Feedback:
Breakfast of Champions

by Rodger Dean Duncan  

There’s no doubt about it – feedback is the breakfast of champions.

Top performers are top performers because they consistently search for ways to make their best even better. For top performers, “continuous improvement” is not just a glib slogan. It’s a mantra with real meaning.

Top performers know that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. For them, the “main thing” is excellence.

Top performers are not only good at accepting feedback, they deliberately seek feedback. And they know that feedback is helpful only when it highlights vulnerabilities as well as strengths.

In many professional circles, “peer review” is used to help maintain high standards of excellence. Physicians use a form of peer review to certify doctors in special disciplines. Lawyers use a form of peer review, as do academics and others.

I’ve recently had the opportunity to witness (and evaluate) the most impressive form of peer review that I’ve seen in three decades of business consulting.

INPO – the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations – was formed 25 years ago to promote the highest levels of safety and reliability in the operation of nuclear plants. In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has statutory responsibility for verifying that each licensee operates its facility in compliance with federal regulations. But regulatory compliance does not necessarily result in the best possible performance. INPO’s role is to help ensure that operators of nuclear plants constantly stretch to higher levels of performance.

INPO is an industry group, and its evaluation process has teeth. After many weeks of extremely detailed examination, each nuclear operation receives an INPO rating. The rating is about more than professional pride. It can affect everything from insurance premiums to the ability to attract top talent.

I’m privileged to serve on INPO’s Advisory Council. The Council’s role is to advise the INPO board on issues pertaining to its charter: promoting safety and reliability in the nuclear utility industry. Most Council members are renowned experts in the nuclear business. I am not. As one colleague said, my areas of expertise are with “the people stuff” like leadership, culture, human performance and other issues related to organizational effectiveness.

In that advisory role, I witnessed a recent INPO evaluation of a major U.S. nuclear operation. I was deeply impressed. Let me pass along some observations that can be helpful to people in any line of endeavor.

Unlike some peer review practices, the INPO evaluation process has absolutely no trace of the “gotcha factor.” In some arenas, a lot of energy is invested in trying to embarrass or put people down. Not with these folks.

Nuclear power is very, very serious business. In many parts of the business, the margin for error is absolutely zero. Still, a peer review would have limited value if the emphasis were on hammering rather than helping.

An INPO evaluation is scrupulously thorough. The performance standards are among the most stringent in the history of technology. And an evaluation team is appropriately cross-functional to reflect the integrated nature of a nuclear power operation. In addition to highly trained INPO personnel, an evaluation team includes advisors and content experts from other nuclear operations.

The confidential “field notes” of an INPO evaluation team provide an excellent model for peer reviews in other industries.

When a performance problem is identified, evaluators are very explicit about which issues need to be addressed and which practices need to be altered.

The evaluators enumerate the actual and potential consequences of specific deficiencies.

They provide precise examples of what they’ve observed.

They carefully describe the primary causes (rather than just symptoms) that, if addressed, would eliminate or substantially diminish a performance problem. 

They discuss additional causes or contributors associated with the problem, and they provide insights into the nuances of top performance.

While appropriate recognition is given to strides made since the previous evaluation (these are done about every 24 months), the primary emphasis is on “AFIs” – areas for improvement. The focus of virtually all the voluminous documentation and discussion is on the “gap to excellence” – how poor performance can (and must) get better, and how good performance can (and should) become genuinely excellent performance.

Interactions between the evaluators and the operators are characterized by a spirit of collaboration, all aimed at improving performance.

Although the evaluation team has the final say on what a nuclear plant’s INPO rating will be, the spirit of collaboration helps reinforce an important dynamic. The nuclear operators do not behave as “subordinates.” They behave as “stewards.”

That’s a critical distinction. People with the subordinate paradigm tend to behave as though someone else is really in charge and responsible for results. People with the steward paradigm generally feel personally entrusted with responsibility, psychologically linked to the best interests of the enterprise, and personally accountable for results.  

Again, top performers deliberately seek feedback. And not just the pat-on-the-back variety.

Top performers hunger for insights into the nuances of their own habits and behaviors.

Top performers constantly search for ways to tweak and improve. They are never satisfied with the status quo. They continuously engage in the tiny course corrections that can make all the difference. They listen carefully to the critique of their peers.

Top performers embrace the principle that feedback is the breakfast of champions.  

(Rodger Dean Duncan's LinkedIn Profile)