attributes of effective feedback

html: Security restricted macro is not allowed. An edit restriction is required that matches the macro authorization list.

<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face

Unknown macro: {font-family}

@font-face

Unknown macro: {font-family}

/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal

Unknown macro: {mso-style-unhide}

span.GramE

Unknown macro: {mso-style-name}

@page Section1

Unknown macro: {size}

div.Section1

Unknown macro: {page}

-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable

Unknown macro: {mso-style-name}

</style>
<Unable to render embedded object: File ([endif]--><) not found.--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050"/>
</xml><Unable to render embedded object: File ([endif]--><) not found.--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/>
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->

</head>

<a
name="OLE_LINK4"></a><a name="OLE_LINK3">Attributes
of effective feedback<o></o></a>

Anjali Sastry,
Kara Penn<o></o>
Practicing
Management<o></o>
September 2007
DRAFT<o></o>

do not copy or share<o></o>

1. It is descriptive
rather than evaluative. It is important to focus on what the individual did
rather than to translate behavior into what he or she is. This is harder than
it appears at first glance! An example of describing versus evaluating is when
we might say that a person "talked more than anyone else in the meeting" rather
than that he is a "loudmouth" or a "terrible listener." Avoiding evaluative
language reduces the need for the individual to respond defensively.

2. It is specific

rather than general. To be told that one is "controlling" will probably not
be as useful as to be told that "in the project that just took place, you had
prominent opinions about how I should do my part, and I felt forced to accept
your methods because alternatives were not acknowledged by you." Or, rather
than saying "good job" after a team member's contribution, one might say, "Good
job. Your position was well-researched. I liked the way you integrated information
from past projects with your own research."

3. It is directed
toward behavior that the receiver can do something about. Frustration is
increased when a person is reminded of some shortcoming over which he has no control.
What might qualify as something that the person may have little control over?
Telling someone that they need to speak up at meetings when you know they've
had a throat injury might be one example. As an alternative, try "I know you
have difficulty speaking out in meetings due to the strain on your throat, but
your team would still love to hear your opinions. What are some ways you would
feel comfortable in expressing your opinions during these times and how can we
best support you to do those things?"

4. It is well-timed.
In general, feedback is most useful at its earliest opportunity after the given
behavior (depending, of course, on the person's readiness to hear it, support available
from others, etc.). The reception and use of feedback involves many possible emotional
reactions. Excellent feedback presented at an "inappropriate time" may do more
harm than good.

5. It
involves the amount of information the receiver can use rather than the
amount we would like to give. To overload people with feedback is to reduce the
possibility that they may be able to use effectively what they receive. This
holds true for both positive and negative feedback. Sometimes we get nervous
giving feedback and talk so much the message gets lost, or fail to focus on a
couple of key important points. When setting goals for a session think about
what's most important in your message—are there one or two behaviors that you
would like to see more of, or would like to see changed? Prioritize!

6. It involves
sharing of information rather than giving advice. By sharing
information, we leave people free to decide for themselves, in accordance with
their own goals and needs. When we give advice we tell them what to do, and to
some degree take away their freedom to decide for themselves. Compare the
following: "Your expectations of the team for this project weren't clear. You
should give them a written list during the meeting and reinforce with e-mail
later." Seems reasonable, right? But what about: "I wasn't clear about the team
expectations for that project, and it's possible others weren't either—what are
some ways expectations could be clarified in the future?" The feedback
recipient may still ask you for your ideas, but this allows her to take ownership
over the options.

7. It is solicited

rather than imposed. Feedback is most useful when receivers themselves have
formulated the kinds of questions that those observing them can answer or when
they actively seek feedback. Think about when you have received feedback in the
past—approaching your teammates or boss and asking for specific feedback on a
presentation. "Was my message about which vendor to hire and why clear? Why or
why not?"

8. It takes
into account the needs of both the receiver and giver of feedback. Feedback
can be destructive when it serves only our needs and fails to
consider the needs of the person on the receiving end. It should be given to
help, not to hurt. In an attempt to look good in front of a boss, a team member
might decide to offer negative feedback to another member about a bungled sales
call in the middle of a team meeting.

9. It
concerns what is said and done and does not ask "why?" The "why" takes
us from the observable to the inferred and involves assumptions regarding motive
or intent. It is dangerous to assume that we know why a person says or does
something, or what he

or she "really" means or is "really" trying to accomplish.
Consider the following scenario: A coworker at the office has been unusually
quiet over the past week at a time when her opinions would have really
mattered. Approaching her with "You've been unusually quiet this week—are you
withholding your opinion because you didn't want to be on this assignment in
the first place?" may be way off base, and can put her on the defensive.

10. It is checked
to insure clear communication. One way to do this is to have the receiver try
to paraphrase the feedback he or she has received to see if it corresponds to what
the sender had in mind. One way might be: "I want to make sure that I've
communicated clearly—what do you see as the primary
issues I've brought up today?"

11. It is checked
to determine degree of agreement from others. When feedback is given in the
presence of other people, both giver and receiver have an opportunity to check
with others in the group about the accuracy of the feedback. This
validation is of value to both the sender and the receiver. This one can be
tricky—and considerations about openness to feedback, the dynamic of the group
present, and other factors may matter before checking for agreement. If there
is a power difference between giver and recipient, and others in the room, it
may be difficult to elicit hones opinions. However, this is especially
effective if a recipient has solicited the feedback, and by doing so indicated
openness to receiving.

12. It is followed by attention to the consequences of the feedback.
People who are giving feedback may greatly improve their helping skills by
becoming acutely aware of the effects of their feedback. They can also be of
continuing help to the recipient of the feedback.

13. It is
an important step toward authenticity. Constructive feedback given with
both giver and receiver's needs in mind can contribute to a relationship
that is built on trust, honesty, and genuine concern. Such a relationship can
open the door to personal learning and growth, and an ongoing feedback process.<o></o>

</div>

</body>

Child pages

attributes of effective feedback