In 2015, researchers Johnson, Rocheleau, and Tilka conducted a study to determine the impact of positive or negative feedback. Some members of the group received positive feedback throughout a task while others got negative. Contrary to intuitive perception, both teams performed on a similar level. The improvements, even for subsequent tasks, were similar between both groups.
The entire idea of feedback rests on that we can’t ever be the best judges of ourselves — both strengths and weaknesses. Marcus Buckingham, the head of people and performance at the ADP Research Institute, speaking at the 2019 SXSW Conference in Texas, emphasised that team leaders need to encourage their team members’ idiosyncrasies to form well-rounded teams.
But the people we’ve talked to perceive that performance-improving feedback does lead to better performance.
The March/April cover issue of HBR 2019 included an article titled ‘The Feedback Fallacy’. We don’t claim to know better than Buckingham and Goodall, but a vast body of research contradicts several things that the authors have stated in their work. For example, this article summarises several issues that are not in tandem with established bodies of research.
The HBR article and its rebuttals beg the question, ‘How should performance feedback be given if it’s really useful?’ This presents itself as a conundrum because of the inherent contradictions in the human psyche and how it perceives third-party views. So we examine the different facets to understand workplace feedback and the feedback loop.
Who is Feedback Meant For?
The perceived objective of feedback is for employees — people, in general — to be better. But why should people be better? Simply put, it is to help the business. Feedback isn’t for personality improvement that helps make people better as individuals. It serves to improve the commercial prospects of the business. A company’s bottom line eventually needs to reflect improvements over time. Feedback only serves to further business goals.
There are two things to look at in a feedback loop. While a positive feedback loop tried to grow a person professional. However, what it ends up doing is changing personality traits to better suit the kind of clients and the nature of the team — creating a sort of feedback inhibition beyond the team and the client.
Secondly, the kind of feedback you get in one team or company might not really be relevant when you migrate to a different team. Feedback — whether negative feedback loop or positive feedback — is usually tailored to the company’s interests.
While competitors generally have similar interests, the niches — which are almost always included in feedback — differ from company to company and team to team.
More than anything else, it means that goals should only be set after a discussion with the employees — after giving them the feedback. Setting goals for the next period before having performance feedback discussions with the employees doesn’t allow them to meet those goals effectively.
An important consideration when giving feedback is how open are the two-way channels. As an employer, how open are you to hearing from your employee that they find a colleague intimidating or uncomfortable to work with? Feedback discussions should be intended for performance improvement in a professional setting and the possibility of creating a scenario where the employee can improve his performance.
As an employer, if you’re tolerating an employee’s idiosyncrasies, his actions outside work deliverables come under scrutiny as well. There is a possibility that someone will ask, ‘If he’s allowed to be that way, why can’t I be the way I am right now?’ In a way, they are right too. Who’s to say that that employee is right? Even if he’s right, why are the other idiosyncrasies being tolerated?
When you’re benchmarking, benchmark the qualities, the productivity, the output, not the person
Ramakanth, L&D Manager
Culling the outcrop of such festered dissent-filled pillars is the crux of ensuring organisational growth and fostering employee loyalty towards the organisation. As an employer, how do you ensure the feedback reaches across without creating any ill feelings towards you? How do you ensure it doesn’t come across as drawing parallels with other employees?
People Element of Feedback
One objection CCED had to the HBR’s article was that there might be people who crave feedback. There will be people who ask for feedback actively because they believe it contributes to their professional growth. But, when talking to experienced professionals, the remark recurring was, “People who crave feedback are rare as you climb the corporate ladder.”
Even if there are professionals who actively ask for it, the time parameter is important to objectively evaluate the context within which it should be given or compared for the performance.
Another element involved is considering how much feedback expects to change someone’s personality. You can’t tell a nervous person to stop being nervous. Any feedback you then give should allow him to manage the nervousness and ensure that his performance ties in well with the business goals.
It doesn’t make sense if the feedback expects people to change overnight for business goals. This is one reason why, according to the experts we’ve talked to, continuous feedback does not work. There needs to be sufficient time for the professional to grow.
People Are Always More Okay With Taking Feedback from a ‘leader’ and not a ‘manager.’
Ratna Sri, Project Manager, IT/ITES
Another important element to consider is how feedback is going to be helpful, particularly to freshers. “I’m still learning. I’m not there yet. I know I’m not great at this. What’s the point of giving feedback to me?” The value of feedback at this point is not recognised.
Importance of Intent
When giving feedback, tell the people you’re giving feedback what they should do differently. It isn’t enough to say things like ‘This is how it is’ or ‘This is how we’ve been working.’ As a manager, you need to allow your employees the space to feel what they will for the feedback they receive and then help them improve their performance
The HBR article, its rebuttals, and we agree that it isn’t enough to give the feedback. You need to check if the person can develop as a result of the feedback. If you’re saying an employee performed well a year, what of the work was good? Was it conflict management, work ethic, communication, what was it? How do you enforce that work is more important than their personal opinion without sounding pretentious.
Group conflicts are always going to exist in the workplace. You should always tailor feedback to ensure that it’s about managing those conflicts and not hurting their chances of appraisal over it. If you think a person cannot contribute something to the table, ask them why. Ask them what’s stopping them. “Don’t straightaway assume they don’t know anything or they can’t do a task. Some people need time to think and reflect” says one HR manager.
Feedback can’t always be negative. If it only focuses on the positive elements, it will stoke egos. If it is only negative, it demotivates people. You can’t keep giving scathing remarks and expect them to stay loyal to the company. You can’t make people feel bad and expect them to be your yes-man. The study that we mentioned at the start assumes prominence here. The difference is that scathing remarks inevitably touch the personality.
As long as you leave the personality alone, the kind of feedback you give might not change the productivity. If feedback spills into personality and growth, how should employers handle it?
This is where the importance of intent comes in. Positive intent makes even critical feedback tolerable. And for feedback from managers that you haven’t interacted with much, or can’t be sure of their intent, you rely on your social circle. If the perception about the manager is good in your circle, it is easy to imagine that their intent is positive. It is easier to be more receptive when you’re sure that they intend to help you and not demean you.
You learn to distinguish between where to take feedback and what feedback seriously.
What one L&D manager we’ve talked to said is, “When you’re trying to talk about behaviours, make sure to figure out how to improve those behaviours and how to track the changes. Not all behaviours impact the business. Like, not socialising with the team etc. doesn’t affect the business. But if people say that your behaviour is hindering their ability to work, then maybe it makes sense. For things that don’t impact the bottom line, why offer feedback that asks people to change their idiosyncrasies? You can’t have a cultural value of terms like integrity, especially when it’s so abstract. You can’t tell him he doesn’t have integrity without being able to substantiate the abstract term.”
You can’t have a cultural value of terms like integrity, especially when it’s so abstract
Conclusion
Feedback is the one link between the hierarchy that solidifies the perception of performance. There are so many delicate elements involved there; so many abstract difficult-to-quantify elements that it becomes simultaneously tricky to deliver but are important for positive feedback loop and feedback improvement.