Strategy 1: Cultivate Supportive Feedback Environments

As an important starting point for improving the regular, ongoing performance dialogue between supervisors and subordinates, organizations should improve the overall feedback environment. The feedback environment aims at cultivating supportive, informal supervisor–subordinate feedback relations on a day-to-day basis (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, Reference Steelman, Levy and Snell2004) and encompasses seven facets of feedback experiences that managers can systematically improve: (a) source credibility, which concerns judgments about the qualifications of the feedback sources; (b) feedback quality, which concerns the perceived value/utility of the feedback itself; (c) feedback delivery, which concerns the tactfulness of how feedback is provided; (d) frequency of favorable feedback, which concerns whether positive feedback is provided when warranted; (e) frequency of unfavorable feedback, which concerns whether negative feedback is provided when warranted; (f) source availability, which concerns access to desired feedback sources; and (g) promotion of feedback seeking, which concerns the active encouragement of seeking feedback from one's supervisor(s). Importantly, the feedback environment is often assessed from the perspective of an individual employee evaluating his/her direct supervisor.

Given its informal nature, the feedback environment can sidestep the problems associated with rigid, formal performance management systems (Dahling & O'Malley, Reference Dahling and O'Malley2011). Fortunately, improving such perceptions is fairly straightforward: Managers can become more accessible for feedback conversations and remind subordinates that feedback seeking is encouraged and supported. Greater feedback environment perceptions are related to many positive outcomes that make such efforts worthwhile, including reduced perceptions of organizational politics (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, Reference Rosen, Levy and Hall2006) and increased role clarity (Whitaker, Dahling, & Levy, Reference Whitaker, Dahling and Levy2007), which Colquitt, Murphy, and Ollander-Krane (Adler et al.) noted are key problems with performance management systems. Feedback environment perceptions also predict improved work attitudes and engagement (Gabriel, Frantz, Levy, & Hilliard, Reference Gabriel, Frantz, Levy and Hilliard2014; Norris-Watts & Levy, Reference Norris-Watts and Levy2004) as well as higher ratings of employee task performance and citizenship behaviors (Norris-Watts & Levy, Reference Norris-Watts and Levy2004; Whitaker et al., Reference Whitaker, Dahling and Levy2007). Moreover, the importance of the feedback environment underscores the necessity for supervisors to incorporate positive feedback into their daily feedback sessions, a point Pulakos and colleagues (Reference Pulakos, Hanson, Arad and Moye2015) note as being underutilized. We agree, as positive feedback can not only motivate employees but also encourage them to continue working with more vigor, determination, and creativity (Zenger & Folkman, Reference Zenger and Folkman2013). All in all, by enhancing the effectiveness of informal feedback-related processes encapsulated in the feedback environment, we suspect that the formal ratings can evolve to become more effective.

Strategy 2: Develop and Foster Employee Coaching Programs

Emerging research on employee coaching also underscores how regular, informal performance dialogues between supervisors and subordinates can contribute to effective performance management. Employee coaching involves tailored performance feedback, effective behavioral modeling, and strategic goal setting to help subordinates overcome individual challenges (Dahling, Taylor, Chau, & Dwight, Reference Dahling, Taylor, Chau and Dwight2016; Liu & Batt, Reference Liu and Batt2010). Coaching differs from training and formal performance appraisals because it is individualized, open-ended, and developmental, but it complements performance management by giving employees on-demand feedback and opportunities to address performance issues before poor ratings occur (Dahling et al., Reference Dahling, Taylor, Chau and Dwight2016). To this end, employee coaching can stem from a formal organizational policy or an informal practice adopted by individual managers toward their subordinates.

When it comes to integrating employee coaching initiatives with broader performance management systems, research indicates that coaching predicts objective indices of performance. For example, Dahling et al. (Reference Dahling, Taylor, Chau and Dwight2016) compared the effects of coaching frequency (i.e., how often managers coached individual subordinates) and coaching skill (i.e., the quality of coaching performed by managers) on sales goal attainment in a pharmaceuticals organization. Results indicated that coaching skill improved performance directly and indirectly through improved role clarity for employees; coaching frequency did not significantly predict performance. Therefore, more benefits will be reaped if organizations focus resources on developing managers to engage in effective coaching versus monitoring how much time managers spend coaching or providing feedback. Moreover, in complex work environments, employees likely face daily challenges surrounding how to best use their time when pursuing multiple goals. Providing coaching that helps employees monitor goal progress can be fruitful in making employees more aware beyond just providing negative feedback when goals are not met (Gregory, Beck, & Carr, Reference Gregory, Beck and Carr2011).

