Delivering effective performance feedback: The strengths-based approach

Abstract

Performance feedback has significant potential to benefit employees in terms of individual and team performance. Moreover, effective performance feedback has the potential to enhance employee engagement, motivation, and job satisfaction. However, managers often are not comfortable giving performance feedback and such feedback, if improperly relayed, causes more harm than good. In this installment of HUMAN PERFORMANCE, we describe a shift from traditional weaknesses-based feedback (which relies on negative commentary focused on employees’ shortcomings) to the more constructive approach of strengths-based feedback (which relies on employee affirmation and encouragement). We explain why a strengths-based approach to performance feedback is superior to the weaknesses-centered approach, and offer nine research-based recommendations on how to deliver effective performance feedback employing a strengths-based method.

Full text

HUMAN
PERFORMANCE
Delivering
effective
performance
feedback:
The
strengths-based
approach
Herman
Aguinis *,
Ryan
K.
Gottfredson,
Harry
Joo
Kelley
School
of
Business,
Indiana
University,
1309
E.
Tenth
Street,
Bloomington,
IN
47405-1701,
U.S.A.
Success
is
achieved
by
developing
our
strengths,
not
by
eliminating
our
weaknesses.

Marilyn
vos
Savant
1.
Building
up
vs.
breaking
down
A
key
responsibility
of
successful
managers
is
to
help
their
employees
improve
job
performance
on
an
ongoing
basis
(Aguinis,
Joo,
&
Gottfredson,
2011).
Managers
carry
out
this
responsibility
by
implement-
ing
performance
management
systems
that
are
de-
signed
to
align
performance
at
the
individual,
unit,
and
organizational
levels.
Notably,
performance
feedback
is
a
critical
component
of
all
performance
management
systems
(Aguinis,
2009;
DeNisi
&
Kluger,
2000).
Performance
feedback
can
be
defined
as
information
about
an
employee’s
past
behaviors
with
respect
to
established
standards
of
employee
behaviors
and
results.
The
goals
of
performance
feedback
are
to
improve
individual
and
team
per-
formance,
as
well
as
employee
engagement,
moti-
vation,
and
job
satisfaction
(Aguinis,
2009).
Unfortunately,
managers
are
often
uncomfort-
able
giving
performance
feedback
(Aguinis,
2009),
and
such
feedback
often
does
more
harm
than
good
in
terms
of
helping
employees
improve
their
perfor-
mance
(DeNisi
&
Kluger,
2000).
For
example,
Kluger
and
DeNisi
(1996)
conducted
an
extensive
literature
review
and
concluded
that
in
more
than
one-third
of
the
cases,
performance
feedback
actually
resulted
in
decreased
performance
across
the
131
studies
Business
Horizons
(2012)
55,
105—111
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
KEYWORDS
Human
resource
management;
Performance
management;
Performance
appraisal;
Employee
development;
Job
performance;
Feedback
Abstract
Performance
feedback
has
significant
potential
to
benefit
employees
in
terms
of
individual
and
team
performance.
Moreover,
effective
performance
feed-
back
has
the
potential
to
enhance
employee
engagement,
motivation,
and
job
satisfaction.
However,
managers
often
are
not
comfortable
giving
performance
feedback
and
such
feedback,
if
improperly
relayed,
causes
more
harm
than
good.
In
this
installment
of
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE,
we
describe
a
shift
from
traditional
weaknesses-based
feedback
(which
relies
on
negative
commentary
focused
on
employees’
shortcomings)
to
the
more
constructive
approach
of
strengths-based
feedback
(which
relies
on
employee
affirmation
and
encouragement).
We
explain
why
a
strengths-based
approach
to
performance
feedback
is
superior
to
the
weaknesses-
centered
approach,
and
offer
nine
research-based
recommendations
on
how
to
deliver
effective
performance
feedback
employing
a
strengths-based
method.
#
2011
Kelley
School
of
Business,
Indiana
University.
All
rights
reserved.
*
Corresponding
author.
E-mail
address:
haguinis@indiana.edu
(H.
Aguinis).
0007-6813/$
—
see
front
matter
#
2011
Kelley
School
of
Business,
Indiana
University.
All
rights
reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.10.004

they
analyzed.
Furthermore,
employees
involved
in
a
qualitative
study
said
the
following
about
the
feedback
that
they
had
received:
‘‘The
feedback
meeting
is
a
conflict
meeting,’’
‘‘It
was
devastat-
ing,’’
‘‘The
process
was
a
waste
of
time,’’
and
‘‘Feedback
equals
criticism
and
it
is
not
nice’’
(Bouskila-Yam
&
Kluger,
2011).
The
discrepancy
between
performance
feedback’s
intended
and
ac-
tual
consequences
constitutes
a
major
concern
to
employees,
managers,
and
organizations.
Although
managers
share
an
intuitive
under-
standing
that
feedback
plays
a
crucial
role
in
im-
proving
individual
and
team
performance,
many
managers
do
not
know
how
to
deliver
feedback
effectively.
More
specifically,
managers
quite
fre-
quently
provide
feedback
in
a
manner
that
is
exces-
sively
focused
on
employees’
weaknesses.
Yet,
the
same
managers
are
typically
unaware
that
such
weaknesses-based
feedback
often
fails
to
improve
employee
performance.
To
fully
reap
the
benefits
of
using
feedback,
managers
should
instead
primarily
rely
on
a
strengths-based
approach
to
feedback
that
consists
of
identifying
employees’
areas
of
positive
behavior
and
results
that
stem
from
their
knowledge,
skills,
or
talents.
Next,
we
describe
the
traditional
weaknesses-centered
approach
to
feed-
back,
the
novel
strengths-based
approach,
and
why
the
strengths-based
approach
is
superior.
We
close
with
a
set
of
nine
research-based
recommendations
on
how
to
give
effective
performance
feedback
using
a
strengths-based
approach.
2.
The
traditional
weaknesses-based
approach
to
feedback
Under
the
weaknesses-based
approach
to
feedback,
managers
identify
their
employees’
weaknesses
(e.g.,
deficiencies
in
terms
of
their
job
performance,
knowledge,
and
skills);
provide
negative
feedback
on
what
the
employees
are
doing
wrong
or
what
the
employees
did
not
accomplish;
and,
finally,
ask
them
to
improve
their
behaviors
or
results
by
overcoming
their
weaknesses.
The
rationale
behind
weaknesses-
based
feedback
is
that
weaknesses
are
areas
where
employees
have
potential
to
improve,
and
it
is
as-
sumed
that
informing
them
of
these
problems
will
motivate
them
to
improve
their
performance.
In
other
words,
the
assumption
is
that,
absent
such
communication,
employees
will
not
improve
their
performance
(Steelman
&
Rutkowski,
2004).
Because
employees’
weaknesses
can
be
detri-
mental
to
not
only
individual
but
also
team
and
organizational
performance,
managers
often
point
out
what
the
employee
did
wrong
and
why
the
employee
needs
to
improve.
Such
negative
feedback
can
be
illustrated
with
the
following
con-
versation
between
Ton y,
a
branch
manager
at
a
bank,
and
Lisa,
a
teller
at
the
bank:
Tony:
Lisa,
you
haven’t
been
greeting
customers
by
saying,
‘‘Hi,
welcome
to
XYZ
Bank.’’
We’ve
talked
about
this
a
number
of
times
now.
Lisa:
I
haven’t
done
it
a
couple
of
times,
but
I’m
getting
better.
Tony:
Okay;
well,
then,
I
need
you
to
do
even
better.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
receive
high
customer
service
rankings
so
that
we
can
get
a
big
bonus
at
the
end
of
the
year.
Lisa:
(Thinking
to
herself:
He
hasn’t
paid
any
at-
tention
to
what
I
have
been
doing.
I’ve
been
greeting
almost
all
of
my
customers
the
way
that
he
has
asked.
He
never
acknowledges
me
when
I
do
things
right
and
takes
it
for
granted,
but
he
sure
is
quick
to
point
out
any
relative
shortcomings.
What
a
jerk!)
Although
weaknesses-based
feedback
informs
employees
that
certain
behaviors
and
results
are
inappropriate
or
inadequate,
several
studies
have
concluded
that
such
feedback
entails
unintended
negative
consequences.
For
example,
negative
feedback
and
criticism
often
lead
to
employee
dis-
satisfaction,
defensive
reactions,
a
decreased
de-
sire
to
improve
individual
performance,
and
less
actual
improvement
in
the
same
(Burke,
Weitzel,
&
Weir,
1978;
Jawahar,
2010;
Kay,
Meyer,
&
French,
1965).
Negative
feedback
is
also
frequently
per-
ceived
as
being
inaccurate,
and
is
unlikely
to
be
accepted
by
the
person
receiving
it
(Fedor,
Eder,
&
Buckley,
1989;
Ilgen,
Fisher,
&
Taylor,
1979;
Steel-
man
&
Rutkowski,
2004).
When
feedback
is
focused
on
employee
weaknesses,
those
giving
the
feedback
generally
adopt
negative
views
of
and
attitudes
toward
the
employees
being
evaluated
(Gardner
&
Schermerhorn,
2004).
