Measurement science in the modern era really grew roots in the early 20th century, in a manufacturing experiment. Though the factory in question had measured the number of widgets per hour produced for a while, they thought increasing lighting on the assembly floor might increase output. They set up observers at each step on the assembly line, and observed the impact. Needless to say, production increased.  However, in the early 1900’s lighting was expensive, so they began lowering the light level to find the optimum balance. Strangely, production stayed just as high – even when lighting was reduced to pre-experiment levels. Further research and experimentation led to the what is now known as the Hawthorn Effect – what’s measured, improves.  Lighting wasn’t the change that increased output – measuring was.

Measurement science made many advances in the last hundred years, particularly in productivity environments.  However, measuring the wrong things created many problems along the way. Greg Howell, former Executive Director of the Lean Construction Institute shares his experience from the early days of measuring productivity in construction management:

Once upon a time around 1978, I was asked to help the management team on a large industrial project figure out why reports from the work sampling initiative were showing both improved “wrench time” and reduced productivity. It just seemed unlikely that people could spend more time working and get less done. So I carried my TimeLapse cameras to the site, climbed the structure and filmed operations. I saw strange things going on there. Every time a worker went to the toilet, a piece of pipe or lumber was left leaning against the outhouse and carried away when leaving. And I saw a crew moving heavy lumber from one location to another. Working in pairs, they picked up several pieces and carried them from one pile to the next. And then they carried one back….  Handling materials gained more credit than walking empty-handed; So they always carried materials. The statistics showed walking empty handed was dropping while the amount of time spent handling material was going up. Are we surprised? The old saw, “What gets measured gets done.” is true.

Which brings us to where we started – figuring out what to measure in order to produce the results desired. How do we assure we’re actually heading to the Big Apple, and not circling Washington on the Capitol Beltway over and over again?

If you run a business, measuring financial indicators is certainly important. But like the example earlier, profit numbers can be fluffed up (for a while, at least) when measured inside a vacuum. Any internal metric can be managed and manipulated by a creative business manager, especially if he has a bonus tied to his number. Therefore, choosing the right numbers to track becomes critical.

• First, brainstorm with your leadership group what your goals are, if you don’t already know. Make sure you can create consensus on where you want to go (or, at least where the first stop should be).
• Second, for each metric currently in place, try to identify a counter-metric. What is the “cost” of increasing profit?  Eliminating 50% of your support staff might save a buck for a while – increasing profits –  but ultimately will increase the frustration of those needing your services.  Measure both profits AND customer satisfaction, so profit growth can occur, but not at the expense of something just as critical.
• Finally, test each metric and try to break them before deploying.  Poll those who’ll be using the system, and those who won’t.  Ask them candidly how they’d game the numbers, until you hone in on a set of metrics that matter, and point you closer to true north.

Measuring ensures success. The measurement science of customer loyalty and behavior drives long term growth, committed customers, and a strong inward flow of referrals. Measuring client satisfaction, the real source of success as a professional service organization, is just as critical to track as your income statement and balance sheet. You look at your financial reports every month, and carefully track progress over time –  but when was the last time you looked at metrics from your clients’ perspective – how well you’re doing for them?

If you’d like help developing a strategy for what to measure, our team is here and able to help you find True north for your firm and your clients.

Today I brought a treat into school for Leah’s class. One of her classmates saw me walk by with a Tupperware container and started flagging me down in the lunchroom, mouthing words to me across two tables. I finally deduced that he was asking if I brought something for the class. I nodded,  and he grinned really big. On his way past me to the trash can he leaned over and said, “I love it when you bake!”

My wife, as you can tell, felt GREAT to get this kind of feedback.  As a mother of four wonderful kids, she invests tremendous efforts into being a Supermom – frequently baking, volunteering, and helping any way she can.  She spends many of those efforts outside our immediate family, providing value (baked goods, in this case) to an entire community (the class of eager first graders).

