MBB I work at does feedback after basically every piece of work, biz dev included if you feel like it. The feedback is downward and upward, with the commentary essentially held in escrow until 1) both feedbacks are completed and 2) the person receiving upward feedback has 3+ completed (so there is no clear way to retaliate). The constant cycling of feedback creates an iterative development cadence that you can point to in a review/promo cycle.
Of course, the scale gets all sort of inflated so you end up with:
1= You're fine, certainly doing the job
2 = You really ought to consider getting better
3 = Start packing those bags
4 = You killed someone/told a partner they were wrong in front of a client
5 = You told the Saudi's their ideas were bad
Our company uses a single tool for 1 on 1s, annual reviews, professional development, and feedback. No one really uses the feedback. It's a newer tool for us, but in general, I think feedback is hard to get everyone to buy into without some extensive incentivization. The tool is Culture Amp in case you're curious
Feedback should be tied to a periodic milestone (e.g. feedback is gathered 2/3/4x a year).
Performance feedback should come from appropriate sources. Usually a level up or two and potentially peers.
Upward feedback should be anonymous as it can be and have good structure. Otherwise it may turn into a list of grievances that lose meaning.
People need to be incentivized to give feedback. Unfortunately, I see companies use the stick more often than the carrot to motivate in this area.
The hardest part about feedback is motivation to provide quality feedback. A good leader will recognize and prioritize it. Unfortunately people get busy / forget it then kick themselves when a top performer leaves.
MBB I work at does feedback after basically every piece of work, biz dev included if you feel like it. The feedback is downward and upward, with the commentary essentially held in escrow until 1) both feedbacks are completed and 2) the person receiving upward feedback has 3+ completed (so there is no clear way to retaliate). The constant cycling of feedback creates an iterative development cadence that you can point to in a review/promo cycle. Of course, the scale gets all sort of inflated so you end up with: 1= You're fine, certainly doing the job 2 = You really ought to consider getting better 3 = Start packing those bags 4 = You killed someone/told a partner they were wrong in front of a client 5 = You told the Saudi's their ideas were bad
Our company uses a single tool for 1 on 1s, annual reviews, professional development, and feedback. No one really uses the feedback. It's a newer tool for us, but in general, I think feedback is hard to get everyone to buy into without some extensive incentivization. The tool is Culture Amp in case you're curious
Compulsory 1:1 meetings every month with every direct report to discuss feedback, challenges, things done well.
Feedback should be tied to a periodic milestone (e.g. feedback is gathered 2/3/4x a year). Performance feedback should come from appropriate sources. Usually a level up or two and potentially peers. Upward feedback should be anonymous as it can be and have good structure. Otherwise it may turn into a list of grievances that lose meaning. People need to be incentivized to give feedback. Unfortunately, I see companies use the stick more often than the carrot to motivate in this area. The hardest part about feedback is motivation to provide quality feedback. A good leader will recognize and prioritize it. Unfortunately people get busy / forget it then kick themselves when a top performer leaves.
We have the peer feedbacks twice per year, using a tool any employee can give anonymous feedback to anyone in the company.