These
negative
conse-
quences
help
explain
the
general
lack
of
empirical
support
for
the
benefits
of
feedback
and
why
many
managers
have
not
experienced
significant
success
in
using
feedback
to
boost
employee
performance
(Kluger
&
DeNisi,
1996).
Next,
we
describe
an
alter-
native
and
superior
approach
to
feedback.
3.
The
superior
strengths-based
approach
to
feedback
Under
the
strengths-based
approach
to
feedback,
managers
identify
their
employees’
strengths
in
106
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE

terms
of
their
exceptional
job
performance,
knowl-
edge,
skills,
and
talents;
provide
positive
feedback
on
what
the
employees
are
doing
to
succeed
based
on
such
strengths;
and,
finally,
ask
them
to
maintain
or
improve
their
behaviors
or
results
by
making
continued
or
more
intensive
use
of
their
strengths.
The
reasons
behind
strengths-based
feedback
are
that
employee
strengths
are
of
great
potential
for
growth
and
development,
and
that
highlighting
how
these
strengths
can
generate
success
on
the
job
motivates
employees
to
intensify
the
use
of
their
strengths
to
produce
even
more
positive
behaviors
and
results
(Buckingham
&
Clifton,
2001).
In
contrast
to
weaknesses-based
feedback,
strengths-based
feedback
enjoys
a
significant
num-
ber
of
advantages
with
few,
if
any,
negative
con-
sequences.
For
example,
strengths-based
feedback
enhances
individual
well-being
and
engagement
(Clifton
&
Harter,
2003;
Seligman,
Steen,
Park,
&
Peterson,
2005).
This
effect
is
particularly
notewor-
thy
because
employee
engagement
is
negatively
related
to
turnover
(r
=
-.30)
and
positively
related
to
business-unit
performance
(r
=
.38)
(Clifton
&
Harter,
2003).
Strengths-based
feedback
also
tends
to
increase
employees’
desire
to
improve
their
productivity
(Jawahar,
2010)
and
heightens
actual
productivity
(Clifton
&
Harter,
2003).
Moreover,
employees
experience
increased
job
satisfaction,
perceptions
of
fairness,
and
motivation
to
improve
job
performance
when
their
managers
adopt
helpful
and
constructive
attitudes
that
are
typical
under
the
strengths-based
approach
(Burke
et
al.,
1978;
Seligman
&
Csikszentmihalyi,
2000).
Put
simply:
Given
its
documented
advantages,
the
strengths-based
approach
to
providing
feedback
is
a
superior
alternative
to
the
weaknesses-based
approach.
As
is
the
case
with
many
other
manage-
ment
practices,
however,
execution
is
key
(Bossidy
&
Charan,
2002).
For
instance,
managers
can
make
the
mistake
of
being
too
vague,
thereby
limiting
the
potential
performance
and
job
satisfaction-related
benefits
that
such
feedback
can
have
on
employees.
So,
what
can
managers
do
to
improve
the
effec-
tiveness
of
performance
feedback?
To
answer
this
question,
we
provide
nine
research-based
recom-
mendations
on
how
to
deliver
feedback
focused
on
a
strengths-based
approach.
4.
Research-based
recommendations
for
implementing
a
strengths-based
approach
to
performance
feedback
Table
1
represents
a
summary
of
our
nine
recom-
mendations.
Based
on
earlier
discussion,
our
first
recommendation
is
to
focus
on
a
strengths-based
approach.
The
strengths-based
approach
involves
identifying
strengths,
providing
positive
feedback
on
how
employees
are
using
their
strengths
to
ex-
hibit
desirable
behaviors
and
achieve
beneficial
results,
and
asking
them
to
maintain
or
improve
their
behaviors
or
results
by
making
continued
or
more
intensive
use
of
their
strengths.
The
second
recommendation
is
to
not
completely
abandon
a
discussion
of
weaknesses,
but
concentrate
on
employees’
knowledge
(i.e.,
facts
and
lessons
learned)
and
skills
(i.e.,
steps
of
an
activity)
rather
than
talents
(i.e.,
naturally
or
mainly
innately
recur-
ring
patterns
of
thought,
feeling,
and
behavior).
The
feedback
should
be
focused
thus
because
knowledge
and
skills
can
be
learned
and
improved,
while
talents
are
typically
inherent
to
the
individual.
Given
this
recommendation,
what
are
managers
to
do
when
an
employee’s
inappropriate
behaviors
or
inadequate
results
stem
from
weaknesses
in
certain
talents
rath-
er
than
weaknesses
in
knowledge
and
skills?
Our
next
recommendation
addresses
this
issue.
