There are plenty of drivers demanding a a new paradigm for getting feedback. The first one is obvious: getting feedback by just asking is tough. Fact of the matter, more often than not when you ask for feedback, the most you're liable to get is what I call the "generic stroke:" "You did a good job." It doesn't take a microscope to see that that won't do much for either your growth or your toolkit.
If you google getting feedback, you'll find that good people try all kinds of subtle ways to get information-- much of which turns out to be of little value. It's no surprise to read posts in which the writers say something to the effect that we all know that you can't get HONEST FEEDBACK in a formal setting.
But most of us also understand that without feedback we can't grow and develop--and in the technology world in which we work, not growing is the death knell.
In a recent post on Gen-Y feedback, I pointed out that two issues are going to have to be resolved: the sea-change of Gen-Y feedback expectations as well as the issues of managerial resistance. In addition, I gave my readers a heads-up on why managers "detest" giving feedback. I wrote that they fear there'll be heated arguments, strong rejection, impossible demands, stonewalling, tears or even threats of dismissal.
So how can you deal constructively with that psychological and emotional mishmash? Is there a different way to get really constructive feedback?
Most think that you'll have to deal directly with those emotions and frustrations in order to successfully lower the defensiveness and resistance. Don't go there! Instead, you need to use the skills of rhetoric, political science and negotiation--and take political action. In short, the best way to deal with managerial resistance is to reframe the issue as an open, simple negotiation of mutual benefits and mutual understanding. A new feedback paradigm.
Defensiveness, cynicism, frustration and anger are usually the result of a complete lack of talk about talk between managers and their reports. People haven't been trained to talk about talk and have neither protocols nor language in their toolkit. They assume all kinds of work relations, and rarely talk about the kind of conversations they need. They merely charge ahead in a face-to-face chat that begins with "I'd like some feedback on my project work." Without preplanning and talk about talk, at least half the time, that conversation will go south very quickly. It's no wonder that managers are resistant to giving feedback. To add to the complexity, few managers have the training or the language to give developmental feedback--and it's rare for business professionals to understand the skills of political strategy.
FYI: When I use the term politics or political, 95% of the time I use it positively and constructively to refer to the actions and strategies of political science and the skills of rhetoric. I despise statements such as "he's just being political." They reveal a profound sense of cynicism and helplessness about the nature of reality.
Here's what political action looks like. When President Obama wants to gain a commitment from Germany's Chancellor Merkel to rethink her decisions about needed financial investments, it begins with a long distance talk about the conversation that he wants to have with her. It might go something like this: "We need to have a conference regarding potential government investment in the financial markets, including our mutual concerns and objectives, understandings that need to be clarified, possible criteria for decisions, and other matters of importance." This talk about the conversation inevitably takes place days or weeks before the face-to-face conversation.
This is a political strategy that sets the stage for clear understanding and the creation of mutual objectives and actionable decisions. And, like conversations between managers and employees, it's a process that everyone has skin in.
In the business setting, we compress and speed up the international processes of politics into what I call a social contract. It's talk--not written or legal--about the kind of conversations you expect to be having.
A social contract is essentially a plan for future conversations--for political action. Some of you might be thinking, "Isn't all this very obvious?" It might be intellectually obvious, but it's use is exceptionally rare. All too often, we just charge ahead without pre-planning or detailing.
So how do you want to prep your boss for a feedback conversation? Here are some suggested conversation points:
- What does your boss view as the best way to get work feedback?
- What kind of feedback questions should you use?
- What suggestion does he have for breaking feedback into chunks?
- What kind of timeline works best for him to give you feedback?
- What heads up can you give your boss about how you display defensiveness?
For utmost success these talks should take place before the actual experience of feedback. Then when you come to the session, you already have mutual agreement on how it's going to proceed, what the conversation will be about and a means for limiting misunderstanding.
"Do I really need to do this much planning and talk for feedback?" Absolutely yes. If feedback is really important, you want to make certain that you can get the best results. Just like plenty of planning is necessary for effective project delivery, the same is true for effective conversations. Most of us have little to no training in language technologies--but such technologies will be required for measureable career growth.
This is the new feedback paradigm. It will take time and experience to get used to it. But once you've learned it, you'll be able to execute the entire preplanning process in less than 30 minutes. Thirty minutes is a small time investment for a big return on career and growth--and employability.
P.S. This is a subject for future blogs and two or three free white papers. Watch for them.