The seeds of an interesting conversation are planting themselves here with this post called "So that’s why my peformance reviews sound like they were written by a robot" and here at systematicHR (especially in the notes by our good friend regina.)
The topic, in regina’s words: "technology can be an enabler of creating an engaged culture but for me it is doubtful that when a mgr. can pick phrases about perf from a database that this will create engagement. This kind of stuff keeps managers and employees detached vs. engaged."
Since this discussion was spurred by a CFO magazine article that is talking about our client Kimberly-Clark, I thought I’d get out in front here and try to give a little background on this. So I spoke with Randy Reynolds, our senior director of product management to try to get some of our thinking about the nature of pre-defined phrases (aka robot reviews). Here’s what Randy had to say:
Using our pre-written review text or coaching text is in many cases the best feedback some employees have ever received from a manager. Certainly, all employees would like to receive well-thought out specific feedback written only for them by their managers. The reality is that managers often don’t take the time to do this. In the absence of automated tools, they resort to meaningless phrases like “Max did a great job on the ACME project”; or “keep up the good work”; or “writing skills could use improvement”. In some cases automated text that has been selected by a manager – not a robot, is better than no feedback at all.
From a best-practice standpoint, we recommend using the automated text as a thought starter, not necessarily as the verbatim feedback that should be given to an employee. People often find that editing a written document is easier than starting from scratch. That is how we recommend using our writing tools. Start with a pre-written sentence that roughly conveys the feedback you want to provide. Add specific examples of positive or negative behavior that supports the pre-written text. This shows the employee that you have taken the time to provide specific feedback while gaining a short-cut through the use of the automated text.
Bottom line, every bit of feedback is important and valuable to employees and not every manager has the skills to construct meaningful feedback. Automated writing tools help bridge this gap.
In this way, these tools do truly support engagement by helping to provide feedback in places it would not ordinarily be found. Some well-chosen feedback, even if pre-defined, is most certainly better than poorly constructed feedback or no feedback at all.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:20 am
Thanks for linking me. I agree with both you and Regina. My next couple of posts (Improving the quality of communications parts 1&2) are actually about why software does not replace managers, but how they help managers view the bigger picture of what is going on. These are critical tools that if utilized correctly, are irreplaceble. Leaders simply cannot strategize without them, but once the strategies and environment is understood, the communications can then be better formulated.