Importance of Feedback-giving critical feedback

 I would like to thank all my readers for their responses and comments on the topic `Feedback`. As promised, the new article will focus on giving critical feedback. One thing was great in the comments that were in agreement with the feedback for the improvement in the performance of an individual and the institution. But the question is ` What is the better way of delivering bad news? ‘The answer has been given in chapter 4 of the book` Delivering Effective Feedback. ` This is the summary of a full-length HBR article by Jean-Francois Manzoni.

Remember a situation in which the conversation between you and your teammate (to whom you gave critical feedback) turns out to be bad despite your best efforts. The tempers flare up and no one is listening to the other and you end up in a worse situation than what you started with. Would you place the entire blame on the person being given feedback or shoulder responsibility on yourself because you could not convey bad news appropriately? There would be no absolute answer to it, but you being in the driving seat need to introspect. Why did that happen and how could you have avoided that situation to go out of control? In the previous article, I did mention rehearsing and practising the feedback but sometimes this might limit your approach as the one giving feedback. As the writer suggests, the person giving feedback would have engaged in restrictive framing- a narrow, binary and frozen approach to feedback. You would have assumed certain things and rigidly followed the same which unknowingly created a win or lose condition, a binary approach. The writer says that delivering corrective feedback should not be difficult- if one uses a more open-minded approach.

He explains in with idea in practice. While preparing to give feedback you may visualize events, decide which incidents to discuss and define a solution all before the conversation. This sets the platform for trouble. An example, suppose as head of school, I am told that the Vice-Principal or the HMs are not delegating enough. I might assume that VP and HMs are too controlling- this is narrow. Because this has indirectly excluded other possibilities. Due to this framing, I might have a binary approach/conclusion that VP and HMs must delegate otherwise some teachers might leave. If the conversation of the head begins with this framing, neither he/she will address the objections of the VP and HMs nor address their queries. The end result is that none of them learns from each other.

But why do we frame feedback narrowly- despite being aware that it will produce poor results? The writer mentions two biases which are:

Fundamental attribution error. We often attribute/blame problems to subordinates` dispositions rather than the circumstances. For example, the VP/HM is trying to delegate but the teachers have some other axe to grind or they are not ready to take responsibility or the VP/HM does not know how to delegate and how much to delegate.

False consensus effect. We assume others see situations exactly the same way as we do, due to which we fail to revise our framing during the feedback sessions.

The writer mentions that in an ideal world, a subordinate would accept feedback with an open mind. He /she might ask some clarifying questions, promise to work on the issues discussed and improve over time but that does not happen most of the time. The head of a school, as cited above would have had the conversation with VP or HM in the following manner:

Head: “I would like to discuss with you some importaissuessue related to your work. As VP/ HM you are doing a good job but I feel you do so much yourself. You have some wonderful teachers in your team, why should you not delegate more?”

VP/HM:” I do not know why…but I delegate when I think it is appropriate, but management expects a lot of good work done by my group of people, so I need to stay involved.”

Head:” Yes and all appreciate your efforts but your job is also to help your teachers grow in their roles and take on more responsibility. Also when you remain so much involved in every detail, you are likely to miss on strategic thinking and future plans.”

VP/HM:” That is not right to say. I always think of the future.”

Head:” I am just saying, you would have more time for strategic thinking if not too much involved in the day-to-day stuff.”

VP/HM:” Are you saying that I am not a strategic thinker?”

Head:” You are so much involved in day-to-day work and I do not know what kind of thinking you are capable of?”

This type of conversation is quite common in which each side pushes his point of view more aggressively and the conversation escalates until a small dialogue becomes much more dramatic. In such conversations, one or the other person unintentionally says something which is exceedingly critical. In some cases, it may escalate much more, but both parties, due to frustration, give in rather than continue arguing.

When faced with such situations managers tend to ease out the issue which has its dangers. In the above conversation, the head was addressing the concerns of the VP/ HM in a manner which did not yield the desired result, because of the restrictive framing of the situation.

The head would have approached differently. Despite directly saying that VP/ HM was not delegating, he/she could have started the conversation by saying whether VP/HM felt or was aware of the feeling of some of his/her teachers and what did he/she think about the same. Were there some problems why was he/she not able to delegate and was there anything VP/HM expects from the head? The most important thing is to go into the session with an open mind and have no biases and boundaries.

But the important question why is it so hard? 

All would be able to make out what went wrong between the head and VP/HM. Most of the managers and leaders, in present times, are well trained and well-intended but still cannot see what is wrong that they were doing in feedback sessions, especially critical ones. Few things which research shows are:

As mentioned earlier, when analyzing others’ behaviour, most people tend to overestimate the effect of a person`s stable characteristics-disposition and capabilities and underestimate the effect of the specific conditions under which that person is functioning (fundamental attribution error). This happens more often when they operate under demanding conditions (which is so common nowadays). Everybody is working under a lot of stress and time-bound results are expected of all.

Please be assured: I am not suggesting that heads/ managers are not capable or do not foresee the problem and analyse the same without bias due to which they misdiagnose the causes of their team member/members’ performance problems. Most of the time, the early diagnoses are fine but the biases due to those experiences might put blind spots sometimes. We should also be clear that even if the feedback discussion has been productive, it would not necessarily improve the performance of the subordinates magically. But this situation is always better than the one in which the feedback session turns out to be bad. To ensure some success the head (the one responsible for the feedback) should not have a restrictive frame but should go to the session with an open frame of mind. Whenever you hear some complaint about your team members, do not let previous experiences interfere with your approach to the present one.

Making feedback more acceptable: Feedback sessions would always have a sort of stressful environment but research shows that people tend to be more comfortable and receptive when they have the feelings as mentioned:

The person offering the feedback is reliable and has a good intention to really help and improve.

The feedback development process is fair- that is, the person giving feedback collects all relevant information and pays attention to the subordinate`s concern and clarifies any doubt shared.

The feedback communication is fair and respectful- The person giving feedback respects the other person and does not summarily reject the response and clarifications. Allows the other person his/her say even if they are not in agreement on certain points.

There can be many more approaches which will help you to get rid of restrictive framing and you would not focus only on the areas which you felt important but accommodate subordinate`s concerns also. Please remember that subordinates may have not understood the processes properly and hence not delivered the result as expected by the boss.

In the end, I would like to suggest that the head should remember that all his/her team members may not be always strong performers. Some of them would underperform in some situations and better in others, hence feedback sessions should be planned in such a conducive environment that the individuals improve and if that happens in both cases, strong performance and underperformance, the feedback sessions after a period would become enjoyable and learning experiences than the threatening or stressful exercise. Another point of caution- Despite your best efforts and good intention, there may be a few team members who would not improve as desired. But this should not be heartbreaking for you and the impact of the same should not affect your approach towards other members. So start on a positive note and stay positive irrespective of the outcome of your feedback sessions.

 I hope the discussion on the mentioned book will help all of us who give feedback in one way or the other, be it principal, head of the department, class teacher, academic in charge, VP, HM, parents or anyone in a position to suggest the other person in the family or at the workplace.