Dan Erwin

Even the CEO Needs Feedback, But. . . .

Over the last few months I’ve been conversing with several new managers about their responsibility for giving feedback. Two issues keep coming up. How do you go about really giving effective feedback? And when should you not give feedback? It’s that second issue that I want to talk about. Sometimes it’s more important than the how-to.

 

Giving feedback can be a waste of time. Especially to someone who’s not ready to receive it or incapable of doing anything with it. More significantly, the downside of giving feedback to someone who can’t do anything with it can create a mess of relationship difficulties.

Sometimes the feedback is simply outside the person’s knowledge base. In a previous blog, “If you need a mentor, forget the expert,” I warn that it’s often difficult for an experienced person to put the cookies on the bottom shelf. Rather than enhance the learning experience, it can frustrate it.

On a personal note
My own experience of being coached resonates. Years ago when I first began to get serious about popular writing, I hired a former editor-in-chief from Harper Collins to coach me. “Hire the expert,” I thought. I learned a lot about the publishing business from him, destroying many of my myths. But truthfully, he was too experienced and too much of an expert to put the cookies on the bottom shelf. And it’s tough for an academic like me to leave academic writing behind without a lot of direction.

Five years ago, I bargained for the services of a 22 year-old college grad in English, a Gen-Yer from one of our top schools. His ability to answer my most basic questions has been and remains phenomenal. I’m a “why” person, and he’s always ready to answer my “whys.” Furthermore, unlike the “expert” editor, my young friend is not fearful of being literally ruthless with a red pen. I’ve shown articles he’s edited to some of my cronies and they tell me the hair on their neck stands on edge just reading it. But it’s done in all kindness and care, with lots of suggestions and alternative ways of going at a subject. The “expert” was too far above me to be of more than cursory help, but my young friend was just what I needed. Though there are plenty of times when my writing isn’t the best, I’m certain his feedback has moved me a long way in those few years.

There are other reasons for not giving a person feedback. Some people are too defensive to gain from coaching input. They have to learn from the school of hard knocks. It’s a tough way to learn, and some never do. One of the delights of my coaching business is that when I’m hired, the client is ready for my services. After a couple sessions, there are no holds barred in the giving of feedback. These clients want to know specifically what the feedback means, why it’s important, and what to do about it. But it takes experience a degree of maturity to get to that point.

Still others think they have all the answers. They just want a quick response from you, and then they cut you off. Maybe it’s defensiveness, but maybe it’s just big ego. But one thing is clear. Just a little feedback often fails to go very far. Furthermore, when some say they “get it,” there’s not a chance in hell that they can do anything with such a small amount of feedback. They really need you to take them by the paw and lead them through the steps of development. At the least, based on the feedback, they need to be able to talk you through the next three or four steps they’re going to take with your feedback. And if you can’t get that much time from them, or they can’t respond with the steps, it’s all a waste of time.

How can you tell when someone’s not ready for feedback?
Of course, the easiest way is past experience. You’ve observed that person for months, even years, and you know it’s going to be a waste. Then too, if you pay much attention to the rumor mill, the difficulty of giving feedback to a certain person gets around.

Some people are obviously and openly defensive. If a person always wants to be right or have the last word in a conversation, you’re asking for trouble. And if endless explaining or rationalizing is the norm in his conversations, that too, is a sign of trouble for feedback.

But as a manager, sometimes giving feedback is required. Take the person to a private office. Ask him for permission to give feedback, or, if necessary, tell you’re going to be giving some feedback. Give the feedback in developmental form. Ask what he can do about the information and what steps he's going to be taking to resolve the issue. Offer your support. And just get on with it. Oh yeah, always check back regarding the change. Especially if it’s positive!

Flickr photo: by pamalamadag

To Find a Job, Rebuild Your Network

The best way to find a job is still through networking. Certainly the web is useful. But ultimately, nothing is better than face-to-face. Here are my secrets to the process.

No matter how you get the contact, face-to-face will be inevitable. However, many really need to change their networking process to get that new job they’ve always dreamed of.

Networking has been around since the 1930s, but research, insights and major changes enhancing success in the process are relatively recent. Don’t limit your outreach to close friends, colleagues or your current organization. It’s important to realize that your network needs to be tailored to its objectives. And if a new job is your objective, most will need to rebuild that network.

Many people seem to think that networks are easier to form if you’re extroverted and outgoing. But the real issue is effort, not personality style.