The
third
recommendation
is
that
managers
adopt
a
strengths-based
approach
to
managing
their
employees’
talent
weaknesses.
In
doing
so,
manag-
ers
can
follow
Buckingham
and
Clifton’s
(2001)
five
suggestions.
The
first
suggestion
is
to
help
employ-
ees
improve
a
bit
on
the
desired
talents.
But,
keep
in
mind
that
employees
are
unlikely
to
substantially
improve
the
talents
that
they
lack.
The
second
suggestion
is
that
both
managers
and
employees
should
design
a
support
system
that
will
serve
as
a
crutch
for
talent
weaknesses.
For
example,
em-
ployees
who
engage
in
public
speaking
can
remain
calm
by
imagining
that
the
audience
members
are
naked.
According
to
Buckingham
and
Clifton’s
third
suggestion,
managers
should
encourage
their
em-
ployees
to
see
how
their
strongest
talents
can
compensate
for
their
talent
weaknesses.
For
exam-
ple,
if
an
employee
possesses
the
talent
of
respon-
sibility
yet
struggles
in
networking
because
he
possesses
few
social
talents,
then
help
the
employ-
ee
see
that
networking
is
an
important
responsibili-
ty.
To
follow
the
fourth
suggestion,
make
it
easier
for
employees
to
work
with
partners
who
possess
the
talents
that
the
employees
lack.
The
fifth
and
final
suggestion
is
to
prevent
employees
from
engaging
in
tasks
that
strongly
require
talents
they
lack.
Ways
to
implement
this
last
suggestion
include
re-designing
jobs
for
employees
who
are
deficient
in
certain
talents
or
giving
other
employ-
ees
the
responsibilities
that
require
talents
certain
employees
lack.
The
fourth
recommendation
in
Table
1
is
that
the
person
providing
feedback
needs
to
be
familiar
with
the
individual
reviewee’s
knowledge,
skills,
and
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE
107

talents,
as
well
as
his
or
her
job
requirements
(Fulk,
Brief,
&
Barr,
1985;
Kinicki,
Prussia,
Wu,
&
Mckee-Ryan,
2004;
Landy,
Barnes,
&
Murphy,
1978;
Steelman
&
Rutkowski,
2004).
This
is
important
because
the
credibility
of
the
feedback
provider
can
be
quickly
lost
if
feedback
is
given
improperly.
An
example
of
feedback
coming
from
a
source
with
insufficient
familiarity
is
when
a
district
manager,
who
is
not
involved
in
the
day-to-day
operations
of
a
work
group
and
does
not
know
the
job
requirements
and
work
context
very
well,
visits
a
local
office
and
provides
feedback
that
is
based
on
hearsay
or
indi-
rect
third-party
information.
Our
fifth
specific
recommendation
is
to
choose
an
appropriate
setting
when
giving
feedback,
as
the
setting/location
in
which
feedback
is
delivered
truly
matters.
Specifically,
feedback
should
be
relayed
in
a
private
rather
than
public
setting.
Receiving
feed-
back
in
front
of
coworkers
can
be
very
demeaning
and
detrimental
to
the
employee.
Also,
although
most
people
do
not
have
a
problem
receiving
strengths-based
feedback
in
public,
managers
108
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE
Table
1.
Nine
recommendations
for
delivering
effective
performance
feedback
focusing
on
a
strengths-based
approach
Recommendation
Short
description
1.
Adopt
the
strengths-based
approach
as
the
primary
means
of
providing
feedback
Identify
employees’
strengths.
Provide
positive
feedback
on
how
employees
are
using
their
strengths
to
exhibit
desirable
behaviors
and
achieve
beneficial
results.
Ask
employees
to
maintain
or
improve
their
behaviors
or
results
by
making
continued
or
more
intensive
use
of
their
strengths.
2.
Closely
link
any
negative
feedback
to
employees’
knowledge
and
skills
rather
than
talents
Focus
weaknesses-based
feedback
on
knowledge
and
skills
(which
are
more
changeable)
rather
than
talents
(which
are
more
difficult
to
acquire).
3.
Adopt
a
strengths-based
approach
to
managing
employees’
talent
weaknesses
Help
employees
improve
a
bit
on
the
desired
talents
with
an
understanding
that
employees
are
unlikely
to
substantially
improve
the
talents
that
they
lack.
Create
a
support
system
that
will
serve
as
a
crutch
for
a
talent
weakness.
Encourage
employees
to
see
how
their
strongest
talents
can
compensate
for
their
talent
weaknesses.
Make
it
easier
for
employees
to
work
with
partners
who
possess
the
talents
that
they
lack.