And though her job isn’t paid (trust me, I couldn’t afford 10% of what she’s worth), she does all this for moments like the one today in the cafeteria.  The simple act of an enthusiastic “Thanks!” from a first-grader provided all the compensation she needed to keep on working as hard as she does.

As a professional service provider, your sense that what you do is worthwhile is a huge part of your compensation, and it comes down to feeling appreciated. And yet so many of the people we encounter in the industry are, quite simply, afraid to ask for feedback. There’s no need for that fear!   Helping firms like yours we’ve seen that 96% of feedback is positive, 84% overwhelmingly so.  If you manage a design or engineering staff and you aren’t currently loading them up with real, tangible, feedback (especially from clients), you are missing a huge opportunity to build a powerful sense of purpose in their work.

Your clients, busy professionals, aren’t always positioned to see your people carrying the metaphorical bin of cookies down the school hall.  Sometimes, they simply get distracted and forget to acknowledge your people and the great work they’ve done.

There’s no shame in asking!  Though the purpose of a feedback system is almost always primarily about finding problems, the outcome is predominantly a resounding validation of successes.  With no sense of shameless self-promotion, your staff can seek genuine opportunities to improve, and instead be rewarded with constant doses of appreciation.

As you take a moment this week to pause and reflect on those things of which you are thankful, consider sending some feedback to the professionals around you, that serve you every day.  Even if they don’t ask for it, give them a call (or, better, call their boss) and say thanks for the great work.  Then, as you plan for 2012, find a way to make asking for feedback from your clients a part of your daily processes.  You won’t find an easier, more fun, and more healthy way to engage your staff and let them feel appreciated.

Part 4

When we implemented the Client Feedback Tool, we had certain expectations about how we would use the survey data.  We expected to stimulate dialogue with our clients; to identify opportunities for improvement; and to collect information about group and staff performance.  We found the program to be effective in these areas.  With an onsite visit from DesignFacilitator consultants, we were challenged to do even more with the data.

As we reported last time, we kicked off our program with general satisfaction surveys to faithful clients, initiated by our company president.  Many of the respondents singled out individual employees for praise.  The surveys gave us an additional opportunity for a client “touch” – to thank the client for responding, to show gratitude for their kind words, to reinforce in the clients’ minds how happy they were with us – and to ask for referrals.  When we moved on to project-specific surveys initiated by project managers, the feedback became more specific.  Through this tool we discovered that a client needed to see invoice information a different way.  Another client rated us as merely “acceptable” on “scope and fees.”  This presented an opportunity for a frank discussion with the client about pricing.  Turns out she had beat us up over price and had gotten a reduced fee – which allowed no room for the extra attention to which she was accustomed.  We have had numerous occasions to chat with clients as a result of feedback.

After we were up and running for a few months, Ryan and David from DesignFacilitator came to our office for an onsite consultation.  We were doing a good job responding to individual survey data.  However, they observed that we were not harnessing the power of the reports.  Armed with reports consolidating our company data, they demonstrated that we have a great story to tell.  Using Advanced Reporting Tools, they had produced a pie chart showing our results by performance category.  Fully 77% of the responses showed that we had exceeded expectations or better.  Our consultants recommended that we find a way to make this a part of our company narrative.  They showed us statistical reports showing averages by question category.  We also spent some time analyzing the bar graph report, to isolate particular groups who had unusual aggregate responses.  Seeing that one group, for example, always scored “exceptional” in the “scope and fees” category, for example, might be indicative that this department has set its fees too low.  We have continued to explore the advanced reporting options available to us.  For example, we have made good use of the “Tags” feature.  We can limit reports based on project type or company type, but at times a broader criterion is warranted.  As Firm Administrator, I have created a few tags on which I can filter my reports.

