In a tied high school football game, the opposing running back came around the right tackle. The home team player stripped the ball from the halfback’s hands and hung on to it. Seeing no one in front him the 250-pound right tackle put on a burst of speed and ran the 55 yards for a touchdown. The crowd went wild and his team gathered around him slapping his back and giving high fives..
When the teams changed, the coach vigorously motioned the tackle over. He looked livid. “Dixon! How many times do I have to tell you?! Defensive linemen don’t run the ball. But Noooo, there you were, a lineman not falling on the ball, waddling down the whole field, not running serpentine, and NOT even keeping your knees up!”
The tackle raised his head briefly,
“How was it for distance, Coach?”
This story is one I adopted and reused in leadership workshops. It works because most people have felt as misused in performance feedback as this defensive lineman probably felt. He knew he broke the coaches instructions, but thought the touchdown (end result) would justify the means. He thought he would be congratulated and yet he was publicly chastised. He didn’t ask his coach for this feedback and the feedback was in conflict with other feedback received — cheers from the crowd.
As painful as this feedback was for the player it didn’t matter that he hadn’t asked for it. Coaches, like managers, have an implicit contract with their players to deliver feedback. This coach apparently didn’t want to reward rule breaking that happened to end well because the next time such action might produce a less advantageous result, — a touchdown for the other team.
Might the coach have delivered this feedback less publicly? Maybe, but he was communicating not just to Dixon, but to the other defensive linemen. Might he have chosen a different venue to communicate about the rules — e.g., watching the post-game film on Monday? Perhaps.
Could the coach have communicated with less apparent anger or without public humiliation? Certainly.
Performance feedback is one of the trickiest tasks of a leader, especially a change leader without positional power.
There was a time when I trained change leaders in giving feedback. As a discussion starter I asked, “What is feedback?” Once a microwave engineer at the corner of the ‘U’ answered:
“It is the degree of amplitude at which an advanced wave system becomes oscillatory.”
Everyone laughed and I learned to just give definitions. So in the context we are talking about,
“Feedback is information about performance intended to change or maintain performance.”
So in our example, the coach wanted to change performance, next time, follow the rules, “defensive linemen don’t run the ball, but if you do run the ball, run ten yards (for the first down) then fall on the ball, and while you are running, run in a curving pattern (serpentine) and keep your knees high to make yourself harder to tackle.
For all those from other countries or those who don’t know American football, it isn’t you. The coach’s advice is confusing.
This is one of the problems of giving feedback; we are often trying to do many things at once. We want to correct (change) some performance and ensure that we reward the things people are doing right (maintain performance) and make sure that people don’t feel like we are picking on them or don’t vale them as a person.
It’s confusing, like the coach’s defensive lineman rules. But doing all these things at once is the origin of “sandwich feedback,” i.e.,
1. “”Tell-em-something-they-did-well.
2. Then tell-em-what-they-should-do-better.
3. Then express-confidence-that-they-can-make-the-change,
4. Then tell-em-they’re-a-really-good-person-that-you-value-a-lot.
This is literally the way I was taught to give feedback as a manager and since every teacher and boss I ever had must have taken the same course, it is really hard to break the habit.
When I was at the Forum Corporation, I learned another way to give feedback. Separate feedback that relates to the past (motivational — to maintain good or stop bad behavior) from improvement (correctional) feedback that is focused on the future. Give each at a different time.
Give motivational feedback immediately- “good job” or “stop — that’s unsafe” — when you want to reward and therefore repeat behavior or reprimand to stop behavior. “Congratulations on the touchdown, Dixon!”
Give correctional feedback when it can be put to use. (After watching the game film), “Dixon and anyone, what might have happened here? Why do we have this rule about falling on the ball and not running it?”
This differentiated feedback is time consuming and very hard to do, but it is more effective.
It also has the potential to be tailored to the individual. For example, I am always happy to be praised publicly, but I learned that some people are embarrassed by public praise.
