1. Prevent defensiveness: Defensiveness blocks all the things you need the other person to do -- listen to your views, see the benefits of change, trust your role in helping him get better, commit to change.  When someone gets defensive, the game's over, at least for that session.  Keeping the conversation focused on the benefits of change is the best strategy for preventing defensiveness.

   2. Protect self-esteem: This will increase the likelihood that the other person will process information with an open mind.

• Avoid sarcasm and derogatory comments.
• Avoid phrasing the criticism as a right-or-wrong issue.
• Give him a chance to develop a future, not just account for the past.

   3. Get him involved: People become more receptive to your opinions when they can freely express their own, so don't filibuster.  Getting the other person talking keeps him involved in the moment and helps your determine if he understands your message.  It also prevents his "defensive daydreaming," those moments when he looks like he's listening but is actually preparing his counterattack.

   4. Acknowledge  strengths: Openly acknowledging a person's strengths will:

• Highlight what the person is doing right.
  
• Allow you to perceive him in a more positive manner.
  
• Keep anger and disappointment in check.
  
• Convey that you're aware of and appreciate his efforts.

     Stressing strengths will allow the other person to conclude, "I'm doing some things well and can improve on  others."  Adding your offer to help him improve will increase the likelihood of changed behavior and performance.

     5. Understand your own role: When managers talk to someone about performance, the message is usually, "You have a problem and it's your job to fix it."  The tone is that of an ultimatum: "Change or else."  To make a difficult conversation go well, the initiator has to take responsibility for its success.  Show you are more interested in helping the other person do well in future assignments than you are in flogging him for past transgressions.  He may be accountable for improvement, but you are responsible for the success of the "difficult conversation."

     6. Coach with questions: Asking questions helps the other person discover solutions for himself.  When someone comes up with his own solutions, he feels more competent and in control.

     7. Have a follow-up plan: A follow-up plan shows that your initial expressions of wanting to help were more than a pep talk.  If the other person begins to believe you are committed to helping, he will look forward to your feedback as expressions of that help.

• Focus on the future.
• Dwell on the task.
• Clarify the benefits.
• Think of options.

   Focus on the future, not the past. This is difficult for most managers.  When something goes wrong, our sense of justice calls for blame and reprimands.  But dwelling on what went wrong focuses attention on the past -- which won't change -- instead of what must happen in the future, where change is still possible.

   If the path toward learning and changed behavior is indeed in the future, we need to know exactly what we want that future to be.  Unfortunately, it's easier to describe what we don't want than to articulate in any detail the actions and results we do want.

   What's worse, seeking accountability for past actions will interfere with the very learning we are trying to encourage.  If our objective is changed behavior and improved performance, we must put aside our need for retribution and concentrate on the future.

    Dwell on the task, not the person's "flaws." People don't like to be on trial.  Power and authority lurk in any judgment, even when the verdict is positive.  When it's negative, people become even more resistant to accusations and implicit threats of punishment.  Here are a few opening lines that work well, or at least well enough to help reduce defensiveness and keep the conversation going:

   • "Here's why I'm troubled by what's happening."  Follow this by suggesting specific actions or behaviors that would be mutually beneficial, emphasis on "mutually."

   • "I think I see your reasons for......, but here's the problem that it is causing."  This lets you describe the consequences of the target behaviors.

   • "I have a problem and need your help in solving it."  This approach signals a shared responsibility and invests you in the solution.

   All three examples isolate the behaviors as the problem, not the people themselves.  To maintain this distinction, be wary of questions that begin with "Why?"  It sounds too accusatory.  Similarly, don't use closed-ended questions that can be answered with "Yes" or "No;" they encourage defensiveness.  Instead, ask open-ended questions that invite explanations:

     • "What worked and didn't work as you neared the project deadline yesterday?"  This lets you raise a sensitive subject in terms of actions and results, not motives and character.

   You can't reshape someone's character, but you can modify his behavior.  People will respond more readily to your change initiatives if they trust that, despite your concerns about their performance, you like them personally.  Building this trust means avoiding character assassinations.

   Clarify the benefits. People won't change just because you want them to; they will change only when they want to, so sensitive conversations should move quickly toward the likely benefits of change.  To do that you must have them clearly in mind before you initiate the exchange. 

   Think of how you would handle a touchy subject with your boss.  You wouldn't confront her with a problem and demand an immediate solution: "Here's the mess; you clean it up."  Good sense dictates a more helpful approach: "Here's a problem I have, and here are three solutions that might work."

     Use that same strategy with colleagues.  Show them the consequences of their actions and then quickly suggest a few practical ways to change behaviors, changes that have direct benefits to all involved.  If your objective is modified behavior, identifying and selling the benefits of change is an essential first step.

   Thinks of options. If all you want from the conversation is the chance to find blame, options aren't very important.  But if you want the other person to perform better, you need to help him fashion a strategy for change.  Smart leaders bring potential strategies to the conversation.

   Don't be afraid to be part of the solution, but don't promise what you can't deliver.  Your first promise might be to help draft some options, followed by a discussion about how to proceed.  Be careful not to cross that line between offering assistance and adopting the problem as your own.  You can share responsibility and still hold someone accountable for his action.

Trailheads

The Power of Positive Criticism by Hendrie Weisinger.  Amacom, 2000.

Difficult Conversations: How to discuss what matters most by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen.  Viking Penguin, 1999.

   Learn to coach. Expectations are not enough to guarantee good performance.  People who don’t know how to do something need to learn.  That means they need coaches and teachers who can help, not overseers more interested in control.  Most managers are not taught how to be good teachers.  Too many are like older athletes who were once great “players” but failed to make the transition to coaching.  There’s a big difference between having been a great sales rep and then coaching others to be good at it.  Effective appraisals must begin with assessing the managers’ abilities as coaches. 

   Be careful with “constructive criticism.” All criticism is negative.  Its intent may be constructive, but its inherent nature is negative, which explains why people don’t like it.  Telling people they did something wrong may be an accurate appraisal of their work, but it does little to insure that the task will be done properly in the future, so avoid carping and cultivate teaching. 

   Evaluation must be continuous. Most appraisal systems are once-a-year rituals.  Anne Seunier, a Princeton consultant, has observed: “Doing annual appraisals is like dieting only on your birthday and wondering why you’re not losing weight.”  Editors need to negotiate goals and standards and monitor progress every day, not once a year.

   Turn the process upside-down: At Parkview Medical Center in Pueblo, CO, the evaluation is called APOP: The “Annual Piece Of Paper.”  It begins with managers asking three questions:

   What gets in the way of you doing your job the way you’d like to be doing it

   What kind of learning would you like to do?

   What quality improvement process are you working on that you need help with?

   That’s an entirely different approach to appraisal.  It invites individuals to assess their own work in order to identify obstacles and opportunities and how managers can help deal with them.

• Competence
• Recognition
• Involvement
• The work itself

      Competence: There is a direct and powerful link between people's skills and their motivation to do high-quality work.  Those who excel don't need to be motivated; they prod themselves to sustain excellence.  What's more, the act of striving is itself rewarding.  Look at the people in your organization who are really good writers, photographers or artists; you don't have to do much to motivate them.  Their competence is part of a self-motivating "virtuous cycle."

     Competence has another benefit: It fuels the need to achieve.  In some people –– the "self-starters" and "drivers" –– this achievement drive is built-in.  In others it needs to be cultivated, and building competence is the best way to do that.  As competence increases, so does satisfaction, which in turn builds the confidence that helps perpetuate the cycle.

     Recognizing and nurturing the drive to achieve is important because, of all the predictors of high performance, the achievement drive is the most reliable.  Competence is the engine propelling the achievement drive.

     Recognition: Another foundation of motivation is recognition.  Recent studies asked people to list the most important intangible benefits of their jobs.  Everyone from the boardroom to the shop floor put "Feeling appreciated" high on the list.

     To be effective, recognition has to be authentic and purposeful.  Superficial recognition, like casual praise or meaningless rewards, might stimulate short-term compliance, but it won't motivate anyone to deeper commitment and higher performance.  Quite the opposite; inauthentic recognition can actually retard motivation by breeding cynicism.

     Recognition has real purpose and power when linked to competence.  As performance improves, timely recognition can reinforce the gains.  Competence and recognition are like two poles in an electromagnetic system working in concert to keep energy in motion.

     Recognition has another purpose: To reinforce the mission and values of the organization.  The word recognition comes from Latin roots meaning "to know again."

   Involvement in decisions: Recognition and involvement are powerful motivators; the absence of one or both is an equally powerful disincentive.  People who put forth effort that is never recognized, or have no voice in the important decisions that affect their work and their life, are less motivated than those who are recognized and involved.  Involvement doesn't cede authority; it spreads accountability.  People who feel accountable to their colleagues and readers are more motivated to perform well.

   The work itself: It should be no surprise that people who find their work stimulating are motivated to do it better. Editors need to examine each job and ask: How stimulating and satisfying is it?  Does it offer a chance to learn and grow?

   What can managers do to boost self-motivation?

   Provide training. The more you help people improve their skills the more they will be motivated toward high performance.  There is simply no substitute for teaching people how to do something well and then recognizing them for doing so.

   Get rid of grunt work. Make a public display of vigorously trying to eliminate drudgery.  Even if the gains are modest, the effort will be appreciated.

   Be honest about involvement. All managers swear public allegiance to the idea of "involving people in decisions that affect their work."  The truth is most companies are still ruled by top-down, command-and-control hierarchies.  If people have an influential role in key processes that govern their work-including schedules, assignments, training and performance evaluation-they will be more motivated.

• Enhance performance
• Promote appropriate behavior
• Help raise self-esteem.

• Praise often implies low expectations for low ability.  "Nice job" can be an encouraging aside, but more often it's a casual comment about a low-threshold activity.  When people sense that the praise is being used to get them to do better at what is essentially an easy task, their self-esteem drops, and their persistence at more difficult tasks is likely to drop with it.
• Praise is intended to raise someone's self-consciousness.  By drawing attention to something positive, the hope is that it will be repeated ("Do this and you'll get that.") But for some, self-consciousness applies pressure that actually inhibits performance, a common challenge for piano teachers and sex therapists. 
  