To use the survey results to tell our story, we enlisted our new Marketing Director and social media guru.  Alyah wrote a news piece for our website.  Using data from the reports, she created a bar chart to illustrate our results.  She sent a “Survey says” Tweet with a link to the story, and promoted it on Facebook.  After getting clients’ permission to publish their responses, Alyah plans to include client comments on our web page.  We have also begun modifying our printed marketing materials and presentation outlines to incorporate client care as a differentiator.

Our DesignFacilitator consultants had also advised that we promote our survey results within our company.  We have posted summaries on the company intranet, and we encourage all staff to use our great feedback to promote Koontz-Bryant.  On a large whiteboard in the breakroom, we periodically post a “Client Feedback Quote of the Day” culled from the comments.  Praise for employees by name becomes public in a low-tech, high-touch way.  This has generated some great whiteboard kudos and prompted some great conversations.

When Ryan and David visited with us, they helped us use the Client Feedback Tool in a fuller technical capacity.  More important than that, however, they gave us some sound business and marketing advice.  In a business where the things we do can be perceived as commodities, they have helped us to position ourselves as client caretakers.

There are many components at play in the dynamics of feedback exchanges, and it’s important to understand what the ramifications are for your feedback process design.  We can categorize feedback into three general groups:

1. Peer Feedback – this feedback happens between peers working closely together.  Typically these will be members of the same team within an organization, however highly integrated project teams (IPD, etc) and very close/long-term clients may fall into this category.  Here, feedback is given from one person to another within the context of a safe,  environment.  Regardless of the feedback, these two people will continue to work together – either by choice or by force – and therefore any disruptions to the relationship are critical to address and fix.  You’re “stuck” with each other, so there’s a high incentive to optimize the work processes between you.
2. Self Collected Client Feedback – these relationships are a bit more distant than those with your peers, and yet the people actually doing the work with a client are the ones gathering their own feedback.   The client has invested time (and money) into the relationship, and may consider you to be “up to speed” with his processes, preferences, and needs.  He has great incentive to continue the relationship, but can freely end it if the value proposition moves in the wrong direction.
3. 3rd Party Feedback – third party feedback almost always comes from “the boss” of the persons doing the work.  While this may mean a principal or executive, often times a hired consultant (hired by “the boss”) is engaged on their behalf to collect feedback.  Ultimately, the client perceives the interviewer to be in some way able to affect the destiny of the people being measured.

It’s important to understand these distinctions when designing a feedback process.  With this understanding, we can begin looking at the incentive and motivations for the person giving feedback, and from there, begin to understand where they will be “most honest.”

What we’ve found, over seven+ years of research, is that your clients generally like you (and/or your staff).  They value working with the people doing their work.  If they didn’t, you would have received their feedback by their departure as clients.  Since they have trained you/your staff to their ways, there is an investment that, if lost, would be costly to recover.  They are typically motivated to maintain continuity in the relationship.

Here’s where we turn common perceptions upside down.  Giving feedback to “the boss” doesn’t create more honesty.  Instead, since the clients like the people being reviewed, they tend to hide problems, gloss over problems, and heap praises for what’s good.  If they didn’t, then perhaps the boss might assign a different resource to them.  Even worse – the person they like might get in trouble, or at least in some way penalized, for doing less than a great job.  Not wanting to rock the boat, or get their “expert” in trouble (and maybe face retribution?) they provide moderate to positive scores, and rarely identify issues.

The closer the relationship, actually, the more low scores tend to be given.  When a project manager gets feedback directly from his client, the client now has real incentive to nit pick, identify little opportunities for improvement, and generally tweak the process to better meet his needs.  The client doesn’t fear getting anyone in trouble, and he knows that the right person will get the feedback, interpret it more correctly, and most importantly - take action on it.  Where this interaction tends to be challenged is when it’s forced into a face-to-face interaction.  Conflict resolution is an acquired skill, and many people are not very skilled at it.  Thus, in-person feedback exchanges tend to be lightweight and avoid raising issues.  When issues are raised, the person receiving the criticism must also then be skilled at responding well – not getting defensive or creating excuses.  Here’s where an electronic system for feedback exchange presents a key advantage – with just enough separation to allow comfortable criticism, the Client Feedback Tool enables discovery of even little nuances in project delivery.  With time to process the results before responding, you and your staff can craft an appropriate and measured response that is helpful, constructive, and designed to build better results for everyone.