And one of the intriguing research finds about high performers is that they distinguish themselves by their network. They don’t necessarily have a big network. But their network has “bridging ties,” ties with people who reach outside their group and outside their organization. Job searchers should be finding and using “bridging ties.”

There are a number of top students of networking and networking analysis. But for popular consumption and personal feedback on your network and network building, pick up Wayne Baker’s, Achieving Success through Social Capital. It’ll help you analyze where your network weaknesses are, how to build a better network and how to focus on your objective.  

Redefine your network to focus on your job search.
Most have far more contacts than they think. Go through your past history, identifying former classmates, colleagues, clients and community acquaintances. When you sit down with a contact to talk, always ask for other contacts. Be very specific.  Follow the sales assumption approach: “Based on our conversation what three people should I contact?” Notice the specific number. If you ask whether they can suggest some others, you’re liable to get a no. But if you ask for specific number and keep seated, they’re liable to go to their own contact list and pull out three names for you. Then ask if you have permission to tell the contact that he/she was the source of the recommendation. And here’s a terrific secret: once you’ve made contact with the three, call the original source back, telling him of the results in up-beat fashion. And thank him. Half the time, he’ll give you more insights and more contacts.

The contact meeting is a discussion, not a job interview.
Keep faith with the stated objective of your meeting. If the purpose of your meeting is information gathering, never, never ask for a job in that discussion. If the contact brings it up, that’s fine. But don’t commit such a strategic blunder. Never go into a discussion unprepared—and be knowledgeable about the contact’s industry. Using information you have about his/her industry, ask more about the industry, its status, future, current jobs situation. Ask how to succeed in the industry and how to position yourself for opportunities.

Finally, get feedback on your handling of the conversation. How can you improve your information-gathering process? What other questions should you be asking, even what shouldn’t you ask. Make it a learning session, both for you and your contact. Give the contact a smile, a firm handshake, and get out of the room—on time. And if the contact continues to give you information, let him know that you appreciate it but that you want to keep faith with his time. He’ll let you know if you can stay seated or should get on your way. And, he’ll respect you for your professionalism. 

Keep good records of your contact and your meetings.
There are all kinds of programs for record keeping, but I keep a special contact file in outlook for potential clients and information gained from meetings. But be sure to check back every two or three months, update the contact, and check to see how he’s doing and whether he has further suggestions for you.

Earlier on in this blog, I pointed out that building a network is about effort, not personality. I hope that message has really sunk in. I’ve worked with numerous leaders who were scrupulous networkers. One especially comes to mind. A vice-president of a consumer products company, I watched him move from job to job, seemingly without any difficult. His first position was lost to a merger, but he had a new position in another company before he finished his tenure. His second position was lost to a strategic IT blunder, but he marched off to another even better position before being let go. He inevitably devoted time every week to networking, revising the quality of his links, and checking in with his contacts. It paid off in spades.

Flickr Photo: by clairphotography 

Failure is Pure Gold--If You Know How to Mine It.

Eight keys for mining pure gold.

Harvard Business Review's April issue was devoted to the subject of failure. I was both intrigued and delighted by that, but what crossed my mind immediately was whether the writers would admit to the profound difficulties of learning from failure. A glance at the authors answered my question. Yep. Bazerman was writing. So also Edmonson and Kanter. They know the difficulties of learning from failure. 

Individual failure, like organizational failure, can be very difficult to identify. Russo and Schoemaker's excellent study of decisionmaking gets at that difficulty with a quote from Churchill, emphasizing our blindness to feedback. 

People sometimes stumble over the truth, but usually they pick themselves up and hurry about their business.  --Winston Churchill

Studies show that more than 90% of the time we fail to learn from failure. An alcoholic goes into treatment for month intending to put an end to his habit. But a few months later he's back at it again. Prison recidivism rates are terrifying. A 2006 US study found that within three years of their release,67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated. Horrible stats, but dealing with failure is tough for all of us.

So frame it this way: Experience is inevitable, but learning from it is not. Our mental biases make learning from experience more difficult than most recognize. Our personal defense systems--the need to feel competent, in control, and comfortable--put boundaries around our ability and willingness to change. 

I've found this list of issues that keep us from learning from failure especially useful:

1. Limited or ambiguous information about decision results.
2. Not enough time to make sense of the information available.
3. No opportunity to test conclusions in new decisions.
4. Anxiety about appearing a poor performer.
5. Inability to see how observed outcomes might be interpreted differently.
6. A tendency to jump to conclusions.
7. Ignored or distorted feedback.
8. Difficulty separating skill from luck.

