FEED-FORWARD vs. FEEDBACK

“What were my faults in the last quarter’s performance? “ OR “Am I improving in CRM in this sector”

Which question would you like to address. The former relates to the issues pertaining to your past performances with a touch towards employee development and the latter focuses on improving the present.

Since both focus on employees’ performance enhancement, what factors draw the line of difference?

As per Marshall Goldsmith: Traditional feedback can at times be painful. We’re uncomfortable giving feedback and even more uncomfortable receiving it. There could be situations of defensiveness, frustration, embarrassment as a part of performance review and human experience. Another issue with traditional feedback could be: it focuses on the past, on what has already occurred—not on the infinite variety of opportunities that can happen in the future. As such, feedback can be limited and static, as opposed to expansive and dynamic.

On the other hand, feed-forward will provide individuals, teams and organizations with suggestions for the future and to help them achieve a positive change in behavior. Based on the responses, a customizable report is generated that provides a rich source of ideas and suggestions about how to achieve positive, measurable change in behavior.
Feed-forward is a kind of exercise, where participants are each asked to play two roles. In one role, they are asked provide feed forward--that is, to give someone else suggestions for the future and help as much as they can. In the second role, they are asked to accept feed forward--that is, to listen to the suggestions for the future and learn as much as they can. The exercise typically lasts for 10-15 minutes, and the average participant has 6-7 dialogue sessions.

On a personal note, I feel if the performance review process is used solely to document and discuss past performance, then the exercise has defeated its purpose which is in fact to feed towards the future.

The performance appraisal process and its discussion should have two important results:
1. encourage the continuance of good performance and
2. Identify the areas of improvement to enhance future performance.

I agree with Marshall Goldsmith's position that feedback deals with the past and that it is static. What happened was past! But, based on what happened one can work on the weak areas for future. Employees want to know from their supervisor how their work, efforts and completed goals are valued.. Every review should include aspects of how to move forward to create or continue the ongoing communication process. I believe that employees should be more involved in the process and that documenting performance discussions should be a 50/50 process for the employee and supervisor.

Thus the problem is not the tool; but the capacity of its utilization. We're not using it to its full potential. It would be fair to say that the feed-forward culture supports the performance review feedback.