Peer feedback takes this even further.  Being “stuck” with each other, both parties are equally incentivized to create a healthier, more productive working relationship.  When these people can share feedback openly and systematically, directly to each other, they build bridges upon which to base strong, lasting collaboration.

But don’t just take my word for it.  We have data to prove it!

Click to see larger view

This data comes from a consistent set of our Client Feedback Tool results.  Over nearly 1600 responses are broken into the three groups, from left to right:

1. Peer Feedback
2. Self Collected Client Feedback
3. 3rd Party Collected Client Feedback.

No wonder so many people like third party feedback – it produces the most positive results!  And yet, this shows clearly that self-collected feedback increases the usable, critical feedback by over 300%.  The top-of-the-chart feedback is also reduced, helping clarify exactly where real value opportunities have been created in a more focused manner.  Remember, the goal of feedback isn’t to get the best scores, but to find the best ways to actually get better.

The data shows an even more interesting trend – when electronic surveys are sent to a client by the person doing the work instead of by a third party, five times more free-form comments are added.  Again, the more personal relationship invites more candid, open, and strategic responses.  A score isn’t enough – the clients go one step further, investing more time in their reply, to really fine-tune the results and drive better performance.  Even when they give a high score, corrective actions will be referenced in the comments – so even those who are most fearful of criticizing find a way to have their voice heard.  Response rates are also higher with self-collected feedback versus third party (65% / 53% / 47%).

Which brings us back to where we started – what is the incentive for someone to reply to a feedback request?  Ultimately, their only motivation is to have you do a better job for them.  The more likely they feel the time spent providing feedback will actually help them, the more likely they are to provide honest, genuine, helpful information.  The best person to do that, is you – the person doing the work.

Part 3

At our last report to you, Koontz-Bryant had gone through the system setup with our implementation consultant, and we had conducted a Lunch and Learn training session with staff. We were just beginning to send surveys to clients, but did not yet have results to share.

To jump-start our efforts with the Client Feedback Tool, Koontz-Bryant’s president, Greg Koontz, sent general satisfaction surveys to several dozen clients. These surveys were not tied to particular projects, but instead were designed to gauge clients’ overall impression of our company. To speed the process along, Greg used the Client Feedback Tool’s import feature to bring in contact and company information from Outlook. We were pleased with the results. His response rate was 42%, and feedback was very positive. 

Of particular interest were the free-form comments people made. Where they mentioned a particular employee by name, we were quick to pass those compliments along. This gave us an opportunity to express appreciation to the employee, and to reinforce the idea that the surveys were a good thing. One of the comments related to the survey itself. Our client said, “I appreciate your use of the scale. It is a device I have not previously seen.” 

One of the survey recipients was an institutional client for whom we have done many projects. Though we knew our relationship was a good one, this client gave us the highest mark on every measure, and added, “I will take a consultant like Koontz-Bryant any day and twice on Sundays.” This high praise spurred us to build a marketing piece about this institution and our work together, and we included a glowing client testimonial. 

Getting individual project managers to send their surveys still seemed slow. As the “Firm Administrator,” I met with the practice leaders to identity barriers to cooperation. There seemed to be a bit of “decision paralysis” when it came to selecting the survey to use.  The Client Feedback Tool has 96 survey templates, and we had inactivated about two thirds of them. However, there were still too many to choose from.  We agreed that I would identify a few survey templates for general use. 

