[caption id="attachment_482796" align="alignleft" width="136"]
Kip Holderness[/caption]
When you’re a manager, delivering feedback can feel like walking a tightrope. Whether praising an employee’s accomplishments or addressing a shortfall, how you communicate can have a big impact on how your words are received and acted upon.
We’ve done research into how to make the assessment process as painless as possible. And we’ve found three strategies that will help elevate the feedback process, fostering a more positive and productive work environment:
[caption id="attachment_482797" align="alignleft" width="138"]
Kari Olsen[/caption]
Keep your emotions out of it. Ever notice that saying things like “I’m disappointed” or “I’m proud of you” can change a feedback conversation completely? That’s because the language used can shift how employees interpret the feedback.
Our research shows that using negative emotional language can reduce employee motivation and effort. This happens because employees shift their focus away from their performance and toward the manager seeing them as a person.
At the same time, using positive emotional language such as “I’m pleased” can sometimes backfire, making employees feel complacent.
[caption id="attachment_482798" align="alignleft" width="148"]
Todd Thornock[/caption]
The takeaway here is that using emotionally neutral language helps employees stay focused on their tasks without getting sidetracked by what the feedback says about them personally.
Instead of saying, “I’m disappointed with your sales numbers,” try a more neutral approach, like “The sales numbers are below the target we set. Let’s discuss some strategies for improvement.”
That helps employees better understand what they need to work on, without the additional emotional burden.
Let workers customize their experience. Not all employees want the same type of feedback, and that’s OK. Giving employees the ability to choose the type and frequency of evaluations can boost performance. Workers who have a say in how often they are evaluated are more likely to use the process productively and feel less micromanaged.
Choose the right messenger. Who delivers the feedback can be just as important as the information. Our research has shown that some employees respond better to feedback from their peers, while others respond better when it’s from a manager.
We found that people with a greater sense of entitlement do better with feedback from a supervisor, while less-entitled people respond better to peers.
That’s why it can be a good idea to use personality profiles to determine the best messenger for feedback. For instance, consider situations where a co-worker’s feedback could be reasonably delivered and from whom, like a peer mentor or team lead.
By aligning the feedback source with the content and context, you ensure that the feedback resonates more deeply and is perceived as constructive rather than critical.
The benefits of these strategies are worth it. Here’s an example of how to apply them:
Imagine an employee, Mark, whose performance has recently dropped. In your feedback, you might start with a neutral statement such as, “Mark, I’ve noticed that your recent projects have been missing their deadlines. Let’s discuss why this might be happening.”
Next, offer Mark the option to set up regular biweekly or monthly check-ins. Finally, if Mark has a strong rapport with a team member who excels at time management, consider arranging a peer feedback session.
The result? Mark feels supported rather than scrutinized, and the feedback is framed as an opportunity for growth.
By being intentional about giving feedback, managers can create environments where employees feel respected, valued and motivated to succeed.
Kip Holderness is an associate professor of forensics and fraud examination and accounting at West Virginia University. Kari Olsen is an associate professor of accounting at Utah Valley University. Todd Thornock is an associate professor of accountancy at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. Distributed by The Conversation and The Associated Press.
