Institute Dale Carnegie Training Providing Effective Feedback Paper Although managers should provide feedback informally on a regular basis, many organizat

Institute Dale Carnegie Training Providing Effective Feedback Paper Although managers should provide feedback informally on a regular basis, many organizations rely on a formal review process as well. Often conducted annually, these formal reviews allow for both the employee and the manager to discuss past achievements and set goals for honing or improving skills.

For this week’s Discussion Question, reflect on a formal review that you have received, and consider the impact the review had on your motivation. Consider the information you received during the review, whether it was useful or a surprise to you, and any positive or negative aspects of the experience.

With these thoughts in mind:

Post a response that addresses the following:

Compare and contrast the value of feedback from the formal performance review with more immediate and often less formal types of feedback communication— such as mentoring or coaching—that managers provide.
Explain the effect of the feedback on your motivation as an employee. Explain whether you understood the feedback you had received and the steps you took to develop your skills as a result of the performance review.
After considering the effect of feedback on your own motivation, discuss how you would handle situations where you, as a manager would need to provide negative feedback and the steps you would take to ensure you could maintain a positive work environment and help your employee continue to develop professionally. » Academy of Management Executive. 2005, Vol. 19. No. 2
Actionable feedback: Unlocking
the power of learning and
performance improvement
Mark D. Cannon and Robert Witherspoon
Executive Overview
Delivering critical feedback can be brutal for everyone involved. Most managers hate
giving critical feedback, and most employees detest receiving it. In addition, critical
feedback often fails to produce the desired results. We describe how cognitive and
emotional dynamics—how we think and feel while giving and receiving feedback—can
complicate this process, making it more painful and less useful than it should be. These
dynamics often interfere with the ability of recipients to process and respond
constructively to feedback. They also interfere with the ability of feedback givers to
formulate and deliver feedback that is high quality and does not produce defensiveness.
Further complicating matters, both feedback givers and receivers have a difficult time
recognizing how their own cognitive and emotional dynamics are hindering their
effectiveness in the feedback process. We illustrate how these dynamics hamper the
feedback giving and receiving process and how understanding them can help managers
produce more actionable feedback on performance (feedback that leads to learning and
appropriate results).
Critical Feedback
learning and tangible, appropriate results, such as
increasing effectiveness and improving performance on the job. When we say “managers,” we
are referring mainly to an employee’s direct boss,
but also to other key parties (including one’s other
superiors, peers, and subordinates) who may provide support and feedback to that employee over
time.
It’s no secret that most people dislike giving critical feedback.’ To compound the problem, delivery
of critical feedback frequently fails to lead to a
desirable change in the recipient’s behavior.^ In
addition, recipients of critical feedback sometimes
retain hostile feelings towards the givers for years
after the fact and may even lash out at them.^
Nonetheless, because assimilation of accurate
feedback is crucial to employee learning and development,’* managers are charged with the responsibility of providing it. In an effort to assist
managers with this challenging task, we will explore what makes feedback-giving so difficult and
what can be done to make it less painful and more
useful.
More specifically, we will describe the cognitive
and emotional dynamics—how we think and
feel—that interfere with the quality of feedback
giving and receiving. We will also explore how
understanding these dynamics can help managers
produce more actionable feedback. By “actionable
feedback” we mean feedback that produces both
The Impact of Feedback on Learning and
Development
The importance of feedback for learning and improvement has long been recognized by psychologists.^ A McKinsey & Company survey of over
12,000 managers throughout the world also supports this recognition (see Figure 1).^ As Figure 1
illustrates, managers consider “candid, insightful
feedback” extremely important to their development, but most do not believe their companies do a
good job of providing such feedback. This finding
parallels our experience in coaching a wide range
of people who commonly complain that they get
little guidance or feedback on their work.