Most of our project managers have begun to send surveys. However, we were stumped as to how to overcome the problem of a few people not getting on board. We talked with Mike Phillips at Design Facilitator about this. His emphatic advice was to go ahead and send surveys on their behalf.  Regardless of whether the PMs “should” do these themselves, he reasoned, the important thing is to get the feedback, and not create a lot of organizational stress about it. When I offered to send surveys on behalf of a particular group leader, he was enthusiastic. We sat down with a billing register and he chose a batch of clients to survey. If PM participation lags, this is a technique we will use with other groups.

Though some of internal company surveys have shown us where we had opportunity for improvement, all of our client responses have been 4 (meets expectation) and above.  At first blush this looks like wonderful news, but we do have some concern that we have “cherry-picked” the recipients.  A low score, properly addressed, can be an opportunity to forge a strong bond with a client. As our PMs become more comfortable with the process, we will encourage them to send surveys encompassing the most difficult relationships, as well.

In our next update, we’ll share our experience with an onsite consultation visit by the DesignFacilitator staff.

Part 2

When Koontz-Bryant, P.C. decided to embark upon a program to collect regular client feedback, we had some questions about getting started.  We knew that with the Client Feedback Tool we could jump in with already-written surveys, and that compilation of results was part of the program. But how would we get buy-in from staff? What was the best way to train? How would we introduce the surveys to our clients? As Mary Poppins tells her young charges, “Well begun is half done.” We felt that our success with the feedback program depended on a good roll-out.

One of the things we liked about the Client Feedback Tool was the implementation assistance that came along with it. As a starting point, DesignFacilitator presented an outline of implementation steps that included consultation, software setup, training, and review. A pre-consultation questionnaire got us thinking about details such as our goals for feedback collection; who would be in charge of implementation; who would request feedback, and how often; who would review results and how results would be used.  With Ryan, our DesignFacilitator consultant, we scheduled some webinar meeting dates and got to work.

Two of us at Koontz-Bryant were charged with implementation. Our Controller would be the Firm Administrator and responsible for setup, and our COO would determine when surveys should go out, encourage staff participation, and assure appropriate follow-up. In our initial online consultation, Ryan talked with us about our company and staff structure, and our thoughts based on the pre-consultation questions. He helped us think through the feedback work flow, and shared some examples of what had worked with other firms. Ryan gave us a bit of homework and challenged us to come up with an assignment for the staff who would be using the Client Feedback Tool.

A week later, the real fun began. Our account went live and through an online meeting Ryan stepped us through the setup. He had already inserted our logo, and we selected colors for our firm branding settings. He showed us how to set up firm members and teams. Preference settings allowed us to determine default settings for notifications (what range of low/high scores should trigger an email alert?) and message defaults (messages sent to clients with the surveys). We learned how to use filters to narrow down the 96 pre-defined survey templates, and how to set up clients and projects. Over the next week, we completed setup of firm members and deactivated some of the survey templates.

Our next step was to train the staff. We scheduled a two-hour lunch and learn webinar for all office personnel. Koontz-Bryant management had been impressed with DesignFacilitator’s “Power of Feedback” presentation, so we asked Ryan to present a fair amount of that background material. He then walked staff through the program, guiding them through the steps of requesting feedback, reviewing results, and managing their personal preferences. An open discussion at the end allowed staff to ask questions. At the end of the session, we asked staff to send a survey to someone – client or internal. A few of the staff jumped right in and sent surveys to their coworkers, and a couple of people sent them to clients. However, some employees did not respond. 

A few days after the training, we sent a survey to everyone who attended the lunch and learn, using a training template that was already pre-established in the Client Feedback Tool. Everyone had an opportunity to see the process from the client’s perspective. More important, we gathered valuable feedback about our training process. We learned that overall our training met or exceeded expectations, the food was great, and our consultant got high marks for responsiveness and quality of presentation. We also learned that:

• the staff was less interested in the “why” of collecting feedback than in the “how”;
• two hours was a bit too long, even though the first half-hour was lunch; by the time we got to the “how” people were mentally tired;
• most people could not see the details of the software projected on the screen.

For anyone going through the process, our recommendation is to focus more on the “how”, and to find a way to set people up at multiple computers so they can see the screens.