These warnings have been a lifesaver to me and my clients. However, I've focused a lot on number 7 by using coaches to provide needed feedback.

I studied piano under three teachers (coaches), each a bit better than than the previous. Indeed, my last coach held a grad degree from Michigan and had studied under the great Artur Schnabel. She was a great artist, but not a great at feedback and coaching. I also studied voice under three teachers, each a bit better than the previous. I found voice studies more gratifying than piano, largely, I now believe, because of the expert coaching. One of my best college buddies was a bass-baritone with a huge, seemingly unmanageable voice. But he went on to Indiana University, one of our great music schools, where, as he related to me, the coaching was fabulous. Oh sure, talent plays a role, but in the final analysis, the studies of deliberate practice tell us that success is about discipline, chunking, feedback and coaching.

For the past ten years I've been working on my writing, seeking help from a number of colleagues. That experience has reinforced the conclusions of deliberate practice. A number of friends have gaven me some useful input. I hired an editorial director from one of the top publishing houses, learning about the publishing business, and gaining further writing expertise. Still, it was clear that I needed further coaching. Four years ago I literally stumbled on a Gen-Yer who had no difficulty being ruthless with his feedback, and was quite capable of answering my endless questions about writing. I can see the improvement. (FYI: he didn't edit this blog.)

My point is this: Learning from failure requires superb, often ruthless, feedback and coaching. If we keep at the search for coaches, upgrading regularly, eventually we'll find the master who can help us mine our failures. That's true whether you're working on piano, voice, skiing, golf, decisionmaking, teamwork, managing, leadership, etc., etc., etc.

Russo & Schoemaker, Winning Decisions, (eight preventive issues) p. 200. 

4 Tips for Giving Your New Boss Feedback

Focusing on the relationship with your new boss--from the start--is key to long-term success.  If you've never done it before, giving your boss feedback can be nervewracking.  Still, many, if not most strong relationships are based on openly sharing advice and input.  That kind of communication relationship weathers the storms of personal disagreement and corporate difficulty.  So here are four tips for building a relationship with feedback and advice at the center.

1. Start early.  Most new bosses try to have one-on-ones early in their tenure.  Pay close attention to her input, guaging her willingness to listen and openness to relationships.  Be attentive to the smallest hints of concern that she may voice.  Make a few comments and ask a few questions that telegraph your desire for a relationship and willingness to give unsolicited input.  Research clearly reports that your ability to enhance the ego of your boss is a key success factor. 
2. Determine her willingness to listen.  Since silence is open to many interpretations and meanings, define early on how your boss uses silence.  Is she paying attention to what others are saying, formulating her own response, accepting or rejecting ideas?  Keys to a real listener include her use of questions, definition of terms, clarification of input, as well as summary application of a speaker's insights.  Pay close attention to her "turn-taking" skills.  Does she talk, listen intently with silence, talk again, listen more with questioning?  If not, be wary and very carefully filter your messages to her respectfully, always assessing her response until you get a better handle on her expectations and liking.
3. Schedule your feedback.  Always set up the meeting with your new boss.  And do it within the first four to six weeks of her tenure.  Tell her that you've got a couple important issues you'd like to talk about.  Be ready to give and explain a very positive contribution she's making to the organization. Detail it's success.  Then suggest one change or new action that would make her more successful. Explain your rationale, give an example, and suggest the positive consequence.   Never, never take her by surprise until she lets you know that she's comfortable with "walk-ins."
4. Gauge her reactions.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, the best of us are more often wrong than right when it comes to assessing a person's reactions.  So pay close attention to how she goes about problem solving and making decisions.  How much info does she need?  Listen to assess her ability to determine the consequences of her behaviors.  And pay attention especially to her self-awareness. Can she admit error, talk about her thinking and laugh at herself.  And after you've dished out positive and negative feedback, check in by occasionally asking, "Does this make sense?"  Or, "Did that work?"

The majority of bosses are completely lacking in both interactional skills and self-awareness.  That's neither condemnation of bosses nor of business/technical education.  Relationship skills were not required in the 20th century industrial economy.  Indeed, giving and following orders in a controlled environment required little relationship intentionality.  In the New, Global Economy relationship skills are the ultimate distinguishing characteristic of the successful.  Technology, the so-called hard science is rather easy to learn especially because it is largely controllable and predictable.  In contrast, many struggle to learn the so-called soft power skills where the ability to control and predict consequences is far more difficult. Even today, few business and technical colleges and universities are up to the demands of the world environment.  And you'll often find, much to your dismay, that many managers and execs are clueless.  So be wary as you go about managing your boss.  But don't fail to do it.

