Sessie 11: Having difcult
conversations
Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and
performance improvement (Cannon & Witherspoon)
We describe how cognitive and emotional dynamics—how we think and feel while giving and
receiving feedback— can complicate this process, making it more painful and less useful
than it should be.
We will also explore how understanding these dynamics can help managers produce more
actionable feedback. By “actionable feedback” we mean feedback that produces both
learning and tangible, appropriate results.
The impact of feedback on learning and development
Managers consider “candid, insightful feedback” extremely important to their development,
but most do not believe their companies do a good job of providing such feedback.
Thus, feedback can be highly useful. However, despite its potential benefits, a review
of studies on feedback by Kluger and DeNisi showed only a modest positive
relationship between feedback and performance;
Cognitive and emotional dynamics
In contrast to many other managerial responsibilities, giving and receiving feedback can be
very personal and can be charged with high levels of emotion for both giver and receiver.
Many managers are uncomfortable with the high levels of emotion that can be involved in the
process. In addition, people sometimes react to feedback in unpredictable, even volatile
ways.
Managers and subordinates often have very different ways of evaluating and making sense
of behavior.
Cognitive and emotional dynamics impacting feedback receivers
They see themselves more positively than others see them; thus, critical feedback is likely to
appear inaccurate, and receivers are likely to disagree with it.
Attributional biases or errors affect both managers and subordinates and can lead them to
form conflicting views.
For example, most people have a “self-serving bias,” which means that in assessing
our own work we tend to see ourselves as responsible for successes, and blame
failures on others or external forces.
By contrast, managers, who are in the observer role, experience an “actor/ observer bias”
and are more likely to attribute failures to internal causes (the subordinates themselves), to
discount subordinate successes, and to find subordinate performance lacking.
Subordinates may resist feedback not only because feedback seems inaccurate, but
because accepting critiques could undermine their self-esteem and self-efficacy.
1
, Furthermore, depending on the content and delivery of feedback, it may be received as a
personal attack, threatening one’s ego or identity. Feeling attacked or threatened tends to
create stress that hinders learning.
Flawed feedback
All too often, performance feedback is not useful for its intended purpose. When the
managers provided the feedback above, they perceived it as accurate and useful.
1. Attacks the Person Rather Than the Person’s Behavior
This feedback is likely to be taken as a personal attack by the receiver because it criticizes
the person or the person’s character rather than addressing the behavior that is problematic.
The feedback giver’s attribution appears to be internal (assigning blame to the person rather
than the situation) and stable (consistent across situations).
Such feedback tends to provoke a strong defensive emotional reaction. In addition to
provoking an immediate defensive reaction, feedback that focuses the receiver’s attention on
the “self” rather than the task or task learning tends to have a negative effect on subsequent
performance.
By beginning the message with “I” rather than “you,” the focus is less on blaming the other
and more on helping the receiver understand the perceptions of the feedback giver. This
format also focuses attention on the task and on an opportunity for producing better results.
This is also more likely to lead to a constructive dialogue.
2. Vague or Abstract Assertions
Although we may get the general picture of the problem, the feedback above is rather vague
or abstract and could be interpreted in many different ways.
This vagueness makes the feedback difficult to interpret correctly. It also may encourage
defensiveness because the fact that it is difficult to interpret may lead the receiver to see it as
inaccurate and falsely accusational.
3. Without Illustrations
Illustrations or examples may be essential for enabling the recipients to make a concrete
connection with what the feedback giver is talking about.
4. Ill-Defined Range of Application
Another limitation is that the feedback is global, without any clarification about the conditions
under which the problematic behavior does or does not exhibit itself.
These types of global or blanket statements often produce defensiveness because, if the
recipients can think of even one situation to which the feedback does not apply, they may
feel justified in seeing the feedback as inaccurate and in seeing themselves as being unfairly
attacked.
5. Unclear Impact and Implications for Action
We also have no clarity on what the feedback giver sees as the impact of this behavior and
why it is problematic. The recipients may have difficulty inferring from this feedback what is
desired of them and how they can rectify the situation.