Re-design
jobs
for
employees
who
are
deficient
in
certain
talents,
and
give
other
employees
the
responsibilities
that
require
talents
that
certain
employees
lack.
4.
Make
sure
the
person
providing
feedback
is
familiar
with
the
employee
and
the
employee’s
job
requirements
Make
sure
you
are
familiar
with
the
employee’s
knowledge,
skills,
and
talents.
Make
sure
you
are
familiar
with
the
employee’s
job
requirements
and
work
context.
5.
Choose
an
appropriate
setting
when
giving
feedback
Deliver
feedback
in
a
private
setting.
6.
Deliver
the
feedback
in
a
considerate
manner
Provide
at
least
three
pieces
of
positive
feedback
for
every
piece
of
negative
feedback.
Start
the
feedback
session
by
asking
the
employee
what
is
working.
Allow
employees
to
participate
in
the
feedback
process.
7.
Provide
feedback
that
is
specific
and
accurate
Avoid
making
general
statements
such
as
‘‘Good
job!’’
Evaluate
and
give
feedback
closely
based
on
concrete
evidence.
8.
Tie
feedback
to
important
consequences
at
various
levels
throughout
the
organization
Explain
that
the
behaviors
exhibited
and
results
achieved
by
the
employee
have
an
important
impact
not
only
on
the
employee
in
terms
of
rewards
or
disciplinary
measures,
but
also
on
the
team,
unit,
or
even
organization.
9.
Follow
up Provide
specific
directions
by
including
a
development
plan
and
checking
up
on
any
progress
that
is
made
after
a
certain
period
of
time.

should
take
into
account
that
certain
individuals
may
be
uncomfortable
in
the
spotlight
of
public
praise
or
recognition.
Regardless
of
the
approach,
public
feedback
will
not
result
in
positive
conse-
quences
if
given
in
the
wrong
setting.
Our
sixth
recommendation
is
to
deliver
feedback
in
a
considerate
manner
(Steelman
&
Rutkowski,
2004).
One
way
of
doing
so
is
to
maintain
an
opti-
mal
ratio
between
strengths-
and
weaknesses-based
feedback.
That
is,
a
manager
should
provide
at
least
three
pieces
of
positive
feedback
for
every
piece
of
negative
feedback
(Bouskila-Yam
&
Kluger,
2011).
Another
way
of
providing
feedback
in
a
considerate
manner
is
to
start
the
feedback
by
asking
the
em-
ployee
what
is
working
(Foster
&
Lloyd,
2007).
Doing
so
allows
the
employee
to
feel
more
hopeful
regard-
ing
their
future
and
remain
less
defensive
when
negative
feedback
is
given
(Foster
&
Lloyd,
2007).
Finally,
we
also
encourage
managers
to
allow
em-
ployees
to
participate
in
the
feedback
process.
Employees’
satisfaction
with
their
given
feedback
increases
and
their
defensiveness
decreases
when
they
have
an
active
role
in
the
feedback
process
(Cawley,
Keeping,
&
Levy,
1998).
Our
seventh
recommendation
is
that
feedback
should
be
specific
and
accurate.
It
should
center
on
certain
work
behaviors
and
results,
as
well
as
the
situations
in
which
these
were
observed
(Goodman,
Wood,
&
Hendrickx,
2004).
Avoid
making
general
statements
such
as
‘‘Go o d
job,’’
‘‘You’re
struggling
today,’’
or
‘‘Pi ck
up
the
pace.’’
Lack
of
specificity
will
result
in
failure
to
get
the
message
through
(Aguinis,
2009).
In
addition
to
being
specific,
feedback
must
be
accurate
(Elicker,
Levy,
&
Hall,
2006;
Steelman
&
Rutkowski,
2004).
One
way
to
maximize
accuracy
is
to
rely
on
concrete
evidence
(Jawahar,
2010).
Under
our
eighth
recommendation,
we
encour-
age
managers
to
give
feedback
that
ties
employee
behaviors
and
results
to
other
important
conse-
quences
at
various
levels
throughout
the
organization
(Aguinis,
2009).
Specifically,
the
person
providing
feedback
should
explain
that
the
behaviors
exhib-
ited
and
results
achieved
by
the
employee
have
an
important
impact
on
not
only
the
employee
in
terms
of
rewards
or
disciplinary
measures,
but
also
that
person’s
team,
unit,
and
even
organization
(Aguinis,
2009).
If
employees’
behaviors
and
results
are
not
explained
as
being
closely
linked
to
other
important
outcomes,
employees
might
develop
the
impression
that
their
positive
behaviors
and
results
produced
by
their
strengths
are
not
sufficiently
beneficial
or
im-
portant;
they
may
similarly
think
that
their
negative
behaviors
and
results
are
not
particularly
detrimental
or
significant.
