Hi all, and thanks for all the content you make available for everybody

I have a question regarding the feedback model that I announced 10 days ago (after having done 1:1 for 2.5 months).

As per guideline on rolling out the trinity, I'm trying to give out positive feedback to my top performers. The problem is that the behaviours I encourage with feedback all seem very minor (example being sharp on time on meetings).

The major thing (for example delivering a lot of code in a software company) is harder to deliver the "here is what happens". I tried something like: "when you deliver 10 good/relevant pull requests in the week, here is what happens it allows us to ship the product faster, thanks for that, keep it up". The problem is the definition of good/relevant, because it's easy to ship crappy code or just useless code that pollute the code base instead of making it better.

Encouraging the amount of code is not right, then encouraging code quality (and keeping the deadlines in check) is fine, but should I deliver the feedback model like twice a week on the same thing (for my top coder)?

Thanks for the advice, and again thank you for the wonderful content (my team and me highly benefit from it)



Chris Zeller's picture

I don't have a Tech background so I may be misinterpreting things. I'll still take a shot, though.

Is it possible to define "good/relevant" in terms of 2 variables and give positive feedback along the lines of "When you deliver X amount of code at Y quality levels, we're able to ship faster, meet the needs of the business and build credibility for our team?"

Perhaps you could follow it up with appreciation. "In addition, I want you to know that I appreciate your professionalism by not taking shortcuts by shipping crappy or useless code."