Relationship building is never an event, but a long-term campaign.  It can be costly, but as I've emphasized in an earlier blog on managing your boss, it'll also provide job opportunities, resources, links to the rest of the organization, and often a very good raise.  

How to Use Feedback to Make Better Decisions

From entry level to the most senior executive, today’s employees are being forced to make complex decisions and make them faster and far more often than their 20^th century predecessors.  Most of all, business people have become a lot more aware of the importance of making good decisions.  Yet all of us are bombarded with opinions in the form of proposals, estimates and predictions.  Most of us know that we need to suspect the certainty with which these beliefs are stated. 

So how can we improve our decision making?

One of the very best ways to improve our decision making is through timely, accurate, and clear feedback.  The work in deliberate practice, shows that quality feedback is the most essential ingredient for developing expertise.  Getting quality feedback, however, is not always very easy.  

In some decision making, like long-term investing, business strategy, or even software installations, the feedback comes with a time lag and is often ambiguous.  As a result, the learning is not as successful.

Much to my surprise, research shows that the best and most accurate decision makers are weather forecasters.  In one study, when U.S. Weather Service forecasters predicted a 30% chance of rain, out of 15,536 predictions, it rained almost exactly 30% of the time.  That superb accuracy holds along the entire range of probability, except at the highest levels.  When a 100% chance of rain was predicted, it actually rained only 90% of the time.  What makes weather forecasters so accurate is precise, timely feedback about repeated judgments.  And, of course, they’re held very accountable by their supervisors, their colleagues and the public. 

The decision-making journal. 

If you’re really serious about improving your decisions and are open to feedback, there’s a simple, inexpensive technique with a great deal of value:  a decision-making journal.

Whenever you make an important decision, take a few minutes to write down what you decided, how you went about making that decision, and what you expect to happen.  Get your decision down in specific, concrete statements.  That’ll keep you from conjuring up ways to defend your decision choices, and unduly preserving your self-image.  The lesson:  even good feedback is not useful if you don’t use it.

--------------

When you first learn that weather forecasters are the best, most accurate decision makers, you may want to discredit that research.  The study makes it very clear and obvious that most of our decision making is pretty inadequate.  Suck it up, and deal with the truth, as painful as it really is.  Then, when you make an important decision, learn from it by using the decision journal. 

A well-kept journal makes it possible for you to audit your decisions.  It also can illuminate your decision-making patterns.  You may see, for example, relationships between your moods and your decisions.  When you’re in a good mood, you may be more overconfident.  I’ve noticed that when I’m in a slightly pessimistic mood, I make better decisions.  Since I can’t always determine my moods, I’ve built my game on other strategies.

Useful references:

Russo and Schoemaker, Managing Overconfidence.

Michael Mauboussin, Think Twice.

A Dysfunctional Personality, But a Career Success

In an intriguing article in the latest Atlantic magazine, David Dobbs, who writes on science and medicine and who blogs at neuronculture.com, reports on research from the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, studying "orchid children."   "Orchid children" are one to three-year-olds who indulge heavily in aggressive, uncooperative and aggravating behavior that psychologists call "externalizing": whining, screaming, throwing tantrums and objects, and willfully refusing reasonable requests.

While most of us are hardy souls who can take root and survive anywhere, a small percentage of the population are children who are self-destructive, fragile and fickle.  At the beginning of this study, Marian Bakerman-Kranenburg, a professor of child and family studies, and her colleagues had screened nearly 2500 kids who fit the dysfunctional pattern.  With parental support they focused on the 25% rated highest by their parents in externalizing behaviors.  Research has shown that toddlers with especially high rates of these behaviors are likely to become stressed, confused children who fail academically and socially in school, and become antisocial and unusually aggressive adults.

But the prof had developed an intervention that she hoped would change the behaviors of these kids over the long term, rendering them useful and contributing members of society.  In an intervention her lab had developed, she or another researcher visited each of 120 families six times over eight months; filmed the mother and child in everyday activities, including some requiring obedience or cooperation; and then edited the film into teachable moments to show to the mothers. A similar group of high-externalizing children received no intervention.

To the researchers delight the intervention worked.  In a single year, kids with externalizing behaviors had reduced their externalizing score by 16%, in contrast to those who had no intervention, and whose scores improved ony about 10%, largely the result of age-related self-control. 

