Plan requirement
| Subscription | Any plan |
| Also required | Quality Assurance or Workforce Engagement Management |
| Access | Admin |
The point of the whole thing. Reviews are evidence for a conversation, not a substitute for one.
What changes behaviour
A conversation about three specific exchanges, with the person, where they do most of the talking. Not a score, and not a written comment on its own.
The reviews exist to make that conversation specific rather than vague.
Coach on patterns, not incidents
One low score is a bad day. The same category low across six reviews is something worth working on together, and it is much easier to discuss without either person feeling attacked.
Ask before telling
"Looking at this one, what would you do differently?" gets a better answer than explaining what they should have done. Usually they already know, and then the conversation is about why it did not happen.
Often the answer is not the agent
No article existed. The process was unclear. The tool made it awkward. Coaching somebody to work around a broken process is a poor use of everybody's time.
This is why root causes matter more than scores.
Coach on the good ones too
Reviewing a conversation that went well, and naming what made it work, teaches more than correcting three that did not. It also stops feedback being exclusively negative.
Make it regular and short
Twenty minutes a month per person, consistently. An hour every six months is an appraisal, and it will be received as one.
Separate it from assessment
If the same conversation covers coaching and performance rating, people will manage the impression rather than discuss the work. Keep them apart, and say so.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.