People want feedback, and, in theory, performance reviews are a way to ensure that they get it at least once each year. But, in reality, written performance reviews are rife with the opposite—bias and unproductive and demotivating comments from managers.

That’s one takeaway from research released by Textio, a feedback platform, which analyzed performance reviews for over 23,000 people. Textio’s analysis of the reviews found that high-performing workers often received the worst-quality feedback, despite receiving a larger volume of feedback overall. And women and people of color received more low-quality and biased feedback than their white and male peers.

The analysis points to specific areas of manager shortcomings that organizations can monitor and suggests some basic pre-performance-review training that could make a difference. Here are more details of the Textio’s research findings and what you can do if your organization faces similar problems.

What they studied: Textio researchers analyzed the language used in performance reviews for over 23,000 individuals. They looked for instances of several kinds of unhelpful feedback, including:

• Personality-based feedback, or comments with words such as “nice,” opinionated,” or “confident.” These comments are often unrelated to the competencies integral to employee performance, and Textio’s research found that they tend to perpetuate stereotypes based on gender and race. 
• Fixed-mindset feedback, which emphasizes fixed characteristics, e.g., “brilliant” or “overachievers,” rather than growth opportunities. By focusing on employees’ seemingly innate qualities, this kind of feedback misses an opportunity to highlight new skills that employees have gained or potential areas for growth. 
• Cliched feedback, including “She left it all on the field” or “He thinks outside the box.” Even though cliches tend to be positive, they often lack the detail and specificity to be helpful to employees. 
• Exaggerated feedback, which uses terms such as “never, “always,” or “constantly.” This kind of feedback “may undermine the credibility of their observation, making it less likely that their feedback will be heard and internalized,” warn the report’s authors.

The researchers’ analysis looked at the frequency of less helpful feedback based on race, gender, and performance rating. 

What they found: Similar to the conclusions in previous years’ reports, Textio found that colleagues tended to give women and people of color poorer-quality feedback. 

In particular, women were more likely to receive personality-based feedback (less-helpful comments such as that they’re “nice”), regardless of performance rating. 

The researchers warn that these trends may exacerbate workplace inequality because “people are more likely to internalize feedback that aligns with social stereotypes about their identity,” regardless of their performance. Because women and people of color are most likely to receive feedback that reflects negative biases, personality-based feedback can exacerbate “stereotype threat” among these groups and make it more difficult to overcome workplace biases.

Perhaps more surprisingly, researchers found that even though higher-performers received 1.5 times more feedback than their peers, they tended to receive poorer-quality feedback. High-performers received almost twice as much exaggerated feedback than low-performers (indicated by terms such as “always”), and they received 2.6 times as much fixed-mindset feedback (such as that they’re “brilliant”). Some 75% of high-performers received cliched feedback, compared to 69% of their lower-performing peers. 

“In other words, high performers may receive more feedback than their peers, but the feedback they get is often the least thoughtful,” noted Textio’s report. 

What to do: When it comes to giving feedback, the report’s authors recommend that you “make sure it’s actionable, specific, and clear. Don’t resort to fixed-mindset or personality feedback.” Remember that giving feedback is a skill, so ahead of performance reviews, provide resources and training to help workers at all levels of the organization give better feedback to managers, colleagues, and reports. Below are ideas for where to start. 

Provide a word bank of terms and phrases to look out for that fall back on personality traits, fixed characteristics, cliches, and exaggerations. Emphasize that these comments can be both positive and negative. 

Share a template for making feedback as actionable as possible. Charter recommends the “situation-behavior-impact” model, a process that “de-blurs” vague or fuzzy feedback. Tania Luna, co-founder of LifeLabs Learning, shared the steps in that model: 

1. Identify a specific time and place you observed the target behavior.

2. “Articulate the observable behavior,” such as by asking questions or providing additional context.

3. “Link up to why it matters—the impact statement.” The impact statement should connect to team or individual goals, specific responsibilities, key results, or company values.

For example, a blurry piece of feedback might commend a worker for “always hitting it out of the park” during presentations. Using the situation-behavior-impact framework, a manager could instead say, “During our quarterly business review meeting, the pre-read documents were organized and comprehensive, and the meeting itself was facilitated well. Her efforts equipped the team with the necessary context to evaluate our progress toward our goals and prepare for the quarter ahead.”

As with personality and fixed-mindset feedback, blurry feedback can affect both high-performers and low-performers. Make sure to give managers opportunities to practice giving de-blurred feedback in both positive and negative contexts. 

This article courtesy of Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM)