The PAF Technique is a simple and logical process that enables managers to validate and justify what they “know” in their heads about an employee’s performance/potential and then to translate those conclusions into honest, effective feedback that they can deliver to the employee in any formal or informal context.
Why is the ability to do this so important?
When managers can “talk” effectively about performance-related issues with their employees, peers, superiors (as well as other people who do not report to them) they are able to make both informal and formal discussion processes work to achieve the objectives for which they are intended.
In addition, it helps managers to engineer successful employee performance – which is a key factor in improving employee engagement levels (see the e-book for a complete discussion about the link between good performance-related feedback and engagement).
Because it overcomes the root cause of the problem that the vast majority of managers face when they want or need to give performance-related feedback to both their employees and to people who do not report to them.
What is the root cause of the difficulty that managers have when giving feedback?
The root cause of the problem that prevents the vast majority of managers from “talking” to employees honestly and effectively to employees about their performance IS NOT:
With the performance assessment itself. For example, most managers either instinctively or subconsciously “know” how a given employee is “doing”. For example:
Jim is a pretty good supervisor. He runs a tight ship and I can rely on him to get the job done – he generally meets the production targets, etc. He has a lot of initiative when troubleshooting the inevitable problems that come up every day – probably because he has been in the position a long time and knows the operation inside out and backwards.
The problem with Jim is that he’s a real “know it all”. He always has to have the answer to everything (he pretends that he knows everything even when he doesn’t) and this means he sometimes even takes the credit for things that someone else has done in order to come off as “better” than he really is. Sometimes it’s so obvious that he is doing this that people are laughing at him behind his back. He’s losing respect and credibility with the team. He’s dropped hints about promotion, but this just simply isn’t in the cards. We need managers who have good people skills and he’s just blowing it. Too bad really, because if it wasn’t for this problem I think he would have potential.
With communicating positive conclusions about performance. Most managers would have no difficulty telling Jim that he has lots of initiative when troubleshooting and in explaining why they formed that conclusions.
With communicating negative conclusions about performance to a neutral third party. The majority of managers can explain why they believe that Jim is a “know it all” to their own manager or to an uninvolved person, provided that they can do so in confidence.
Rather, the root cause of the problem is that the vast majority of managers cannot explain and communicate that same negative information (Jim is a “know it all”) directly to the employee in a way that consistently achieves the desired results.
In other words, they cannot seem to formulate a way to say the actual words that will result in the employee:
Understanding what the manager is saying.
Accepting it as “true” (i.e., being able to see the manager’s viewpoint as valid).
Knowing exactly what to do to fix the problem, and being motivated to make the necessary changes.
Viewing the feedback discussion as having maintained or strengthened the manager/employee relationship.
This appears to be the case regardless of:
The amount of managerial experience they have. More experienced and/or more senior managers are just as likely to have difficulty discussing performance problems as their less experienced and/or less senior counterparts. In fact, almost all managers admit to having some degree of difficulty in giving effective corrective feedback.
Good intentions. Wanting to do something is not the same thing as being able to do it. Despite their best intentions, 90 plus percent of managers fall prey to clearly identifiable pitfalls that render their feedback ineffective to a greater or lesser extent.
Whether they are encouraged to discuss performance informally or are required to do it on a more formalized basis. The root cause of the problem is NOT removed by formalizing the feedback. It is just as hard for managers to communicate honestly and effectively in formal performance discussion situations. In fact, it may be even be harder because appraisals, employee development meetings, probation assessments, and formal coaching and mentoring discussions require managers to put their evaluations in writing. This is why formal appraisals of any kind tend not to tell the “real story”. This fact also contributes to the negative perception that many managers and employees have of them.
Whether or not they have received formal training. Most managers self-report that no matter how hard they try, they don’t seem to be any more capable of discussing performance and potential honestly and effectively with employees after attending HR-sponsored workshops in such subjects as supervisory skills, performance management, employee appraisal, coaching and mentoring, and giving feedback, than they were before they attended them.
Firstly, if traditional approaches to giving feedback were effective, then we would have seen better results from existing training.
Traditional approaches to giving corrective feedback may work – but only for “easy” situations, such as when the poor performance can be quantified. They tend to break down when managers want to address the “tough stuff” that involves subjective judgment or that are likely to be delicate for other reasons (for example, if managers believe that someone is “politically naïve” or “lacks leadership ability”). Yet, it is precisely this kind of information that comprises the vast majority of performance conversations they want to have but avoid (or do poorly) simply because they are not easy.
Because PAF works with the way that managers intuitively assess performance, not against it, it means that the formula makes it easy, even foolproof, for them to do the two things necessary to give outstanding CORRECTIVE feedback in even the most difficult cases:
1.Justify their conclusions about performance.
This means clarifying why they want to say what they want to say.
2.Create the actual words necessary to convey that information directly to the employee in any formal or informal context.
This means knowing how to say it in a way that will be effective (i.e., employees understand the feedback, accept it as valid, are motivated to change, while preserving the relationship).
With minor modifications, this same 3-step process can also create:
CONSTRUCTIVE feedback to discuss poor performance issues with non-reports. For example, managers can give effective performance-related feedback or advice to peers, their own managers, job-candidates (and even to people outside the office, such as neighbours, relatives, and children) in a way that has a high probability of being accepted while strengthening the relationship.
REINFORCING feedback that enables managers to recognize and appreciate good employee performance. It does this in a way that has a much greater chance that employees will understand the feedback, motivate them to want to work even harder and increase their engagement.
Want to see examples of PAF feedback? The e-bookcontains many examples that illustrate what PAF feedback sounds like for such difficult subjective situations.
Want to see a demonstration? In addition to examples, you can see a demonstration that allows you to not only experience how PAF works, but to compare and contrast the feedback it produces with that generated by all kinds of other appraoches.