Finally,
our
ninth
recommendation
is
to
follow
up
on
feedback
(Aguinis,
2009).
Doing
so
entails
providing
specific
directions
to
the
employee
through
a
development
plan,
as
well
as
checking
up
on
any
progress
that
is
made
after
a
certain
period
of
time.
Via
such
diligence,
employees
will
recognize
that
the
feedback
should
be
taken
seriously.
5.
How
it’s
done:
The
nine
principles
of
effective
performance
feedback
at
play
How
would
our
recommended
principles
of
feedback
play
out
in
an
actual
feedback
session?
Recall
the
conversation
between
Tony
and
Lisa
that
we
used
previously
to
provide
an
example
of
concepts
related
to
feedback.
Now,
consider
the
following
vignette
in
which
Tony
has
been
informally
observ-
ing
Lisa’s
performance
and
decides
to
provide
feed-
back,
both
because
of
things
she
did
well
and
areas
in
which
she
could
improve
when
interacting
with
customers:
Tony:
Lisa,
after
helping
the
remaining
customers
in
line,
will
you
come
talk
to
me
in
my
office?
I
want
to
compliment
you
on
the
great
work
you
have
been
doing.
I
also
want
to
talk
about
areas
in
which
you
can
improve
to
become
even
better.
(10
minutes
later)
Tony:
Come
in,
Lisa;
have
a
seat.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
want
to
talk
to
you
about
some
of
the
great
things
that
you’ve
been
doing
lately,
as
well
as
areas
where
you
can
improve.
I’d
like
this
time
to
be
about
how
I
can
help
you
be
your
very
best.
Lisa:
I
hope
I
have
been
doing
well.
I’ve
been
trying.
Tony:
I
can
tell.
Specifically,
in
what
ways
do
you
feel
like
you’ve
been
standing
out?
Lisa:
Well,
maybe
it’s
just
me,
but
I
hate
it
when
our
customers
have
to
wait
in
line.
Because
of
this,
I
really
try
my
best
to
work
quickly
so
that
people
don’t
have
to
wait
so
long.
Tony:
That’s
really
good.
In
fact,
our
monthly
fig-
ures
show
that
of
all
the
tellers
during
the
month
of
April,
you
conducted
the
most
transactions.
How
does
that
make
you
feel?
Lisa:
Really?
I
even
took
a
few
vacation
days
last
month.
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE
109

Tony:
And
because
of
your
great
work,
we
have
a
$50
gift
card
for
you.
Lisa:
Wow,
thanks!
Tony:
Obviously,
you’re
great
at
being
quick
and
efficient
when
working
with
customers.
How
do
you
feel
this
affects
the
quality
of
inter-
actions
that
you
have
with
them?
Lisa:
I’m
not
sure.
I
can
see
that
I
could
probably
be
more
engaging,
but
I
figure
our
customers
just
want
to
get
in
and
get
out.
I
mean,
I
always
make
sure
that
I
greet
them
and
ask
how
their
day
is
going.
So,
I
feel
like
I
have
a
good
balance
between
speed
and
quality.
Tony:
I
like
how
you
are
maintaining
such
a
good
balance;
that’s
why
you’re
one
of
our
most
accomplished
employees.
At
the
same
time,
I
want
to
fulfill
my
duty
of
helping
you
become
even
better,
so
I’d
appreciate
your
reflection
on
our
monthly
teller
goal
of
15
referrals
for
new
bank
accounts,
checking
accounts,
and
credit
cards.
Last
month
you
had
four
refer-
rals,
and
so
far
this
month
you’ve
acquired
two.
How
do
you
feel
you’re
doing
in
this
area?
Lisa:
I
guess
I’m
not
doing
as
well
as
I
probably
could.
I
get
so
concerned
with
moving
people
through
the
line
that
I
forget
to
ask
them
if
they
want
to
start
up
new
accounts.
Tony:
I
see.
So
it
seems
that
you
are
more
likely
to
ask
for
referrals
when
there
isn’t
a
line,
but
when
there
is
a
line,
you
have
a
tendency
to
not
ask
for
referrals.
I
want
you
to
remember
that
your
monthly
bonus
and
the
bank’s
over-
all
yearly
bonus
are
tied
directly
to
the
num-
ber
of
referrals
you
get.
I
want
you
to
be
happy
with
your
bonuses,
so
what
do
you
think
you
can
do
better?
Lisa:
Now
that
I
think
about
it,
I
do
typically
ask
for
referrals
when
there
isn’t
a
line.
I
don’t
know.
