Feedback fumbles - making sense of feedback (Nov 2019)

I was recently (October 2019) having a conversation with aspiring senior leaders about the sort of feedback they were asking for, and getting, to help them consider their next steps in building their case for promotion. Such conversations are usually about the scarcity of really helpful specific feedback, but interestingly one leader commented that with a shift from an annual to a quarterly review system he was actually feeling on the receiving end of too much feedback (!), given he (as many of us do) tends to focus on the slightest criticism and miss the positives.

Now this is an experienced high performer working on complex problems who knows himself and is very motivated to develop and progress. But the comment led me to reflect on current trends in appraisal and feedback, and more importantly how we can help ourselves and others make sense of feedback we are given. 

Current trends: 

In 2012 Adobe was one of the first large organisations to abolish their traditional annual appraisal system, a trickle that has turned into a deluge of companies moving from what are seen as cumbersome annual appraisals, to technologically smart systems that enable frequent, real-time conversations and feedback from a variety of individuals (1). However, in 2016 CEB surveyed over 9000 managers and employees across 18 countries and found a range of unintended consequences from scrapping performance ratings, such as 26% fewer high performers being satisfied with conversations with their managers, and employee engagement dropping by 8% (2). This is contrasted by 2017 Gallup research stating that employees who receive daily rather than annual feedback from their managers were 3.6 times more likely to strongly agree they are motivated to do outstanding work, and 3 times more likely to be engaged at work (3). 

It looks like more research is needed to really understand all the implications of moving away from traditional annual appraisal and ratings systems. Perhaps the next line in the 2017 Gallup report is the one that we should be attending to: “however while more feedback is generally getter than less feedback, the right amount and type of coaching vary by individual and the type of work he or she is doing”. Exactly what the leader I referred to earlier was commenting on.

Making sense of feedback:

When working with leaders and managers I am often asked to help them process feedback they have received. Sometimes that feedback is given in a developmental 360° tool, sometimes in a formal appraisal system, and sometimes in an informal conversation - which seem to range from really helpful advice, to meetings so wrapped up in jargon and obfuscation that the person leaves none the wiser. 

Whatever the method I believe that feedback is useful in improving self-awareness and so development, however there are a number of caveats I bear in mind: 

·      If given via a tool is the tool any good? I.e. as jargon free as possible; not using terms that are open to multiple interpretations; focused on business outcomes rather than a bucket list of every competency under the sun; giving space for comments and specific examples that bring the feedback to life. 

·      Considering why the feedback was given – a summary appraisal of successes and areas to improve at the end of a project is unlikely to give be really clear about what is needed to progress as a leader, just as a tool focused on leadership habits is unlikely to be clear about specific technical knowledge and skills. 

So if you’re not getting what you want you from a tool you will need to ask some specific questions to help people give you better feedback e.g. what do you really value about me as a leader; what’s the one thing you think is holding me back as a leader; if you were me what would you be focusing on?

·      Considering who has given the feedback – what visibility do they have of your performance and behaviour? Are they known as a ‘harsh marker’ or a ‘soft touch’? What is their focus and career experience that may influence their feedback - for example people who have changed role frequently may encourage you to do the same. 

·      Considering when the feedback was about and when it was given – were you the at your best in the period, just about coping, or actually had too much on your plate? Equally there are times when someone giving feedback, whatever their best intentions, may be influenced by their own mood and stresses

·      Look out for themes – if one person says you need to change your communication style, that may just be personal preference, but if six people are saying you need to change your style in the same way they may have a point. Buckingham & Goodall (The Feedback Fallacy, 2019) argue that “adding more data points and averaging them out makes the error bigger (4)”, that is idiosyncratic rater error, but I would still argue that a common theme from a range of managers, peers, line reports, and other stakeholders is worth attending to. 

·      Look out for strokes and pokes – rather than rushing to the negatives, really pay attention to the positives and praise, after all we grow more neurologically in areas of ability where there are already connections in the brain that can be strengthened and expanded upon. But do watch out for the feedback that gives a mental ‘ouch’ as it may have a nugget of truth to it.

·      If a piece of feedback really doesn’t ring true, ignore it for now, but pay attention if it turns into a theme later on.

·      Feedback is feedback, not truth. Sadly, research has shown time again that as much as we try to be objective and unbiased when giving feedback we are not. This leads to the idiosyncratic rater effect mentioned above, in that half of any performance rating we give is more about us then the person we are giving it to (Buckingham & Goodall, 2019). It influences our comments as well as our ratings, and has been shown to generate gender bias in appraisals e.g. Cecchi-Dimeglio (2017) in a content analysis of individual annual performance reviews found women are 1.4 times more likely to receive critical subjective feedback, rather than critical objective or positive feedback (5). Correll & Simard (2016) found women are more likely to receive vague praise than men (57% c.f. 43%), and less likely to receive specific developmental feedback linked to business outcomes (40% c.f. 60%). And when women do receive development feedback it is often about communications style – 76% of references to aggressive communication were in reviews of women (6). So watch out for feedback that may be more about the person giving it than you. 

Having listed a number of caveats I do still believe that ongoing, specific, outcome focused, future focused feedback, from as diverse a range of people that you work with as possible, is invaluable. Leaders and managers need candid feedback, especially at senior levels, to help then appreciated and maximise their strengths, and recognise any development areas that may hold them back or derail them if not attended to. 

References

(1)   Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016). The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 58-67.

(2)   http://www.organisationalpsychology.nz/_content/2017_07_18_CEB_Eliminate_Perf_Ratings_MF_IOSIG.pdf

(3)   Wigert, B., & Harter, J. (2017). Re-engineering performance management. Gallup. com. P23

(4)   Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2019). The feedback fallacy. The Harvard Business Review, March-April.

(5)   Cecchi-Dimeglio, P. (2017). How gender bias corrupts performance reviews, and what to do about it. Harvard Business Review, April.

(6)   Correll, S., & Simard, C. (2016). Vague feedback is holding women back. Harvard Business Review