What was of special interest to me was the new interpretation of a basic and influential idea in psychiatric and social research, the whole notion of "genetic vulnerability." Supported by genetic and chemical studies of the brain, this model essentially rules the interpretation of behavioral problems.  They are viewed as gene induced behaviors--not environmental.  If you've got these genes and life treats you ill, you're more prone to them.  It reminds me of a film from the 1950's, The Bad Seed, in which a mother begins to suspect that her adolescent daughter is a heartless killer and she can do nothing about it. 

Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged that turns the old one inside out.  The new model proposes that these genes can create liabilities, but they can also enhance ability and function in favorable settings.  A lot of the evidence has been mounting for years, but it was both overlooked and ignored, largely because of the focus upon dysfunction.  As one psychologist at the University of London states, "Most work in behavioral genetics has been done by mental-illness researchers who focus on vulnerability.  They don't see the upside because they don't look for it." 

The really frustrating piece of that information is that employees and professionals with a dysfunctional behavior often take on a failure mentality, viewing their genetic heritage as the determining factor for their future.  As a result, managing the behavior can become even more difficult for them.

Years ago, when I accepted "fix'em projects" from firms, the kind of situation where a person has a lot of potential, but also makes life miserable for many people, I was asked to work with a young, bright partner at a top legal firm.  It was one of those situations where he understood that my task was to fix him, and he'd been worked over by counselors and psychiatrists for years, so understandably, he wasn't looking forward to the process.  Yet, he also recognized that his job and his future required some changes or he wouldn't be able to care for his family. 

Right from the start, I found him an interesting guy, not merely because he laid it all out, and told me that he didn't want to work with me, but that he really had no choice.  The issue, he told me, had been identified by counselors and psychiatrists as paranoia.  Although I'm not a licensed psychologist, I have a significant background in psych, including abnormal psych.  I'd also had long term experience with a couple parishioners who were so diseased as to be unable to hold down a job. 

The HR person hadn't informed me of his psych diagnosis and I was surprised by the immediate feedback from him.  I took it all in, asked a few questions, got a list of people to interview before I initiated coaching, and carried out the task.  What I heard in a nutshell was that he was a really brilliant lawyer, but he can be very difficult, exploding and even "screaming" at people (FYI: I tend to view such characterizations as an attempt to focus my attention, more than actual reality.  Most professionals are too smart to get caught in that kind of behavior.) 

After the testing, and interviewing, we sat down for a conversation, and I fed him the input.  He didn't disagree, except he thought some of it was a bit exaggerated.  The next session was basically a "come to Jesus party" for him and me.  I told him that I had no long-term experience with "abnormals" and he told me that "just maybe" I could be useful to him.  We were mutually expressive and candid.  I dug away for a while asking what he'd been told by the psychiatrists.  After he reported most of the shit, I commented something to the effect that that was the "downside," and wondered about the "upside" to his disease. 

"There is no upside to paranoia," he shot back.  My brain was working ninety-miles an hour, and I decided on the spot that he was dead wrong.  He was a corporate lawyer.  His fundamental task was to keep his clients out of trouble.  I was shooting from the hip.  I suggested that a paranoid lawyer just might be a damn good lawyer.  He could be very paranoid in behalf of his clients, and that was liable to be his real value.  An intriguing conversation ensued.  He'd never thought about that, never heard that paranoia might be of value, and didn't know what to think about the idea.  I countered with another insight.  Since I'd been a preacher and taught preaching and understood the psychological make-up of the great preachers, I pointed to a significant parallel.  Most of the great preachers are slightly neurotic.  In other words, they see more than is really there and they report it to their congregation in their sermons.  And, that makes them damned interesting and persuasive.  It was a home run.  He got it immediately.  In the coming sessions we discussed the upside of a lot of diseases. (Since then, we've learned about leaders and the constructive use of narcissism. Narcissism is not always bad.  It just needs to be managed for the sake of personal success in the organization.)

One of the intriguing results, which I didn't have to work with very much, was his reputed blow-ups, explosions and difficulties.  The new frame of reference gave him so much satisfaction, that he devoted himself to his practice.  He remains a friend, a successful lawyer, and largely manages his paranoia.  All because we reframed his disease.  A dysfunctional personality structure, but a career success.

The point of all this is that interventions are very often reframings of conventional wisdom.  Real growth and opportunity typically challenge conventional wisdom.  And sometimes that conventional wisdom is built on a superstructure of professional training.  That doesn't necessarily mean the education was divinely inspired.