120
2005
Cannon and Witherspoon
121
100
75
Job assignments
How well
company
provides
(excellent,
good)
50
Coaching,
feedback
50
75
100
Importance to my development
(critical, very important)
JOB ASSIGNMENTS
1 Promote high performers quickly
2 Build skills to boost career
prospects
3 Fast rotation and advancement
4 Roles with P & L responsibility
5 Special project opportunities
6 On-the-job training
COACHING, FEEDBACK
7 Told my strengths and weaknesses
8 360°feedback
9 Candid, insightful feedback
10 Informal coaching from boss
MENTORING
11 Great mentor
12 Great senior role models
13 Mentoring advice on development
TRAINING
14 Traditional classroom training
Soufte: UcKinsey S Company’s War lor Talent 2000 Survev
Figure 1
Factors that Drive Development
Talented people depend on others for honest assessments of their work in determining what to do
better. Without feedback about their performance,
they have a hard time figuring out how to improve.” With constructive feedback, they can learn
sooner and with much greater specificity. Also, as
talented people make efforts to improve themselves, objective observers can help them understand whether their efforts are on track or not and
how they might be improved.
Thus, feedback can be highly useful. However,
despite its potential benefits, a review of studies
on feedback by Kluger and DeNisi showed only a
modest positive relationship between feedback
and performance; in fact, in 38 percent of the cases
studied, feedback actually had a negative impact
on performance.^
Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics
Our focus in this article is on the cognitive and
emotional dynamics or challenges that make giv-
122
Academy of Management Executive
ing and receiving feedback so difficult and that prevent feedback interventions from achieving their potential benefits. In contrast to many other
managerial responsibilities, giving and receiving
feedback can be very personal and can be charged
with high levels of emotion for both giver and receiver. However, traditional management education
has focused more on analytical tools and skills^ that
are not well matched to the psychological aspects of
giving feedback. Thus, many managers are uncomfortable with the high levels of emotion that can be
involved in the process. In addition, people sometimes react to feedback in unpredictable, even volatile ways. Recipients have been known to become
angry, cry, storm out of the office, lash out verbally,
physically attack, and even in very rare instances to
kill the manager. 1° Attacking the manager may be
unusual, but a common outcome is that delivering
feedback, especially critical feedback, produces
strong emotional reactions that may hinder learning
and development.
In addition to emotion, cognitive processes of
both managers and subordinates can contribute to
difficulties in giving and receiving feedback. Managers and subordinates often have very different
ways of evaluating and making sense of behavior, ^i Thus, they may find themselves in significant
disagreement regarding performance ratings and
feedback. Given these cognitive and emotional dynamics, managers who wish to deliver actionable
feedback would be wise to understand them and
how to deal with them constructively.
As we explain below, the roles of feedback giver
and feedback receiver each evoke their own set of
cognitive and emotional processes that may interfere with learning and development. First, we will
examine some of the cognitive and emotional dynamics associated with the receiving role. This
will provide an understanding of the potential difficulties managers face in approaching subordinates. Second, we will examine several feedback
statements that were given by managers, and we
will illustrate their counterproductive characteristics. Third, we will describe the cognitive and emotional dynamics that affect feedback givers and
that lead them to produce such nonactionable
feedback. Finally, we will illustrate how understanding the dynamics associated with feedback
giving and receiving can be used to help managers produce more actionable feedback.
Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics Impacting
Feedback Receivers
Although it is common knowledge that receiving
critical feedback is unpleasant, the potential cog-
May
nitive and emotional complications associated
with receiving feedback transcend mere unpleasantness.
A lengthy history of psychological research demonstrates that people tend not to view themselves
accurately, and they are not good at accurately
perceiving how others are seeing them.’^ Specifically, they see themselves more positively than
others see them; thus, critical feedback is likely to
appear inaccurate, and receivers are likely to disagree with it.
Attributional biases or errors affect both managers and subordinates and can lead them to form
conflicting views. For example, most people have a
“self-serving bias,”!^ which means that in assessing our own work we tend to see ourselves as
responsible for successes, and blame failures on
others or external forces. By contrast, managers,
who are in the observer role, experience an “actor/
observer bias””’ and are more likely to attribute
failures to internal causes (the subordinates themselves), to discount subordinate successes, and to
find subordinate performance lacking.’^
Further complicating matters, inaccurate positive self-perceptions (positive illusions) may be
more than just self-indulgent flights of fancy.
