If you’re in a management position, you have the weight of the world on your shoulders. High expectations are placed on you to prove your worth, and your performance is directly tied to the performance of your direct reports. This means you need everyone on your team to give 110% every day in every way which means there is little room for poor attitudes and mediocre work. Hence, your objective is to figure out how you can keep everyone motivated and focused, working like a well-oiled machine. The good news is, it can be done.
However, on those occasions when the machine coughs and sputters, you have a problem. And more often than not, it’s not a technical problem; it’s a “people” problem with conflicts in communication or conflicts of personalities within the work group. Whichever the case, the problem needs to be resolved quickly before it escalates, which it likely will, if ignored.
In leadership training, such as L.E.T., managers are taught very effective conflict resolution processes, and they start with acknowledging that there is a problem. The manager’s role in the process is to confront those involved and to clearly communicate his or her concern to resolve the situation quickly.
However, there is another dimension taught in leadership training where managers are encouraged to confront people when there are no problems. Sound absurd? Read on…
As much as managers have a responsibility to step in when necessary to resolve problems, they must also understand the importance and value of giving consistent, positive feedback when employees perform beyond expectations. Why? Employees are much more motivated by specific positive feedback than through warnings of underperformance that populate their personnel files in the company’s HR department. Many times, it can be that one instance of strong, positive feedback that can completely turn an underperforming employee into a peak performer.
When offering positive feedback, simply telling someone they are doing a good job can be meaningless
Such casual, verbal pats on the back may make someone feel good for the moment, but it doesn’t provide substantive direction for repeat behavior. However, when specific feedback is given, it has much more meaning.
For example, if you are impressed with the way Sandy, one of your customer service reps, handled your most difficult customer, she needs to hear something much more than “Great job Sandy!” If you want Sandy to consistently repeat the same level of customer service with all customers, it will be much more meaningful to pull Sandy aside and walk her through exactly what impressed you about her performance. Hence, the preferred brand of feedback could be: “Hey Sandy, I wanted to let you know that I really admired the way you handled that call. I could tell you pulled every rabbit out of your hat to make the customer happy and it sounded like everything went very well in the end. I appreciate the extra time and energy you spent with them. I’m glad to have you here.”
It’s only fair that if we call people out when their work or performance is unacceptable that we also let them know when they perform up to, and beyond our expectations.