Cognitive and emotional dynamics impacting feedback givers
2
conversations
Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and
performance improvement (Cannon & Witherspoon)
We describe how cognitive and emotional dynamics—how we think and feel while giving and
receiving feedback— can complicate this process, making it more painful and less useful
than it should be.
We will also explore how understanding these dynamics can help managers produce more
actionable feedback. By “actionable feedback” we mean feedback that produces both
learning and tangible, appropriate results.
The impact of feedback on learning and development
Managers consider “candid, insightful feedback” extremely important to their development,
but most do not believe their companies do a good job of providing such feedback.
Thus, feedback can be highly useful. However, despite its potential benefits, a review
of studies on feedback by Kluger and DeNisi showed only a modest positive
relationship between feedback and performance;
Cognitive and emotional dynamics
In contrast to many other managerial responsibilities, giving and receiving feedback can be
very personal and can be charged with high levels of emotion for both giver and receiver.
Many managers are uncomfortable with the high levels of emotion that can be involved in the
process. In addition, people sometimes react to feedback in unpredictable, even volatile
ways.
Managers and subordinates often have very different ways of evaluating and making sense
of behavior.
Cognitive and emotional dynamics impacting feedback receivers
They see themselves more positively than others see them; thus, critical feedback is likely to
appear inaccurate, and receivers are likely to disagree with it.
Attributional biases or errors affect both managers and subordinates and can lead them to
form conflicting views.
For example, most people have a “self-serving bias,” which means that in assessing
our own work we tend to see ourselves as responsible for successes, and blame
failures on others or external forces.
By contrast, managers, who are in the observer role, experience an “actor/ observer bias”
and are more likely to attribute failures to internal causes (the subordinates themselves), to
discount subordinate successes, and to find subordinate performance lacking.
Subordinates may resist feedback not only because feedback seems inaccurate, but
because accepting critiques could undermine their self-esteem and self-efficacy.
1
, Furthermore, depending on the content and delivery of feedback, it may be received as a
personal attack, threatening one’s ego or identity. Feeling attacked or threatened tends to
create stress that hinders learning.
Flawed feedback
All too often, performance feedback is not useful for its intended purpose. When the
managers provided the feedback above, they perceived it as accurate and useful.
1. Attacks the Person Rather Than the Person’s Behavior
This feedback is likely to be taken as a personal attack by the receiver because it criticizes
the person or the person’s character rather than addressing the behavior that is problematic.
The feedback giver’s attribution appears to be internal (assigning blame to the person rather
than the situation) and stable (consistent across situations).
Such feedback tends to provoke a strong defensive emotional reaction. In addition to
provoking an immediate defensive reaction, feedback that focuses the receiver’s attention on
the “self” rather than the task or task learning tends to have a negative effect on subsequent
performance.
By beginning the message with “I” rather than “you,” the focus is less on blaming the other
and more on helping the receiver understand the perceptions of the feedback giver. This
format also focuses attention on the task and on an opportunity for producing better results.
This is also more likely to lead to a constructive dialogue.
2. Vague or Abstract Assertions
Although we may get the general picture of the problem, the feedback above is rather vague
or abstract and could be interpreted in many different ways.
This vagueness makes the feedback difficult to interpret correctly. It also may encourage
defensiveness because the fact that it is difficult to interpret may lead the receiver to see it as
inaccurate and falsely accusational.
3. Without Illustrations
Illustrations or examples may be essential for enabling the recipients to make a concrete
connection with what the feedback giver is talking about.
4. Ill-Defined Range of Application
Another limitation is that the feedback is global, without any clarification about the conditions
under which the problematic behavior does or does not exhibit itself.
These types of global or blanket statements often produce defensiveness because, if the
recipients can think of even one situation to which the feedback does not apply, they may
feel justified in seeing the feedback as inaccurate and in seeing themselves as being unfairly
attacked.
5. Unclear Impact and Implications for Action
We also have no clarity on what the feedback giver sees as the impact of this behavior and
why it is problematic. The recipients may have difficulty inferring from this feedback what is
desired of them and how they can rectify the situation.
Cognitive and emotional dynamics impacting feedback givers
2
