The Feedback Continuum

Thanks for letting this evolve

I love the way this technique has been tuned up through time and experience. I had trouble initially with the "piling on" technique just because in the stress of feedback I couldn't think of that much to say!

It is still not comfortable, but of course comfort isn't what I get paid for. I need to do better at this. Thanks for putting together the whole picture.

The shot across the bow - your views...

 Hi Mark, Mike

I would love to hear your views on whether the shot across the bow works in all cases of pushback from the direct.

It seems to me that there are different ways that a direct can push back in response to feedback of the form "When you do B, C happens." ('B' = behaviour; 'C' = consequences):

(1) "I didn't do B!"

(2) "I don't agree that C happens when I do B"

(3) "I don't agree that C is a bad thing"

(4) "You're right, but I'm not in any position to do anything apart from B"

(5) Get off my case!

There are surely others, too.

The point about being effective (not right) as a manager and about focusing on future behaviour is such a good one, and I compeletely see how it would be ineffective to argue the case with a direct in situations (1) or (5). But I'm not sure about the other situations. The example you used in this cast was (4) - "I couldn't help it because someone else was late". If I don't address that as a manager, isn't there a chance that my backing off will send a message that I agree with them and that there is no need for them to consider behaviour change? That it's OK to miss deadlines as long as other people do as well?

Put it another way. I can cope with agreeing with someone that they didn't do B, because the important part of the feedback message ("If B then C") stays intact. But that's only true if the pushback isn't directed at the conditional.

Your views?

By the way, I have to say that your approach to feedback and the way you package it up like this is fabulous - it's simple, coherent, actionable and (most important) it just works! The contribution you guys make is immense - thank you so much from a usually silent but always avid listener.

Carl

more feedback?

Carl - I'm wondering if the answers to #2,3 & 4 aren't to provide additional feedback on those points?

#4 might be easiest because if it's an honest answer then you need to educate the person on how they can make a difference (they must be misunderstanding their role) or give them strategies to manage the situation (such as informing their manager that dramas are coming down the pipe...)  

#3 could be followed up by giving them feedback about seeing things from another person's point of view and nicely suggesting that they're not the only one in the organisation -- their actions impact others.   Also my thoughts on #2 apply.

For me #2 is hardest because it basically comes down to what was said in the cast - that the manager is the one who decides the results required.  They can disagree all they like but if you want a certain result or workflow then that's the bottom line.  Their unwillingness to meet the result is cause for more feedback.

For #1 that'd be easily supported by gathering data.  Usually you'd have that or you wouldn't be giving feedback ("When you do X, Y happens...")  But again, it kinda comes down to the adage that if the manager believes it to be true, it is true.

#5 is someone who won't last long in the organisation and is rare.  There's room for feedback about not taking feedback, which is very serious.

My 2 cents anyway...

One more thought

This topic is really resonating with me lately, so it's great to see it back in MT casts and talked about on the forums. 

I've got a situation where I've been giving someone feedback, had the person agree with the feedback, then had the person agree that change needs to happen, and then suggest his own way to make the change.  And after six months and several more incidents with feedback, nothing changed.

I (and my manager) basically got tired of feeling like we were running in circles and had to take it to a first written warning.  

I found the process extremely difficult and unpleasant - particuarly as the issue was a behavioural one and not just a performance one - but I sleep well at night knowing I did my best and did it in a fair minded fashion.

And I really have to thank MT for giving me tools to do this, I have no doubt it would have been a lot messier and a lot more emotional without the podcasts.     And I wouldn't have gotten the compliment from MY manager abut handling the situation so well.  Well, so far.... :)

Another shot...

 Thanks a lot - it's very helpful to get another view on this.

The way I would deal with these situations now (but almost certainly not in the past) is to differentiate between a direct whom I feel is being defensive and one who is genuinely questioning my reasoning. In the first case, I would back off and then come back to it in a 121 (for situations #2, #3 and #4). In the second case, I would carry on the discussion, since you are dealing with someone who is trying to understand and do their best. On a good day, I might even admit that I'm wrong! This seems to me to pass the general test of 'encouraging effective behaviour'.

I wonder, though, whether others disagree and have another approach to suggest.

Carl

More To Come...

Folks-

We'll have plenty more to say on feedback.  More casts, more detailed examples.

And yes, there is ALWAYS a chance that they'll assume you backing down is an admission that they're right.  But they also know that you're aware of it.  I have to say, the majority of folks recognize the weakness of their position when it's their boss "noticing", and they change their behavior.

The ones who don't need more.

By the way, I remember very clearly about 10 years ago having a direct say (1) several times, and I backed off each time, and then when it just became comical, I finally said, VERY politely, "okay, we disagree.  You say you didn't, and I say you did several times.  I've been patient and kind.  If you want to argue, please go talk to HR...but I'm proceeding as if you did."

Worked fine.

Which reminds me of the old epigram we use when teaching behavioral communications: 

If one person tells you you have a green tail, they're an idiot.
If two people tell you you have a green tail, it's a conspiracy.
If seven people tell you you have a green tail, you turn around and look.
Substitute instances for people, it's the same.
And if your boss tells you, each instance counts two (or eleven).

;-)

Commitment conversations?

Dear all

One thing I seem missing in the feedback model is the possibility to nail down a commitment in or after step 4.

In letting the direct come up with suggestions, we may keep getting evasive; defensive or uncommitting responses. The current MT approach is to keep providing feedback up to systemic and shot-across-the-bow. This is supposed to take a number of weeks. Depending on the situation, we may not be in a position to wait - think of fast and furious deadline or projects. We may want a change in behaviour now.

In our company we make much use of commitment conversations - which funny enough revolve precisey around Who does What by When (MH and MA may ask for copyrights). This works well by us, provided people openly explore assumptions, motivations and achieve mutual clarity around the commitments to be made.

I just wanted to share this with the MT community in case others have similar experiences. Could commitment conversations become a worthwhile part of the MT repertoir?

Could be....

I don't know anything about commitment conversations, but am happy to learn.

Are you saying that they use the "who does what by when" phrasing? Someone just sent me or posted another site's use of that phrase.  I can assure you all of our stuff is OUR stuff.  I have been using who does what for years, and its delay was one of the reasons we created Career Tools - too much stuff coming out too slowly.

Feedback to non-directs

MT members,

This must be a common situation.  All of us at some level are dependent on staff that are part of the infrastructure of the industry or business.  Some examples are facilities, security, custodial, maintenance, even HR.  They don't report directly on us but our productivity is dependent on their effectiveness.  In the cases that have prompting this comment, I have provided feedback to the staff and discussed the problem with my peers who supervise the staff.  The staff managers tend to view the problems as too big to address and it is just the way it is.  So why bother.  When I look at the problems, they seem to be composed of many small things.  If addressed one at a time over time, the changes could make a huge difference.  Systematic feedback to the staff doesn't seem appropriate since the issue since the basic issues of credibility or authority on which feedback is based don't seem to be working.  I am stumped.

I liked this podcast though it seemed obvious after the other feedback podcasts.  The podcast that provided timelines for rolling out feedback in a new position or for new employees was very helpful.  The timing of initiation of feedback (positive and negative) was not intuitive to me. 

Thanks,

Ed

Call Me Captain Obvious...

It's a good sign that some of our stuff repeats some things over and over.  That means more people are getting it.

Sometimes peer feedback is warranted if the recipient is not a direct.  Depends.