---

The Feedback Conundrum Versus the Puppy Theory

One of the continuing puzzles of organizational feedback is that many managers still wait for the annual review before dealing with a developmental issue.  Getting feedback weeks or months after it's needed can be both a shock and largely useless.  The more time between a critical incident the less insight, both on the part of the employee as well as the manager.  Furthermore, waiting to give feedback can mean that a negative behavior can be internalized by a person, making it all the more difficult to deal with.

So, as I stated in a previous post, I was delighted by the comments of Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo to a NYTimes interviewer.  The article title states her case:  Imagining a world without annual review. 

When asked about what she's learned to do as a leader, she talks about both getting and giving feedback.  Her comments are spot on, even humorous, and exceptionally useful.

I also ask simple questions, like “How am I doing? What should I do differently?” At first, people are shocked when you ask them that. They won’t answer right away because they actually don’t think you’re genuine about it, so you have to kind of keep probing and make it safe. They eventually will come around and say, “Well, just this.”

I have a variant on Bartz' practice.  When someone tells me I've done a good job, I occasionally ask what, exactly, was good about my performance.  Initially, it can be a shock to the system of that person and he'll shut down. But some can give a helpful, straight message.  The process has pluses and minuses.  Plus is that you can get helpful feedback from some, and you can coach them into giving you better feedback.  The minus is that some who gave you a stroke saying good job, etc., won't do it nearly as much or at all, largely because they don't want to take the time or thought to give pointed input.  Some, even find the question embarrassing.  Of course, you also learn from your question who has the ability to give really helpful feedback.  

Q. And how do you give feedback?

A. I have the puppy theory. When the puppy pees on the carpet, you say something right then because you don’t say six months later, “Remember that day, January 12th, when you peed on the carpet?” That doesn’t make any sense. “This is what’s on my mind. This is quick feedback.” And then I’m on to the next thing.

If I had my way I wouldn’t do annual reviews, if I felt that everybody would be more honest about positive and negative feedback along the way. I think the annual review process is so antiquated. I almost would rather ask each employee to tell us if they’ve had a meaningful conversation with their manager this quarter. Yes or no. And if they say no, they ought to have one. I don’t even need to know what it is. But if you viewed it as meaningful, then that’s all that counts.

I'm all for that.  Let's institutionalize the process for American business.

Self-Esteem or Self-Control

Jonah Lehrer, who can always be counted on to post an intriguing and relevant blog, quotes Angela Duckworth, a UPenn psychologist, on her studies regarding children and self-esteem.  (To read his blog, go here.)  Following kids for four years, the study compared self-esteem and self-control.  Duckworth found that achievement was tied to educating in self-control, but that education for self-esteem had no effect on school performance. 

Many American kids, particularly in the last couple of decades, can feel really good about themselves without actually being good at anything.

Employees don't normally use self-esteem language in a work setting, but refer to a colleague as having a "big ego."  When I ask them what they mean by that, they'll say something to the effect of, "This guy has a really big ego, but can't perform."   Duckworth also suggests that the development of self-esteem may support the narcissism that occasionally surfaces its ugly head in the work setting. 

I wonder whether there is a relationship between worker "assholes," per Bob Sutton, and all the self-esteem building that's been a part of our culture for forty years.  (A frustrating thought:  if the relationship is there, I'm culpable, too.)  What do you think?

This implies that most of us need to get feedback with some regularity to keep tabs on our own behaviors.  Since feedback is nearly always difficult to gain, but less receive, I've laid out the important processes for keeping tabs with feedback.  Go here to find that post:  feedback.  (There are a half-dozen posts on feedback, so check out my category list.) 

THE STOP-MANAGING GUIDE TO FEEDBACK CONFUSION

My post title is a reworking of a recent Businessweek review of Charles Jacobs', Management Rewired, a new book from Portfolio.  The author claims that his book is about the new brain science, but most with a scientific background know this is actually the old science (and have known this for at least 20 years).  Though it has not been disproved, it is driven by the hierarchical business setting.  The current neuroscience is far more useful and revealing.

The subtitle, Why Feedback Doesn't Work and Other Surprising Lessons from the Latest Brain Science," is an attention grabber and true, but off the mark.  Jacobs' recommendations on feedback, for example, are for employees to set their own objectives and critique their own performance.  That's better than a ham-handed piece of feedback as part of a yearly performance appraisal, but still inadequate for a workforce that is largely responsible for strategic team delivery.  

Typically, feedback is given in very traditional contexts and formats.  We're taught that it should be private, confidential and out of sight.  This emphasizes and rewards individual performance rather than team objectives.  It's used by the manager largely for the purpose of criticism to those who do not perform effectively or behave appropriately.  The research, completed totally within the traditional feedback environment, tells us a number of things:

• Criticism can damage the motivation of individuals and the performance of work teams.
• Criticism exacerbates the very problems it intends to address.
• When employees are given an opportunity to rate their own performance, they are likely to become more receptive to criticism.
• Some employees are more receptive to criticisms and feedback than others. 
• Hierarchies need to be banished or refined to reduce the incidence of superfluous criticisms.

My assumption is that the above is obvious, banal, and, even though true, in today's world, significantly irrelevant.

There are a number of exciting things taking place in today's corporations.  Generation-Y is making chaos out of the feedback process, largely because it resists hierarchy and insists upon regular input.  Nearly all the writers on generational distinction emphasize that from their surveys.

The hierarchical model of top-down feedback is, with some exceptions, largely a failure, because, 

• Managers hate and fear giving feedback.
• Managers haven't been trained to deliver feedback constructively
• The widened scope of managerial responsibility  is so broad that managers have little opportunity to observe employees and provide an accurate assessment
• Feedback is typically provided on an organizational timetable, rather than on a need basis
• Managers act as though they do not believe feedback to be a priority

Charles Jacobs argues that managers should quit managing, and I agree.  Employees, he says, should,

• set their own objectives
• critique their own performance
• come up with their own strategies for improvement. 

That has possibilities, but requires a great deal of investment in training.  Is the payoff worth it?  Since there are no statistics, we're not certain.   He believes that the best parallel is between the psychologist couch and the cubicle.  In contrast, I'd suggest that psychology overstepped its usefulness in the workforce more than twenty-five years ago.  Anthropology, communication,and training and development provide far better models for the 21st century. 

Here's my perspective on reframing feedback:

• Strategy ought to be generated within the hierarchy, but with significant bottom-up input.  Even with a flattened hierarchy, the management team has a knowledge base and scope beyond that of lower levels.  However, because of their interaction with colleagues, vendors and clients,  employees have insights of much value to strategy development.
• Project objectives can grow out of strategy and be jointly determined by managers and  project teams.  Teams often have a greater awareness of execution issues than the hierarchy.  In the final analysis, execution is more important than strategy.
• Feedback should be primarily developmental, not evaluative.  Once objectives are in place, team members readily understand where they need insight, guidance, support or further resources.  That knowledge can easily drive their own requests for feedback.
• Feedback should take place primarily in team settings, not in private individual conferences.  That way, team members understand that growth is a joint project, a contact sport.  Using managers as resouces makes it possible for team members to more effectively support and coach each other.
• Feedback is best focused not on performance but on learning and process.  That's what members need, want and will ask for.  The talent an organization develops functions not only to support retention but to drive a company's objectives.

The core problem with traditional feedback is its assumptions about people.  It believes the person to be largely untrustworthy, irresponsible, in constant need of guidance and motivated by the carrot or the stick. 

In contrast, the new feedback model, following Peter Drucker, holds that for the average person work is as natural and desired as rest or play, and that most people will exercise self-control, initiative, and actively seek responsibility when they feel committed to a set of objectives. 

Thus, telling people what to do through feedback is far less motivating than inviting people to play bigger and more important roles in the business.  Solicited, bottom-up feedback can work exceptionally well.

IF YOU ASK FOR FEEDBACK, DOES IT MATTER HOW YOU'RE PERCEIVED?

Based on current research, the answer to the question is an obvious negative, indicative of the sea-change in employee relations.  Recent studies of successful CEOs by Kaplan and Klebanov (U Chicago) and Sorensen (Columbia U) show that executive skills are undervalued and interpersonal skills are overvalued.  In other words, what’s valuable at lower levels like personal warmth, listening skills, team building skills, enthusiasm and effective communication are not that important—for CEOs.  Instead, the study showed that what mattered for CEO success was attention to detail, organizational skills, doggedness and the ability to work long hours. 

Although HR, middle managers and lower level employees are often distraught by those facts, my consulting experience at senior levels of major organizations confirms the validity of those research conclusions. 

Admittedly, more than 99% of us will not become CEOs.  Successful project managers (the first step up from individual performers) need empathy, listening, extroversion and team skills, so don’t chicken out on those all important interpersonal skills.  Research shows that personal warmth and competency are viewed as the most significant interpersonal dimensions of value.  The research further shows that though warmth is judged before competency, and even provides the grease for most relationships, the attribute of warmth can be maintained without constant reference to it.  At the same time, not all skill development requires warmth, agreement or much in the way of impression management. In other words, competency without warmth can be quite successful as long as there are occasions of warmth in the relationship.

