The Gift of Feedback (Part 2): Are we better off without it?

When someone asks, “Can I give you some feedback?” what’s your usual response? Do you think "Here we go again" or, “Sure, that’d be frickin' amazing. How soon can you share it!?” 

Feedback is all the rage these days. Over the last year, we’ve put the above question to hundreds of leaders as part of our leadership development workshops. It's fair to say that typical responses involve relative dread rather than wild enthusiasm!

Here's the problem:

Feedback - giving, receiving, formal and informal - is central to how teams and organisations function. But sadly, it's too often handled horribly. Especially by those with the 'power'. 

As one leader told me: “I was given feedback by my manager in a social setting. The Feedback could’ve been constructive, but was delivered at a leaving party for a colleague and felt very inappropriate.” Yes, very. (Sadly, we hear tonnes of stories like this!)

How, then, should we approach feedback? Organisations have been quick to roll-out feedback apps and platforms, not to mention employees, quick to upload empty-praise, or tactical responses designed solely to support a colleague's promotion case, rather than aid development. Are we simply better off without such time-wasting practices?

Answer: YES.

If by feedback you mean: judgmental, tactless, opinion-dumping-lectures by leaders who unwittingly project their own insecurities unto others, or, if you mean a system for sharing meaningless platitudes that serve only to give others a 'leg-up', as part of a poorly designed performance management process. Absolutely. Get rid of it. That's not a ritual worth investing in.

But this is only half the story: Below I'm going to quickly explore (i) What feedback is (ii) Why we should bother with it, and; (iii) What good looks like.

What is Feedback?

At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, feedback is information sharing. A bit like a mirror, it's purpose is to reflect information about a person’s actions, back to the individual, in order to help them improve, and reduce our 'blind spots'. It’s a ritual fraught with risk, however, precisely because feedback givers are not objective 'mirrors'. If not delivered with care and tact, feedback-giving can go very wrong. I'm often reminded of this fact whenever my wife asks, “What do you think about my hair?”, and I reply, secretly wishing her actual mirror would suffice, “Good babe...looks neat. I think it makes you look younger...Now about the...” "SO YOU’RE SAYING I LOOK OLD…[Death stare]!!?” 

So far, so obvious.

Why bother with feedback?

To restate the problem, feedback is too often poorly delivered, and in ways which do not help people excel. As a result, some leading talent professionals argue we should avoid it altogether. For example, last year HBR published an article in which the authors declared feedback a ‘fallacy’. In their words:

There’s an insidious practice that’s been snaking its way through organizations in the past years; and it’s called Feedback."

Their basic assertion is that people don’t need feedback, rather they need attention: they don’t need judgments aimed at ‘fixing weaknesses’, but reactions that focus on strengths.

If you haven't read the article, I'd recommend you do (do a Google search for 'feedback fallacy'), the contributors make some sound points. They're right, your line reports do need attention, especially positive attention, a fact too often neglected.

When, for example, was the last time you saw a colleague doing something well, something that worked, and without being asked, you let him/her know? How often do you do this? I applaud the authors for pushing this point that positive feedback, the kind which helps colleagues see what they're doing well and how to build on their strengths (i.e. not empty praise), is indeed critical to engagement.*

That said, to claim that people don’t need feedback, that it's a fallacy, is very misleading.** When the authors assign 'feedback' to the trash, it seems what they actually have in mind is insensitive, past-focussed, radically candid feedback - in other words, negative feedback - poorly delivered:

Their fundamental assertion is a reaction to the abuses of poor, judgmental leaders who spend most of their time ‘telling’ people who they are and what they should do differently, with little concern for improving performance.

This is not a description of high quality feedback. Put simply, the authors create a straw-man argument, underlined by a rather narrow definition of feedback. ***

So what does good, constructive feedback look like?

As mentioned above, feedback is information designed to support development. When working with leaders I'll often suggest the SBI model to help structure this kind of information sharing (whether the feedback is positive or 'negative').

But whilst I think this is a useful starting point, structure in and of itself isn't enough. Stick too closely to the process and you risk treating feedback like an event. Something you *do* to others. Good feedback is two-way; it is rooted in care and a sense of trust. Here's an example:

This is of course a made up scenario, and you'll flex your style depending on the person you're speaking to. But hopefully you get the idea: Is there anything fallacious about a leader wanting to provide feedback in this way?

Final verdict

So are we better off without feedback? No, we are not: Good, high quality feedback, is critical to individual motivation and team performance. In order to get it right, however, and help others receive feedback, it's important for leaders to:

1. Be very aware of their own biases
2. Do what they can to share feedback in a way that minimizes the threat responses of the receiver (shouting seldom works)
3. Follow a 4:1 ratio of positive to negative feedback (roughly speaking)
4. Tailor the feedback to the needs and preferences of the individual (I know some people for whom positive feedback given in public, feels like winning the lottery...well almost).

Finally, if you're going to offer feedback, be clear in your communication, consider the SBI model. But importantly, communicate with a sense of care and humility. When your team genuinely feel that you care about them, they'll be more receptive to what you have to say, even if what you say doesn't always come out right.^

----------

Notes:

*Why are we so often parsimonious with accolades? Perhaps it's a cultural issue - some societies are more expressive than others. In my experience with particular organisations (those oriented around strong technical expertise, say), there's a sense in which if you give positive feedback, people may take it to mean, "Oh so you were surprised, that I could speak confidently in public, then!?

**Some writers, rather like philosophers, will have a project or some wider issue they’re concerned with. And if you read the authors' previous work you'll note that their overarching theme is around strengths-based development. The authors' 'project' appears to be propagating this strengths-based gospel. But if you're very cynical, you might alsosay increasing books sales. In sum, the authors DO endorse giving feedback, just a certain kind, one which they term giving a 'reaction'.

***The authors also argue that even if handled well, feedback givers are unable to reliably 'assess' another's performance. Perhaps but this perspective throws up problems. As another set of HBR authors have noted. Rather than recapitulate their arguments, you can read it for yourself.

^What I've not discussed here is why it's so darn hard to receive feedback? I'll save that for part 3. Click here to read part 1 of this post.