How Some Employees HIJACK Your FEEDBACK (and what to do about it) [Part 3]

Two months ago, I published the first of three CORE Bites issues dedicated to building a workplace culture that is much more open to constructive and developmental feedback—what I refer to as Feedback Receptivity. In Part 1, we covered how to deliver feedback when people are under pressure and stressed out. In Part 2, we investigated the (significant) impact of Vulnerable Narcissism and hypersensitivity on feedback receptivity. [Note: The issue on Vulnerable Narcissism holds the record as the 2nd most forwarded issue of CORE Bites to-date so I think it must have hit a cord!]

In our third installment of this series, I need to ask a question that may be uncomfortable for you to consider:

If your employees have low feedback receptivity, could it be YOU?

Your gut reaction to my question may be "No"—and that may very well be an accurate assessment of you and the approach you use to deliver constructive feedback. But, the work I did on feedback receptivity during my PhD dissertation uncovered significant research that suggests many supervisors struggle in this area. Here's what I found ...

It goes without saying that supervisors have a significant influence on employees' attitudes and behaviors. And one of the most frequent ways this influence is leveraged is through feedback mechanisms. These mechanisms communicate which behaviors are expected and appropriate and which behaviors are discouraged.

While positive feedback for quality work is one element of the feedback process, occasionally a supervisor must communicate deficiencies in job performance. Even though this constructive criticism is essential to ongoing growth, providing unfavorable feedback does not guarantee that an employee will respond positively or make the desired corrections.

Why?

It turns out that contextual factors surrounding the feedback process, such as feedback quality and feedback delivery are two of the biggest culprits. In essence, the perceived "quality" of the feedback delivered, as well as the style or approach or method used to "deliver" the feedback, have a major influence on how receptive the person receiving the feedback will be. While this makes intuitive sense, it appears that many supervisors don't take the time to think about these things prior to delivering feedback. The HVAs listed below can help.

High Value Activity (HVA) Action Steps

This week (starting today), take a few minutes prior to delivering any constructive feedback to think about how you can increase the quality and enhance the delivery of the feedback you're about to provide. Use these HVAs as a guide to improving feedback quality and feedback delivery:

• Be Timely: One of the most important qualities of effective constructive feedback is timeliness. Waiting to offer constructive or corrective feedback is like waiting till later to tell someone driving you to a destination that he or she has made a wrong turn. Discussing a mistake made or a quality issue that occurred in September during the employee's annual performance review in February is not only meaningless but it's also not very effective because it doesn't provide the information an employee needs to quickly correct the situation (so it doesn't get repeated again). The best practice here should be to provide constructive feedback as soon as possible while allowing time for any emotional connection to the situation to cool (if necessary). This approach provides the employee an opportunity to change a behavior, or practice new skills, before it becomes a performance problem.
• Don't Speak in Absolutes: It's rarely true that someone "always" or "never" does something. "Always" and "never" are—in most cases—a matter of opinion and can appear very judging. In addition, "always" and "never" are words that are part of the "all or nothing thinking" in cognitive distortion—where our subconscious brain puts a 'spin' on the events you see and attaches a not-so-objective interpretation to what actually occurred. Speaking in absolutes stifles growth and hinders creativity and innovation. Statements like, "You always make the same mistakes in your reports" or "You never follow procedures" put people on the defensive where they stop listening to what you have to say and start thinking about examples to prove you wrong.
• Don't be Abstract ... Define the Impact: People don't always understand (or appreciate) the effect their behavior is having on their work or on others. Don't assume the employee knows a problem exists. What is a problem to you may not necessarily resonate as a problem to an employee. Using examples, describe the impact the employee's behavior is having on the organization. Strong impact statements include customers (both internal and external), dependancy relationships (e.g., other departments/functions), or budget and other resources like time or equipment. Another way to use "impact" is to shape it into a positive—this works because many employees want to know how their work contributes to the bigger picture. When you provide feedback, link the employee's individual performance to a broader outcome like improved departmental productivity, increased customer satisfaction, or a stronger team.
• An Expectation Problem Should Not Be Treated like a Performance Problem: Confronting or criticizing employees for something they weren't even aware of is a quick way to demotivate them and put them on the defensive. You might think this goes without saying, but many supervisors fall into this feedback-trap when they fail to set clear expectations for a task or assignment. For example, assigning a task but not being clear on the hard deadline; or giving an employee an assignment but not being clear about resources that will help them accomplish the goal. Before indicting the individual, ask yourself if the employee clearly knew what was expected. If you are uncertain about the outcome of this question, then your feedback should be more aligned with providing clarity.