In significant contrast, many business writers, psychologists and HR people look at this issue solely from the perspective of employee emotions, and from that sainted, though often irrelevant annual performance appraisal.  A case in point is the HBR article by Jackman and Strober, Fear of Feedback, an article belonging to the 20^th century rather than today’s world.  The writers have nothing to say about the issues of talent development, organizations’ recognition that success without adequate talent is impossible in the new economy and management’s new responsibility for talent development.  You can be damned certain that most line managers today will look at the issues of feedback through the lens of organizational need, not feelings of fear. 

As a result of global business and the marketplace, many notions about feedback are being drastically revised including the issue raised by this blog’s question.  In the 21^st century, it is ultimately nonsense to be especially concerned about how people perceive you when you ask for developmental feedback.  There are a number of reasons why concerns about how you’re perceived when you ask for feedback are misplaced.

Your boss owes you feedback.  Though most managers hate giving feedback, they also recognize that it is a responsibility not to be shirked.  Indeed, execs are not only talking to their managers about feedback but providing feedback coaching for them. 

Over the last 15 years, execs have come to understand that their responsibilities are three-fold:  strategy development and execution, picking the ideas to fund or to kill in order to maintain competitive advantage, and talent management. 

Regular feedback is advantageous to the company.  Business lives within a Darwinian world and organizations know two things about the global marketplace:  the economy places an enormous premium on brainpower, and there is not enough to go around.  Without knowledgeable experts an organization is at risk. 

Developmental feedback is an imperative for personal growth.  The research on deliberate practice by Ericsson and others emphasizes the absolute need for feedback in the development of expertise.  It has also been known for years that the process of feedback is the only adequate means for behavioral correction and growth.

- - - - - -

Last month I commented on a post that addressed the question, "How will I be perceived if I ask for feedback?"  It's normal, the writer said, to be afraid of how you will look asking for it.  "Will I look insecure?  Needy?  Like I can't wait for the formal review process?" 

Although I have little doubt that the vast majority of professionals have those concerns, I took on the author’s statements with a couple comments.  I indicated my awareness that we all have a different psychological "set" that makes it easier for some to ask and more difficult for others.  Then I followed through with a second question:  "what does it take to get to the place where you don't really give a damn what people think about you asking for feedback?"

The writer responded by chiding me for my question--with another question:  "Do you really want to get to a place where you 'don't really give a damn?'"  And then she answered her question: "Caring what people think about us is normal human social behavior, imagine if we truly didn't care. . . the problem comes when we let caring what other people think stop us from doing what we know will serve our best interests."  My response to her question is, “I do,” and to her statement, “I agree.”

Her statements, however, contain two forms of fallacious reasoning.  In asking me whether I want to “get to the place where. . .,” she is engaging in an ad hominem argument.  Essentially, she attempts to discredit my statement by appealing to my person rather than dealing with the substance of my question.  Second, she generalizes the notion of the need for a positive personal impression to every situation, even though she backs off slightly in her state regarding behaviors that “serve our best interests.”

How we’re perceived by others is part of being a member of the human race, and a process in which often we try to control the impressions others form of us.  In business, impression management is goal-directed.  Yet, contrary to conventional wisdom, most business people do not spend the majority of their work hours concerned with issues of self-interest.  Furthermore, that conventional belief will not stand up to the scrutiny of research.  In the main, most business people concern themselves with the execution of their jobs and the eventual success of their organization.

The majority of people overdo the issue of impression management precisely because they’ve been taught to do so by statements like those I received for my comment and question.  Illustrated by the above writer’s approach, some won't take a step or even take care of themselves without checking in to make certain that it's OK.  This "caretaking" recommendation is misleading and wrong-headed.  In counseling, activities focusing on being liked in all situations known as caretaking, is viewed as "enabling," and it is an attribute typical of drug addicts and alcoholics.  (That’s an ad hominem argument, but still important to be stated.) 

Sometimes it’s strategically important to manage our impressions.  At other times, it's a waste of my work hours, gets in the way, and a "tough shit” attitude is most appropriate.  Again, does it matter how you’re perceived when you ask for feedback?  So rarely, that it deserves no attention whatsoever.  Just go on and ask.

P.S.  The following is a related post:  Circumventing Managerial Resistance