performance
• Understanding that rating scales say more about the rater than the
employee
Lessons Learned
28

29. Event Format Topic Date
TalentMap Monthly
Webinar Series
Live Webinar Work-life Balance and its Impact on
Culture: Confessions of a Reformed
Workaholic
February 25, 2016
Conference Board of
Canada: Public Sector
HR 2016
Conference
February 23-24,
2016
TalentMap Monthly
Webinar Series
Live Webinar Keeping Employees Engaged in a Troubled
Economy
March 24, 2016
OMHRA Spring Workshop Conference/
Trade Show
April 13, 2016
Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology
Spring
Conference
April 14-16, 2016
UPCOMING TALENTMAP LEARNING SESSIONS

30. THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
30
Monica Helgoth
VP Engagement – TalentMap West
mhelgoth@talentmap.com
1-888-641-1113, x515
Norm Baillie-David
SVP Engagement
nbaillie-david@talentmap.com
1-888-641-1113, x504
http://www.talentmap.com/webinar-past/