The Client Feedback Tool has a section for tracking followup. We followed up with each person who rated an area low, and recorded this activity in the software.

A few weeks after the training meeting, our president, Greg, met with project managers to establish specific points in a project’s life cycle at which a survey should be sent. To increase our momentum, he also sent initial surveys to a batch of top clients.  Results are starting to come in.

In our next update, we look forward to sharing results with you.

Kaizen is a daily process, the purpose of which goes beyond simple productivity improvement. It is also a process that, when done correctly, humanizes the workplace, eliminates overly hard work, and teaches people how to perform experiments on their work using the scientific method and how to learn to spot,  eliminating waste in business processes.  In all, the process suggests a humanized approach to workers and to increasing productivity: “The idea is to nurture the company’s human resources as much as it is to praise and encourage participation in kaizen activities.” Successful implementation requires “the participation of workers in the improvement.” People at all levels of an organization participate in kaizen, from the CEO down to janitorial staff, as well as external stakeholders when applicable.

Note the incredible focus on everyone in the organization, in a very human way, seeking means to improve.  Just as important, Kaizen requires a systematic approach to test and measure efforts.  Without a methodical system to monitor results, changes are often a shot in the dark, and real lasting change difficult to obtain.

Service businesses (architects, engineers, lawyers, etc) face even greater challenges realizing incremental improvements.  The very nature of a professional service is a customized, solution-oriented approach to each unique project and client.  Kaizen comes from manufacturing, where practitioners performed the same function repeatedly.  In an assembly line one can easily measure widgets per hour, consistency of widget quality, and cost per widget – each of which monitors how changes to employee efforts affect production output.

Services are rarely so easily repeatable.  In fact, the only thing “standard” about a “standard” project is that no project ever matches the standard process.  And yet, while services firms may earnestly measure billings, schedule delivery, and quality of deliverables, they very rarely objectively measure the real delivery – client satisfaction.

Professional services, by nature, means we are servants.  And while our “master” (the client) requests a product (technical drawing, constructed building, etc), what they really need is our help – our service.

To truly practice kaizen – and realize lasting continuous improvement in your professional services firm – you must measure how well your service delivery met the clients’ expectations.  Gathering feedback objectively, consistently, and continuously will give you the real-time data needed to always get better.  Employing a system that everyone (from the CEO to the janitor) can use allows everyone to get better.

DesignFacilitator’s Client Feedback Tool is the only tool built exclusively for this purpose in the professional services industry.  Contact us to learn how this powerful and easy to use tool can help your “kaizen.”    www.designfacilitator.com

In his well-researched book Influence, Robert B. Cialdini describes six primary behavioral responses influenced by our basic psychology.  One powerful predictor of human behavior is the idea of consistency and commitment.

Cialdini demonstrates that our society places great importance on being perceived as consistent. Those who change their stance from a previous stated position are often branded unreliable.  Consider a politician who, even if justified, changes his stance on an issue.  He’s wishy-washy.  Across many vectors of our culture, there is a strong need appear consistent.

The influence of this demand to be consistent often drives behavior.  Even if the underlying reasons to act or behave in a specific manner are gone (or contrary to our best interest), the need to be consistent with a previous stated view or behavior is overpowering.

Consumer industries have known about this for years.  Many providers of household products have offered prizes for essay contests about their products.  Why?  Once you make a statement that a given product is great and describe why you like it so much, you now have a strong psychological need to be consistent with that statement going forward.  You have unwittingly committed yourself to preferring that brand over any others because buying any other would violate your innate need to be consistent.

Feedback from your clients is just as powerful.

When you solicit feedback and your clients respond – especially in some documented written format – you are changing something deep within their psyche.  Their need to be consistent will commit them to their feedback.  Their commitment will drive their behavior.

Over 96% of the feedback collected by our system is positive.  That means 96% of the time your clients are being influenced to prefer you and your services.  When your client needs similar services again, he will be more likely to choose you, just to be consistent with his past statements.  When telling others about his experience with you, he will be more likely to say positive things – again, just to be consistent.  When his boss asks why your fees are so high, your client contact will defend you and how great you are, and worth every penny – because he’s committed to his statements.

Even if you do nothing with the feedback you collect (though you should do something), the act of giving feedback will create more loyal, committed, consistent clients.  Asking for feedback is such an amazingly easy way to dramatically improve your firm.

If 90% of your feedback comes with top ratings, you may have some great marketing statistics.   But, you really haven’t collected data that lets you improve.  If almost all your scores are at the top of the scale, you have no way to differentiate which clients are most loyal, and place the highest value on your services.  You have no means to capture when something worked especially well, compared to your typical (and still effective) process.

With our Client Feedback Tool, we invested years of research into our patent-pending answering system, based on a self-centering “Met Expectations” sliding scale.  While our system provides the same percentage of “low” scores (~4%), only 16% of results fall in the top score category.  It’s this downward shift that gives you 400% more information with which to make decisions and improvements.  In the cases where you receive “Exceptional” feedback, you can now identify clients that valued your services much more than normal.  You can begin to see trends about what sets these situations apart.  Once you identify the contributors to these high scores, you can work them into your “typical” processes, enhancing value for all clients.

Suddenly, your high scores give you an opportunity to improve, just as much as your low scores do.

90% thumbs up feels good, but dramatically reduces the useful information you have.  

To learn more about our answer scale and how it works, contact us to schedule a demonstration.

Feedback is perhaps the simplest, most effective way to dramatically enhance the quality of your firm’s projects and client relationships.  But “doing feedback” seems to be so hard to make happen.

Mel Lester, at The Business Edge, blogged about the “Knowing-Doing” gap over at his excellent E-Quip blog.  Take the 5 minutes to read that post, then come back to join us.

Mel pinpoints several reasons why firms fail to affect change in their organizations, and actually improve strategic areas (like client relationships).  Knowing that feedback is important isn’t enough.  You have to make doing feedback something everyone in your firm does.

A simple and powerful tool like our Client Feedback Tool provides an easy way to track feedback, measure results, and make sure feedback is happening.  But having a tool and keeping it in the toolbox doesn’t help.   Possessing a wrench doesn’t make you a mechanic.  Fixing a car does.

Fortunately, doing feedback doesn’t have to be as hard as rebuilding an engine.  The Client Feedback Tool allows anyone to get feedback, from anyone, any time.  Focus first on creating a positive feedback environment, and build a cultural support for it.  There’s no such thing as bad feedback.  If you find people are fearful to ask for feedback from clients; or feel they don’t have access to clients – then focus instead on just getting feedback.

Set a goal.  Perhaps everyone should get feedback once a week.  Sound like a lot?  How many different people do your employees interact with in a year?  If they got feedback from peers, clients, vendors, managers, subordinates  - anyone they work with – they could probably find at least 25 different people in a year.  That’s asking each person only twice a year for feedback.

To get started, let them decide who to ask; just require that they do ask at a certain rate.  Track how often people ask for feedback – make that the measuring point starting out.  It’s easy to manage, clearly defined, and will give a broad dose of constructive input to each employee.

After several months of gathering feedback, your teams should be comfortable with the idea.  In fact, most will have experienced many successes.  Praise and reward these successes.  Support the challenges and make a safe environment for identifying areas to improve.

Now that you have a culture of feedback awareness, you can focus on more specific goals with your feedback program.  Direct more feedback towards clients in a systematic, phased approach.  Leverage feedback to identify training needs, or to promote effective leaders.  Incorporate feedback into more specific, broader quality assurance systems.  Whatever your long-range goals are, they’ll be easily achieved once you have the feedback engine running.

The point is to start with something easy to measure, that will quickly effect behavior.  Getting your team used to just asking is a great first step.