• Praise sets up expectations of continued success.  Kohn cites a study by Mary Budd Rowe in which she found that elementary school students whose teachers frequently used praise showed less task persistence than their peers.  Expectations of continued success can lead to fear of failure.  In Kohn's words, "If we steer clear of situations in which we might fail, we eliminate any chance of being criticized by the very person who just praised us."  
• Praise, an extrinsic motivator, often undermines the intrinsic motivation that is essential to high performance.  If a child loves to play a game, he'll play it without compensation.  If offered token rewards, he'll eventually play for those rewards, not the love of the game, which, in time, will diminish.
  

   According to Peter Scholtes, author of The Leader's Handbook, most managers believe appraisals "serve to clarify an individual's work responsibilities, align the worker with the organization's goals, hold each worker accountable for his or her responsibilities and motivate them to continuously improve."

   Scholtes thinks the conventional wisdom is wrong.  By encouraging what he calls "a superficial, culprit-oriented approach to problem solving," that is, looking for the "Who" instead of the "Why" underlying performance, appraisals actually diminish individual effectiveness and organizational progress.

   Performance appraisals share a number of failings:

   • They focus on the actions of individuals instead of the more relevant relationships and activities within groups.  Faulting a new manager for not properly guiding an employee overlooks the role of the senior management that failed to offer that new manager sufficient coaching instruction and practice.  The manager may not have performed adequately, but if the appraisal ends with an individual indictment, the opportunity for meaningful improvement in the larger system will have been lost.

   • Appraisals substitute subjective judgments for reliable information.  Unless supervisors subscribe to the more rigid definition of feedback outlined below, their appraisal is likely to be more opinion than useful information.  Even when editors point out someone's obvious deficiencies, there is no assurance that the faultfinding will improve performance and understanding.

   • Too often appraisals search for blame and accountability instead of improvement.  It's easy to point a finger and find fault in the past.  It's far more difficult to build competence for the future.

   For Scholtes, the harsh truth is that performance appraisals simply don't work.  "There is no legitimate data to support the effectiveness of performance appraisal ... Underneath it all, performance appraisal is related to a manager's need to maintain control, or at least the illusion of control."

   Still, most people want feedback, especially if it involves instruction, direction or recognition.  But they will accept and respond to that feedback only if it has promise of leading to personal growth and development.  If the feedback is perceived as negative or unfair, it will be rejected.  The lesson is clear: Evaluations are effective only when they lead to learning.

   Here are some guidelines for evaluation:

   Redefine feedback. It is more than casual opinion or quick reaction.  Feedback has four components: Information about progress toward specific goals measured by mutually agreed upon standards.  That's a far more rigid definition that most managers use.

   Clarify goals and standards. Without specific goals and mutually agreed-upon ways to measure them, there can be no valid information about progress toward those goals, so be sure you and the person you're giving feedback to first agree on the objectives and then the methods for measuring progress.

   Make the evaluation voluntary. No one should be forced to be evaluated.  This sounds more radical than it really is; if someone is resistant, the process will be a waste of time anyway.  To be successful, you need to persuade that person that an evaluation-leading-to-learning process has direct benefits.

   Let the person control the process. This is radical, but it works.  The person seeking feedback needs to approve the timing, frequency and methods for the evaluation.  Ceding control will improve the outcome by minimizing top-down judgments and focusing the conversations on the individual's learning needs, not just the manager's opinions.

   Focus on learning. There should be only one purpose to any evaluation –– the individual's growth and development.  Don't call it a "performance review."  That puts the focus on the past, not the future.  I wouldn't even call it an "evaluation;" that sounds too judgmental.  Remind yourself that you are working on two things during an evaluation - someone's learning needs, and your role in helping to meet them - so make it a planning process, not a trial.

   Trailheads:

• The Leader's Handbook by Peter R. Scholtes.  McGraw-Hill, 1998.
• Punished by Rewards by Alfie Kohn.  Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999.

   Trailheads:

• Cracking Creativity: The secrets of creative genius by Michael Michalko.  Ten Speed Press, 1998.

   I once criticized a photographer for a mediocre photograph at an important event.  What I learned later was that he had stood in the rain for nearly two hours preparing for what would have been a superb shot, and that only bad luck prevented him from getting it.  How useful was my feedback, and what did that photographer learn about me that day?

   A connection to compensation inhibits candor. If I ask you how you are doing, and your salary for the next year depends on the answer, how forthright are you going to be?  Yet in most companies the annual performance review leads directly to decisions about pay.  Evaluations leading to individual development have to be rigidly separated from decisions about pay.  When they are not, both processes suffer.

   Finally, feedback can't be rushed.  Richard Farson, author of Management of the Absurd, believes "the currency of praise is time."  The same principle applies to feedback.  To discuss with care the details of someone's life's work takes time and attention.  "Drive-by" feedback is convenient but inadequate.

Trailheads:

•    Managing Up: 59 ways to build a career-advancing relationship with your boss by Michael and Deborah Singer Dobson.  AMACOM, 2000.
•    Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson.  Simon & Schuster, 1996.