I
always
see
the
prompting
on
the
computer
screen
before
I
end
a
transaction,
but
I
just
don’t
want
to
inconvenience
the
people
standing
in
line.
Tony:
Preventing
customer
inconvenience
is
an
im-
portant
aspect
of
the
job.
So,
what
if,
rather
than
asking
people
at
the
end
of
transactions
whether
they’re
interested
in
a
new
account,
you
instead
ask
them
while
you
are
running
their
transactions?
Lisa:
Hmm,
that’s
actually
a
good
idea.
I
always
just
think
about
it
after
I
am
done
with
the
transaction.
Let
me
give
it
a
shot
the
next
few
days
and
see
how
it
goes.
Tony:
Great.
I’ll
follow
up
with
you
at
the
end
of
the
week.
Why
don’t
we
plan
on
having
another
conversation
like
this
before
you
go
to
lunch
on
Friday?
Lisa:
That
sounds
good.
I’ll
look
forward
to
it.
Thanks!
In
this
vignette,
Tony
followed
nearly
all
of
the
recommendations
for
effective
strengths-based
feedback.
He
began
the
interview
by
praising
and
discussing
in
detail
Lisa’s
strengths,
but
he
did
not
shy
away
from
discussing
her
weaknesses,
either.
Tony
emphasized
how
Lisa
can
use
her
strengths
to
improve
performance
even
further,
and
demon-
strated
that
he
was
familiar
with
the
work
Lisa
was
doing.
By
establishing
a
proper
setting
in
which
to
provide
his
feedback,
Tony
guaranteed
that
the
conversation
was
confidential,
thereby
limiting
any
defensiveness
on
Lisa’s
part.
To
ensure
Lisa
that
he
was
providing
credible
feedback,
Tony
was
consid-
erate
and
very
specific.
Although
Tony
did
not
dis-
cuss
three
positive
pieces
of
feedback
for
each
piece
of
negative
feedback,
he
did
provide
Lisa
with
a
reward
in
the
form
of
a
gift
card,
which
probably
made
her
more
open
to
the
weaknesses-based
feed-
back
that
he
provided.
In
addition,
Tony’s
feedback
was
based
on
concrete
evidence;
for
example,
he
was
able
to
motivate
Lisa
to
mention
when
she
had
a
tendency
to
ask
for
referrals
and
when
she
did
not.
Ton y
also
discussed
how
Lisa’s
lack
of
referrals
tied
into
specific
rewards,
demonstrating
that
referrals
were
important
to
her
as
well
as
to
the
bank.
Finally,
Ton y
gave
Lisa
some
time
to
improve
her
behavior
and
then
established
when
he
could
follow
up
with
her.
6.
Conclusion
The
purpose
of
performance
feedback
is
to
improve
individual
and
team
performance,
as
well
as
em-
ployee
engagement,
motivation,
and
job
satisfac-
tion.
In
this
article,
we
described
two
alternative
approaches
to
feedback:
the
traditional
weaknesses-
based
approach
and
the
superior
strengths-based
approach.
There
are
significant
negative
conse-
quences
associated
with
the
exclusive
use
of
the
weaknesses-based
approach.
Accordingly,
managers
should
primarily
adopt
a
strengths-based
approach,
which
focuses
on
what
employees
do
well
and
encourages
the
continued
and
further
use
of
110
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE

these
strengths.
Table
1
provides
a
summary
of
nine
specific
recommendations
on
how
to
deliver
feed-
back
using
a
strengths-based
approach.
Following
these
recommendations
will
not
only
improve
future
performance,
but
also
make
it
easier
for
managers
to
deliver
feedback
that
will
result
in
important
benefits
for
employees,
managers,
and
organizations.
References
Aguinis,
H.
(2009).
Performance
management
(2
nd
ed.).
Upper
Saddle
River,
NJ:
Pearson
Prentice
Hall.
Aguinis,
H.,
Joo,
H.,
&
Gottfredson,
R.
K.
(2011).
Why
we
hate
performance
management–—and
why
we
should
love
it.
Busi-
ness
Horizons,
54(6),
503—507.
Bossidy,
L.,
&
Charan,
R.
(2002).
Execution:
The
discipline
of
getting
things
done.
New
York:
Crown
Publishing.
Bouskila-Yam,
O.,
&
Kluger,
A.
N.
(2011).
Strength-based
perfor-
mance
appraisal
and
goal
setting.
Human
Resource
Manage-
ment
Review,
21(2),
137—147.
Buckingham,
M.,
&
Clifton,
D.
O.
(2001).
Now,
discover
your
strengths.
New
York:
The
Free
Press.
Burke,
R.
