What is The PAF Technique?
Why is PAF so effective as a feedback technique?
What is the root cause of the problem?
Why is PAF better than traditional approaches to giving feedback?
How does PAF overcome the root cause of the problem?
Why read the short e-book?

What is The PAF Technique? (Performance Analysis and Feedback)

The PAF Technique is a simple and logical process that enables managers to validate and justify what they “know” in their heads about an employee’s performance/potential and then to translate those conclusions into honest, effective feedback that they can deliver to the employee in any formal or informal context.

Why is the ability to do this so important?

When managers can “talk” effectively about performance-related issues with their employees, peers, and superiors (as well as other people who do not report to them) they are able to make both informal and formal discussion processes work to achieve the objectives for which they are intended.

In addition, it helps managers to engineer successful employee performance – which is a key factor in improving employee engagement levels (see the e-book for a complete discussion about the link between good performance-related feedback and engagement).

Why is PAF so effective as a feedback technique?

Because it overcomes the root cause of the problem that the vast majority of managers face when they want or need to give performance-related feedback to both their employees and to people who do not report to them.

What is the root cause of the problem?

The root cause of the problem that prevents the vast majority of managers from “talking” to employees honestly and effectively to employees about their performance IS NOT:

a) With the performance assessment itself. For example, most managers either instinctively or      subconsciously “know” how a given employee is “doing”. For example:

b) With communicating positive conclusions about performance. Most managers would have no
     difficulty telling Jim that he has lots of initiative when troubleshooting and in validating that conclusion.

c) With communicating negative conclusions about performance to a neutral third party. The
     majority of managers can explain and justify (i.e. validate) why they believe that Jim is a “know it all” to
     their own manager or to an uninvolved person, provided that they can do so in confidence.

Rather, the root cause of the problem IS that:

The vast majority of managers cannot communicate that same negative information (Jim is a “know it all”) directly to the employee in question in a way that consistently achieves the desired results.

In other words, they cannot formulate the words that will result in the employee:

• Understanding and accepting feedback (i.e., being able to see the manager’s viewpoint).
• Knowing exactly what to do to fix the problem, and being motivated to make the necessary changes.
• Viewing the feedback as having strengthened the manager/employee relationship.

This appears to be the case regardless of:

The amount of managerial experience they have. More experienced and/or more senior managers are just as likely to have difficulty discussing performance problems as their less experienced and/or less senior counterparts. In fact, almost all managers admit to having some degree of difficulty in giving effective corrective feedback.

Good intentions. Wanting to do something is not the same thing as being able to do it. Despite their best intentions, 90 plus percent of managers fall prey to clearly identifiable pitfalls that render their feedback ineffective to a greater or lesser extent.

Whether they are encouraged to discuss performance informally or are required to do it on a more formalized basis. The root cause of the problem is NOT removed by formalizing the feedback. It is just as hard for managers to communicate honestly and effectively in formal performance discussion situations. In fact, it may be even be harder because appraisals, employee development meetings, probation assessments, and formal coaching and mentoring discussions require managers to put their evaluations in writing. This is why formal appraisals of any kind tend not to tell the “real story”. This fact also contributes to the negative perception that many managers and employees have of them.

Whether or not they have received formal training. Traditional training does not overcome the root cause of the problem and therefore does not equip managers to give effective feedback.

Why is PAF better than traditional approaches to giving feedback?

For a variety of reasons traditional approaches to giving corrective feedback work only for “easy” situations, such as when the poor performance can be quantified.

Traditional approaches tend to break down when managers want to address the “tough stuff” – which not only makes up the vast majority of corrective feedback, but which is hardest for them to handle effectively. To illustrate, these approaches do not show managers how to validate and effectively tell someone that they think he or she is, for example, “politically naïve” or “lacks leadership ability”. Or, how to explain to someone that he or she didn’t get the job/will not be promoted because, for example, he or she “can’t see the big picture” or “is simply not cut out to be a manager”.

In other words they simply do not overcome the root cause of the problem

If traditional approaches to giving feedback were effective, then we would have seen better results from existing training. However, the fact is that no matter how hard they try, most managers don’t seem to be any more capable of discussing performance and potential honestly and effectively with employees after attending HR-sponsored workshops in such subjects as supervisory skills, performance management, employee appraisal, coaching and mentoring, and giving feedback, than they were before they attended them.

How does PAF overcome the root cause of the problem?

The PAF Technique uses a unique 3-step process that simply and automatically enables managers to:

1. Validate and justify their conclusions about performance (the “what” they want to say).
2. Create the actual words necessary to convey that information directly to the employee in any formal or informal context (the “how” to say it).

The simple formula works with the way that managers intuitively assess performance to make it easy, even foolproof, for them to create feedback on the “tough stuff” in a way that achieves desired results. It therefore works in situations where managers’ original intuitive approaches are not up to the challenge and/or when traditional feedback strategies fall short.

With minor modifications, this same 3-step process can also create:

• CONSTRUCTIVE feedback to discuss poor performance issues with non-reports. For example, managers can give effective performance-related feedback to peers, their own managers, job-candidates (and even to people outside the office, such as neighbours, relatives, and children) in a way that has a high probability of being accepted while strengthening the relationship.
  
  
• REINFORCING feedback that enables managers to recognize and appreciate good employee performance. It does this in a way that has a much greater chance that employees will understand the feedback, motivate them to want to work even harder and increase their engagement.

Why read the short e-book?

The short e-book is designed specifically for HR professionals. It explains the root cause of the problem in more detail, shows how it derails all types of formal and informal performance discussion processes, and makes a compelling argument for why this situation negatively affects employee engagement levels. Using real examples, it then shows exactly how The PAF Technique works to overcome all these issues.

The book also provides specific suggestions for how HR professionals can use PAF to achieve improvements in both formal and informal performance assessment and discussion processes.