Shelly Taylor, et al. have argued that positive illusions are a hallmark of mental health and are
crucial to enabling people to avoid depression and
maintain the self-esteem, confidence, and optimism that keep them motivated, persistent, and
productive.’^ Similarly, Bandura has demonstrated
that high perceived self-efficacy enhances performance on a variety of tasks, and he has argued
that seeing yourself as more capable than you
really are enhances your performance more than
accurate self-perceptions.”^ Thus, subordinates may
resist feedback not only because feedback seems
inaccurate, but because accepting criticjues could
undermine their self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Furthermore, depending on the content and delivery of feedback, it may be received as a personal attack, threatening one’s ego or identity.’^
This may provoke deeper psychological fears for
the receiver around questions such as “Am I worthwhile?” “Am I likable?” “Am I capable?” etc. In
such cases, receivers can experience a strong
“fight or flight” emotional reaction.
In addition, feeling attacked or threatened tends
to create stress that hinders learning. Research
suggests that a common reaction to stress or the
experience of threat is to circle the emotional wagons and defend oneself. This response is characterized by increased rigidity, a restriction in information processing, and a constriction of control.*^
2005
Cannon and Wi/herspoon
All of these can interfere with a person’s ability to
learn and respond constructively to feedback.
In sum, a variety of cognitive and emotional dynamics can interfere with the receiver’s ability to
process, leam from, and respond constructively to
feedback. Thus, managers should consider these
complications and craft their feedback carefully in
order to avoid inadvertently causing the receiver to
feel unfairly attacked or misperceived.
Cognitive and emotional dynamics also influence the feedback-giving role and can lead feedback givers to produce poor quality feedback that
provokes a counterproductive, defensive reaction.
Next, we will examine feedback statements that
were given by managers in order to illustrate the
characteristics that limit their actionability. Following that, we will describe the cognitive and
emotional dynamics that lead managers to produce such poor quality feedback.
Flawed Feedback
All too often, performance feedback is not useful
for its intended purpose. For example, the nonactionable feedback statements below were made by
senior managers from organizations large and
small. Typically, this feedback was provided to the
authors (in our capacity as executive coaches) as
part of an interview 360-degree process, to then
share with our clients as a part of their 360-degree
feedback.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We just can’t trust Bill.
Pat does not stand firm.
Jane is not a team player and is contentious.
Phil is a poor manager.
Lane is unprofessional.
Jerry is not committed.
Ted adds no value.
Most of these initial feedback statements were
made as we interviewed a full circle of parties
(superiors, peers, subordinates, and sometimes
customers), in a series of individual key person
interviews. We usually started with a common set
of questions that addressed areas such as
strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvements, with ample opportunity for other comments. We then planned to debrief our clients from
these interviews in a facilitated feedback session,
designed to help them understand the data and
plan the next steps.
Clients could conduct these interviews themselves, but often choose not to due to the time
demands, their lack of skill, or the desire to take
advantage of the neutrality that a third party can
provide. If threatening issues are involved, a
123
skilled third party, who has established rapport
and assurances that confidences will be maintained, may create an environment in which less
filtering takes place and more valid data is produced. However, although the role of third party
may have particular advantages, the insights in
this article are designed to help enhance the ability of individuals to function in any of the three
roles of feedback giver, feedback receiver, or third
party.
When the managers provided the feedback
above, they perceived it as accurate and useful.
However, we will next illustrate several shared
counterproductive features of these feedback
statements that limit their usefulness.
1. Attacks the Person Rather Than the Person’s
Behavior
This feedback is likely to be taken as a personal
attack by the receiver because it criticizes the person or the person’s character rather than addressing the behavior that is problematic. The feedback
giver’s attribution appears to be intemal (assigning blame to the person rather than the situation)
and stable (consistent across situations). Receivers
often experience this kind of feedback as sending
the message: “You are a fundamentally flawed,
bad, or useless person, and that is just your nature.” Such feedback tends to provoke a strong
defensive emotional reaction.^”
In addition to provoking an immediate defensive
reaction, feedback that focuses the receiver’s attention on the “self” rather than the task or task
learning tends to have a negative effect on subsequent performance.21 Furthermore, this kind of intemal, stable formulation may be experienced by
the receivers as suggesting that they are not capable of change, and this can be discouraging to the
receiver.