As a note, part of effective coaching lies in the delivery of performance feedback. When feedback is given considerately, employees are more likely to react positively and believe they have been treated well (Wang, Burlacu, Truxillo, James, & Yao, Reference Wang, Burlacu, Truxillo, James and Yao2015). This is important, as information received in an interaction characterized by good interpersonal treatment results in a higher likelihood of information being translated into action (van den Bos, Wilke, & Lind, Reference van den Bos, Wilke and Lind1998). Taken together, training on effective coaching should involve development of these interpersonal skills that can improve feedback delivery, thereby increasing subordinate receptivity to feedback.

Strategy 3: Attend to Individual Differences That Shape Feedback Receptivity

A final factor affecting the viability of any performance management system involves the reactions of the subordinate recipients themselves. Importantly, people differ in their motivation and ability to process feedback accurately. For example, Audia and Locke (Reference Audia and Locke2003) pointed out that high performers are less likely to accurately process feedback and change performance behaviors. Indeed, employee differences can create nuances in the system that need to be recognized and accounted for given that the recipient is an active part of the feedback process (Linderbaum & Levy, Reference Linderbaum and Levy2010). In our view, this aspect of feedback research—and performance management research, more broadly—warrants more empirical and practical attention.

One important difference is feedback orientation (Linderbaum & Levy, Reference Linderbaum and Levy2010; London & Smither, Reference London and Smither2002). Individuals higher on feedback orientation are more receptive to feedback, find feedback more valuable, see feedback more positively, process feedback more mindfully, and have a higher sense of accountability to act on feedback (Dahling, Chau, & O'Malley, Reference Dahling, Chau and O'Malley2012; London & Smither, Reference London and Smither2002). Gabriel and colleagues (Reference Gabriel, Frantz, Levy and Hilliard2014) found that reactions to supportive feedback environments depend on one's feedback orientation: Feedback environment perceptions were negatively related to aspects of empowerment among workers with low feedback orientation. As such, not accounting for such individual differences can lead to conclusions that performance management systems are ineffective when, in fact, they need better tailoring. Fortunately, feedback orientation is a malleable quasi-trait (Dahling et al., Reference Dahling, Chau and O'Malley2012), and consistent, positive feedback experiences are expected to improve feedback orientation over time.

Feedback receptivity also depends on individuals’ goal orientations: People who have a learning goal orientation (i.e., those focused on developing skills) respond more favorably to performance feedback via increased motivation, goal setting, and effort, whereas those with performance-prove orientation (i.e., demonstrating competence) or performance-avoid orientation (i.e., avoiding looking incompetent) tend to be less receptive to feedback (VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, Reference VandeWalle, Cron and Slocum2001). However, Davis, Carson, Ammeter, and Treadway (Reference Davis, Carson, Ammeter and Treadway2005) found that when specific (rather than general) feedback is given, individuals low on learning orientation and high on performance orientation can react positively, and the feedback can impact their performance. This suggests that improving aspects of feedback may yield greater receptivity to feedback regardless of goal orientation differences.

Demographics are also proving to be an emerging research area. For example, Wang and colleagues (Reference Wang, Burlacu, Truxillo, James and Yao2015) found that age shapes how people use feedback, such that older employees were more likely to use feedback in order to be aware of others’ views of themselves and inform the quality of their social relations at work, whereas younger employees were more likely to use feedback to improve their performance and career pursuits. Racial differences also shape how people react to feedback; Ryan and colleagues (Ryan, Brutus, Greguras, & Hakel, Reference Ryan, Brutus, Greguras and Hakel2000) found that racial similarity between the feedback source and recipient positively influenced the recipient's receptivity to that feedback, whereas racial dissimilarity negatively influenced receptivity to feedback. Combined, the aforementioned research highlights that to accurately diagnose the effectiveness of performance management one must understand the individual feedback recipients as best as possible.