I once worked in a factory where the boss gave “spot bonuses.” He walked around and saw something he liked and `peeled a twenty dollar bill from the roll he carried with him and gave it to the person saying “good job.” I found the practice paternalistic and manipulative ad refuse the bill once .”No thanks, just doing my job,” I said. Several of my fellow workers called me “nuts.”
People often have firm ideas about how they like to be rewarded and corrected. Some don’t mind public feedback of any kind. Some prefer a private conversation. They only way one finds that out is to ask.
Ray Dalio, the CEO of the tremendously successful investment management firm Bridgewater Associates, is an advocate of what he calls “radical honesty” or “radical transparency.” In his firm, he says, everyone is encouraged direct feedback on any subject at any time. Even he says “it is not for everyone.” I see the advantage of avoiding the usual hypocrisy of “sandwich feedback” or, worse yet, avoiding feedback altogether. However, I wonder if Dalio’s feedback policy might lead to a mean-spirited culture without much civility. I’d be concerned about the effect upon an introvert who might discover the next great investment opportunity.
One thing I like about the model Ray Dalio espouses is that it is everyone-to-everyone feedback, not just boss to subordinate, but peer to peer and subordinate to boss.. I’m not sure how this works in practice at Bridgewater Associates. I imagine it to be tricky to manage well, but it could offer a great learning environment.
The change leader often needs the cultural freedom to give feedback to peers and senior leaders. In most organizations this “radical honesty” is rare, but it would certainly grease the wheels of change.
Carl Rogers, the American psychologist, said, “Help is defined by the recipient.” Rogers maintained that help should be asked for. “Help that isn’t asked for is perceived as interference and not help.”
Peter Block, author of Community and the Structure of Belonging has gone so far as to say “Stop being helpful!. . . When anyone asks me if they can give me some feedback, I say ‘No!’ because it is always bad news.”
I think the point Block is making is that our “helpful” intention really isn’t help. Feedback I want to give that you haven’t asked for asked for will not build community, nor will it likely lead to any improvement.
So curb your enthusiasm for feedback; resist the deep-seated desire to edit someone else’s copy. Wait until you are asked.
But if you are asked, or if it is a commitment in your management or coaching contract, think carefully before you speak. You don’t have to data-dump or deliver motivational and corrective at the same time.
Here are some thoughts I found helpful:
Thoughts about giving feedback:
· What help has been asked for? (If you have an agreement to help someone improve, reference that.)
· Is this a good time? Venue?
· Be selective — what one of two things would have the most impact?
· Be direct — don’t “beat around the bush,” “go around Robin Hood’s barn,” “hem and haw,” or [insert favorite prevarication cliché here]
· Be specific — describe the behavior you wish to maintain or correct without “loaded” evaluative words (e.g., good, bad or more colorful variants) — give examples
· Be fair — what is within this person’s control — what is the impact of others or of circumstances.
· Be kind, but not at the expense of direct truth.
Thoughts on receiving feedback, (which is frequently more difficult)
· No “Yeah, buts” -This isn’t a time to explain yourself
o Don’t say “that isn’t what I meant”
o Or “That wasn’t my intention”
· Ask questions only to clarify — not to challenge
· Definitely no “what abouts” — don’t bring up anyone else’s actions
· Seek to avoid being defensive (People, often say don’t take it personally. As someone who takes everything personally, I don’t find that helpful, but I can avoid being defensive.)
o Avoid any sarcastic response — probably not the time for “How was it for distance, Coach?”
o I find summarizing and then saying “Tell me more” or “Anything else?” helps.
· Say “thank you” (even if you didn’t ask for the feedback). In almost all cases,
this person is trying to help you improve.
· Remember — it is always your choice whether to act upon feedback (Yes, even if it’s your boss and your job may depend upon it — you can always choose not to act on the feedback.)
Feedback is about performance, what to stop doing, what to maintain, and what to improve or change. Performance, not the information about it, needs to be the main event.