An altemative style of formulating the feedback
may be equally if not more accurate and is likely to
result in a more productive outcome. A typical
feedback formulation might be something like
“You are sloppy.” Alternatively, the feedback could
be formulated along the following line: “I believe
an alternative way of handling this situation
would lead to better results.” By beginning the
message with “I” rather than “you,” the focus is
less on blaming the other and more on helping the
receiver understand the perceptions of the feedback giver. This format also focuses attention on
the task and on an opportunity for producing better
results. This is also more likely to lead to a constructive dialogue.
124
Academy of Management Executive
2. Vague or Abstract Assertions
Although we may get the general picture of the
problem, the feedback above is rather vague or
abstract and could be interpreted in many different
ways. For example, when the statement “We can’t
trust Bill” is made, we do not know whether it
means: 1) that Bill is suspected of stealing from the
company; or 2) that he acts on self-interest instead
of the interest of the company; or 3) that he is
well-intentioned but not sufficiently skilled to deliver on his commitments. Each of these interpretations could have very different implications.
This vagueness makes the feedback difficult to
interpret correctly. It also may encourage defensiveness because the fact that it is difficult to interpret may lead the receiver to see it as inaccurate
and falsely accusational.
3. Without Illustrations
This feedback is also stated without illustrations
or examples of what specific things these individuals do that leads the feedback givers to see them
this way. Illustrations or examples may be essential for enabling the recipients to make a concrete
connection with what the feedback giver is talking
about. Illustrations and examples make the feedback more understandable and may also help to
clarify what the implications for action might be.
4. Ill-Defined Range of Application
Another limitation is that the feedback is global,
without any clarification about the conditions under which the problematic behavior does or does
not exhibit itself. We do not know whether this
problematic behavior is exhibited almost all the
time in almost all situations or whether it is only
exhibited under certain conditions. Also, if it is the
latter, there is no specificity or clarification as to
the conditions under which it is exhibited and
those under which it is not exhibited. For example,
in the feedback above when Lane is described as
“unprofessional,” we do know whether the feedback giver finds Lane unprofessional in virtually
everything he says and does, or just in some
particular area. The behavior of concern might
exhibit itself only when making presentations to
new employees, when dealing with a particular
member of the office staff, or with how raggedly
he dresses on casual Fridays. Without more
specificity, the receiver does not get a clear picture of the target area of the feedback or of what
needs to be changed and what can be left as it is.
These types of global or blanket statements often
May
produce defensiveness because, if the recipients
can think of even one situation to which the
feedback does not apply, they may feel justified
in seeing the feedback as inaccurate and in seeing themselves as being unfairly attacked.
5. Unclear Impact and Implications for Action
Not only are we missing specific examples of what
the person does, we also have no clarity on what
the feedback giver sees as the impact of this behavior and why it is problematic. Therefore, we
have little sense of what allegedly dysfunctional
consequences are being produced, why this is important, and what should be done to fix the problem. The feedback is not accompanied by indications of what specific behavioral changes are
desired from these recipients. Therefore, the recipients may have difficulty inferring from this feedback what is desired of them and how they can
rectify the situation.
In sum, these feedback examples have a number
of characteristics that limit their actionability.
Ironically, even experienced managers commonly
produce feedback that is given with intent of being
helpful that has these same general characteristics. Each of the feedback givers in the cases above
observed the receiver’s behavior over a considerable period of time and had many interactions on
which to base their conclusions. Thus, each giver
should have been able to give multiple illustrations of the behavior that was of concern and that
led to their conclusion. Instead, they merely stated
their conclusions in a way that was not particularly helpful to learning or action. What leads even
successful, experienced, highly educated, and
highly motivated managers to provide feedback
with so many limitations?
Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics Impacting
Feedback Givers
Not only do cognitive and emotional dynamics
lead people to produce poor quality feedback, they
also interfere with our ability to assess the quality
of our own feedback. Therefore, managers have a
hard time knowing what to do differently to make
their feedback more actionable.
J. Inference-Making Limitations
An understanding of human inference-making and
sense-making should begin with the recognition
that people are constantly flooded with informa-
2005
Cannon and Witherspoon
tion from their five senses. Attending to and processing all the information would be overwhelming. Instead, people have learned to be selective
about where they focus their attention. So, without
even having consciously to attend to this process,
our minds natu…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment