The Feedback Sandwich--No

Photo by Victoria Shes on Unsplash

Yesterday, I was again in a training event where I was told how great the feedback sandwich is. For those who don't know what a feedback sandwich is, it is a method used to address performance issues with employees that ostensibly saves their feelings and helps performance. Basically, you tell the person something they are doing well, then tell them the thing you would like to see them do better, then end with something they are doing well.

Although there are times when the feedback sandwich may be a useful tool, over time I have become convinced it is a tool for a lazy supervisor.

Look at the hotdogs on the left. I am not a hot dog fan. I don't eat them often, but when I do, I load them up with a lot of other ingredients (more than you see here) so I don't taste the hotdog. That's really what happens with a feedback sandwich. The good things surrounding the area for improvement, which is usually why we are having the conversation to start with, cover up the "meat" of the feedback. Consequently, our employee doesn't get the true flavor of the sandwich.

But you say, "The sandwich helps keep a person from feeling bad and ensures they know I see all of the good things they are doing as well as the bad." In truth, if you have a person that has a lot of angst over negative feedback, they will generally ferret out the negative, regardless of how small, and fret over it anyway. Most other people will focus on the first and last and treat the middle as a minor issue if they hear it at all.

We all want our people to perform at an optimum level. We all want our employees to be motivated. And no one likes to be an ogre. So how do we give feedback correctly?

First, we work hard to create feedback culture. Much of the reason people freak out over negative feedback is because they don't get much feedback at all. The feedback we give them isn't done correctly.

I don't want to make this post too long so I will not go into details on how to deliver feedback; I'll just say we need to give a lot more of it, most of it positive. We look at feedback as a negative thing. Instead, as leaders we should look at feedback as a critical leadership tool. A person cannot improve without feedback. Failing to give frequent feedback, both good and bad, is cheating our employees. We are holding them back from reaching their potential.

Regular, honest feedback, good and bad, helps people grow and to perform better. The more feedback people get, the more they look at feedback as part of the work culture and expect it. If feedback is done properly, it doesn't feel like a personal attack, it feels helpful, because it is.

HR Metrics Are Meaningless

Photo by William Iven on Unsplash

I came across another article this week on HR metrics. Based on the title, "Which HR Metrics Will Matter in 2019?", I thought, "Great!" But once again, I was severely disappointed.

But first, what is a metric? If you look it up in the dictionary, it will tell you it relates to the metric system of measurement. However, as used in business, a metric translates data into some chart or graph that helps with decisionmaking. What were the Big 3 metrics cited in the article? Labor turnover (voluntary resignations), Absence rate, and Number of employees per HR staff member. ARRGGH!! The other measures mentioned in the article as useful are also not where we should be focusing our attention (although there are some good reasons to look at them on occasion.)

Most of the metrics I see in HR departments are busyness metrics--how much of something was done. Other metrics are efficiency metrics--how fast or how cheaply is a process done. I am not saying there is not some value in those, but the value is limited, and truly, the only people who should care are the people in HR. We should be concerned with reducing workload and being efficient with our resources. But from a company leadership viewpoint, I want to know impact. If the results aren't there, then I don't care how efficient the process is. If the results aren't there, I don't care how busy you are.

The problem with HR metrics is that it is very difficult to measure the impact of HR processes and generally, HR policies and practices do not operate in a vacuum, so it is tricky to try to isolate the impact of specific HR programs.

Fundamentally, HR is there to help the workforce be more productive and to leverage the talents of the people in the organization to help the organization achieve its objectives. Wouldn't you agree?

I can see a reason to track turnover. But the value in turnover is not the overall number. Personally, I like to see both voluntary and involuntary turnover. Voluntary turnover can indicate cultural, management, and compensation issues. But more importantly, who is leaving? Critical skill turnover is more important to me than turnover as a whole. When are people leaving? If shortly after hire, we need to look at our hiring and onboarding processes. Is there some other timeframe that seems to have a higher percentage of people leaving? Why? Involuntary turnover in good economic times can indicate poor hiring practices.

But I don't really care about the other two measures cited in the article. What might I look at instead? Every organization is different so I would expect the measures to be different. However, two that should be considered are Revenue Per Employee (this varies hugely by industry) and Employee Engagement. I look at revenue versus profit because although employees have a big impact on the revenue brought into the company, management determines how much of that revenue turns into profit. I would track employee engagement because study after study has shown higher engagement means higher returns.

There are other possibilities, but they should be based upon each business's unique niche and business objectives.

Let's Talk Systems

I am a big proponent for setting up systems. For many reasons.

HR is an interruption-rich environment. If you have never worked in HR, it can be a madhouse. I find that if I don't have some way to keep track of what needs to be done and where I am in the process, things get forgotten. Just because I was thinking of doing a task or partially done with a task when I am interrupted, my brain translates that to "Done!"

Often, multiple hands touch an action for different purposes. If you're a one-person HR department and do all of the HR and payroll yourself, maybe not so much. But for many of us, different people do different things. Take for example a new hire. Someone has to report the person as starting to work. Someone has to ensure the I-9 gets done. Someone needs to ensure the new person is properly set up in the HRIS (and possibly payroll, if the system is not the same.) Someone has to ensure they are scheduled for all of their orientation/new hire training. Someone has to set up their personnel file. Someone has to take care of sending out the benefits paperwork,....and so on. You get the point. How do you track whether everyone with an action to take has indeed gotten the information they need and completed their tasks?

People leave. Employees leave. They quit, you fire them, they die. Sounds a little hard-nosed., but face it--people leave. All of these have happened in my department. Sometimes with little or no notice. Does anyone know how to do their job? Can anyone pick up and at least fumble through the actions that need to be done?

We forget. Some actions in HR need to be done only once a year. Do you remember to do them? Can you remember how? Do you know where to get the information you need?

For these reasons and more, you need to set up systems. That means you have to sit down the think out all of the steps you take, who does what, when they need to be done, etc. There is nothing wrong with manual systems. I used them for years and they work fine. I have to admit though, I like to automate as much as possible. Automated systems can be easier to share as well.

So what are some of the systems we need?
- Continuity "binders." You may not use binders anymore--electronic files work. The idea is to  have everything you need in one place so that if someone comes into the job knowing nothing, they can fumble through. I learned this one in the military. People turn over all the time, so this is a great way to ensure continuity when there is no time for training. These should contain a process flowchart and/or checklist, who to call, links to references, where to find the documents, forms and manuals needed, and an FAQ.
- Checklists. Yes, I mentioned them in the last paragraph. If you don't feel like you need something as complete as a continuity binder, at least make a checklist. It might be my little military mind, but checklists are our friends. But only if we use them. Did you do this? Who did it? When? It's all right there.
- Task lists. I mean a list of every important task in your department. That way, you can easily see if you have people who are lined up to do all of them and that you have continuity documents for all of them. This will also allow you to set up a task reminder system.
- Task reminder system. If you don't do a task every day, it's a good idea to have a reminder set up, with an early reminder to start gathering information in advance. The year goes by with the speed of light and annual tasks come up before you know it. Time for the annual handbook review. Check. Time to send out the Medicate Part D Notices. Check. Gee, has it already been 15 days for that FMLA certification? What's going on with that?
- Cross training. Look at that master task list. Does every task have a primary and an alternate person assigned? If it's a critical task, maybe even a back up for the back up. I'm just saying...stuff happens. The primary of course, is the person who does the job every day. The backup should at least have been trained on the task and can do it, with the assistance of the continuity book.
- Quality Control. Even if you have a process, you need a way to check it. I had one person who would be the last person to receive the checklists back on a new hire. Her job was to review the checklist to be sure every single task was signed off and to do a spot check to be sure. She also went hunting for checklists if they weren't returned to her in a couple of days of hire. None of these tools do a thing for you, if they aren't used.

If you will take the time to set up (and keep current) systematic processes in HR (and the rest of your company), your work life will be so much easier and you'll be in better shape on compliance.

There is No Such Thing as Pixie Dust

In my practice, I work a lot with organizational leaders and do quite a bit of training. I enjoy it. However, I sometimes get the impression that management looks at training as a shot of pixie dust. Sprinkle a little bit on their people and performance magically changes.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as pixie dust. If I had pixie dust that worked like that, I would be a gazillionaire. But I'm not.

There is a good reason for training. It can impart new knowledge. However, to change behavior (which is often the desired result), training has to be combined with organizational support, most importantly manager coaching, to reinforce the desired change.

As a consultant, I am rarely with the organization after the training. I am in, do the training, and leave. I always tell the organization that follow-on support from organizational leaders is required, but I am not there to help ensure that takes place. That bothers me, because I know how important the follow-on is and how seldom it happens.

If you are trying to achieve a change in behavior that leads to improved results, training is an important piece of the game plan. However, the organization also needs to look at what policies and systems are in place that may support or obstruct the desired change. In addition, you need to ensure managers have the appropriate coaching skills and support the change. They, especially first-line supervisors, are key to translating the knowledge gained in training to changes in behavior, which leads to improved results.

The bottom line: there is no magic pixie dust. Changes in behavior and improved results require training, coaching and organizational policies and procedures that support the behavior desired. That requires a plan and some hard work.