J.,
Weitzel,
W.,
&
Weir,
T.
(1978).
Characteristics
of
effective
employee
performance
review
and
development
interviews:
Replication
and
extension.
Personnel
Psychology,
31(4),
903—919.
Cawley,
B.
D.,
Keeping,
L.
M.,
&
Levy,
P.
E.
(1998).
Participation
in
the
performance
appraisal
process
and
employee
reactions:
A
meta-analytic
review
of
field
investigations.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
83(4),
615—633.
Clifton,
D.
O.,
&
Harter,
J.
K.
(2003).
Investing
in
strengths.
In
K.
S.
Cameron,
J.
E.
Dutton,
&
R.
E.
Quinn
(Eds.),
Positive
organizational
scholarship:
Foundations
of
a
new
discipline
(pp.
111—121).
San
Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
DeNisi,
A.
S.,
&
Kluger,
A.
N.
(2000).
Feedback
effectiveness:
Can
360-degree
appraisals
be
improved?
Academy
of
Management
Executive,
14(1),
129—139.
Elicker,
J.
D.,
Levy,
P.
E.,
&
Hall,
R.
J.
(2006).
The
role
of
leader-
member
exchange
in
the
performance
appraisal
process.
Journal
of
Management,
32(4),
531—551.
Fedor,
D.
B.,
Eder,
R.
W.,
&
Buckley,
M.
R.
(1989).
The
contribu-
tory
effects
of
supervisor
intentions
on
subordinate
feedback
responses.
Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Decision
Processes,
44(3),
396—414.
Foster,
S.
L.,
&
Lloyd,
P.
J.
(2007).
Positive
psychology
principles
applied
to
consulting
psychology
at
the
individual
and
group
level.
Consulting
Psychology
Journal:
Practice
and
Research,
59(1),
30—40.
Fulk,
J.,
Brief,
A.
P. ,
&
Barr,
S.
H.
(1985).
Trust-in-supervisor
and
perceived
fairness
and
accuracy
of
performance
evaluations.
Journal
of
Business
Research,
13(4),
301—313.
Gardner,
W.
L.,
&
Schermerhorn,
J.
R.,
Jr.
(2004).
Unleashing
individual
potential:
Performance
gains
through
positive
or-
ganizational
behavior
and
authentic
leadership.
Organiza-
tional
Dynamics,
33(3),
270—281.
Goodman,
J.
S.,
Wood,
R.
E.,
&
Hendrickx,
M.
(2004).
Feedback
specificity,
exploration,
and
learning.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
89(2),
248—262.
Ilgen,
D.
R.,
Fisher,
C.
D.,
&
Taylor,
M.
S.
(1979).
Consequences
of
individual
feedback
on
behavior
in
organizations.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
64(4),
349—371.
Jawahar,
I.
M.
(2010).
The
mediating
role
of
appraisal
feedback
reactions
on
the
relationship
between
rater
feedback-related
behaviors
and
ratee
performance.
Group
and
Organization
Management,
35(4),
494—526.
Kay,
E.,
Meyer,
H.
H.,
&
French,
J.
R.
P. ,
Jr.
(1965).
Effects
of
threat
in
a
performance
appraisal
interview.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
49(5),
311—317.
Kinicki,
A.
J.,
Prus si a,
G.
E.,
Wu,
B.,
&
Mckee-Ryan,
F.
M.
(2004).
A
covariance
structure
analysis
of
employees’
response
to
per-
formance
feedback.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
89(6),
1057—1069.
Kluger,
A.
N.,
&
DeNisi,
A.
S.
(1996).
The
effects
of
feedback
interventions
on
performance:
A
historical
review,
a
meta-
analysis,
and
a
preliminary
feedback
intervention
theory.
Psychological
Bulletin,
119(2),
254—284.
Landy,
F.
J.,
Barnes,
J.
L.,
&
Murphy,
K.
R.
(1978).
Correlates
of
perceived
fairness
and
accuracy
of
performance
evaluation.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
63(6),
751—754.
Seligman,
M.
E.
P. ,
&
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.
(2000).
Positive
psychology:
An
introduction.
American
Psychologist,
55(1),
5—14.
Seligman,
M.
E.
P. ,
Steen,
T.
A.,
Park,
N.,
&
Peterson,
C.
(2005).
Positive
psychology
progress:
Empirical
validation
of
inter-
ventions.
American
Psychologist,
60(5),
410—421.
Steelman,
L.
A.,
&
Rutkowski,
K.
A.
(2004).
Moderators
of
em-
ployee
reactions
to
negative
feedback.
Journal
of
Managerial
Psychology,
19(1),
6—18.
HUMAN
PERFORMANCE
111