Feedback discussions often backfire. New research points to a more effective way to motivate another person to change: future-focused feedback.
Psychologists have known for decades that feedback is often ineffective in helping people improve and it can be destructive to relationships. Yet giving feedback is considered a key element of mentorship, coaching, supervision, parenting, education, and conflict resolution in intimate relationships. In all these instances, the purpose of feedback is to motivate and direct positive behavior change.
We provide the first evidence that feedback discussions may be counterproductive, increasing disagreement, not about what happened, but about where the fault or responsibility lies. Not surprisingly, this unintended effect is associated with lower feedback acceptance and lower motivation to change. Our studies also provide the first empirical evidence that willingness to change is greater when the feedback discussion focuses on future behavior, rather than on what happened in the past. We report three studies, available for free download from the journal PLOS ONE.
Study 1 involved an international survey of managers who described hundreds of real work experiences. Providers and recipients of feedback reported very different impressions. Whereas those giving feedback tended to attribute the causes of both good and bad performance to the other person’s ability and effort (or lack thereof), the managers who received negative feedback blamed causes beyond their control, such as the difficulty of what they had to do or bad luck. They judged the unfavorable feedback as inaccurate and they judged the source of that feedback as lacking credibility.
Study 2 took a closer look at the widespread belief that a two-way feedback discussion leads the parties to a shared explanation of past performance and a shared desire for behavior change. Business people were asked to role-play a supervisor giving feedback to a subordinate. They were each given a copy of the subordinate’s personnel file, which documented a mixed record including both exemplary and problematic behavior. Then each supervisor-subordinate pair held a 20-minute performance review meeting.
We found that feedback conversations not only failed to create agreement about what led to the good and poor performance; they actually turned minor disagreements into major ones. Following feedback, the subordinates believed more strongly than before that their successes were caused by personal factors (their ability, personality, effort, and attention) and their failures were caused by external factors (excessive job responsibilities, unrealistic employer expectations, lack of resources, and bad luck).
Most important, we discovered that the best predictor of people’s accepting the feedback as legitimate and helpful was the extent to which they perceived the discussion as focused on the future. Of course, feedback was also easier to accept when it was more favorable and when the two parties agreed more about what caused the past events. This agreement, however, did not increase the intention to change. What mattered most for motivation to improve was how much the feedback conversation focused on generating new ideas for future success.
Study 3 replicated the findings of Study 2, even with the addition of specific feedback guidelines emphasizing the developmental purpose of the performance review meeting (as opposed to an evaluative one). To test for interactions among variables, we combined data from Studies 2 and 3 into a larger dataset. Feedback recipients who gave low or intermediate ratings for future focus accepted the feedback less when it was most negative and reported less inclination to change. Those who rated the feedback discussion as most future focused, however, accepted their feedback and indicated high intention to change even when the feedback was most negative.
The potential value of this work is large and broad ranging. Most people who give feedback want to help others improve, but they find giving feedback difficult and often avoid it. People who need feedback are eager for information that will help them improve, but dread hearing negative feedback and are often too defensive to benefit from it. Traditional advice on how to give feedback is often aimed at making the process of diagnosing the past less painful (for example, by mixing in positive feedback) or more informative (for example, by giving specific examples). Our research suggests that these are not optimal approaches.
To be most effective, feedback should focus on the future rather than on analysis of past events. When feedback discussions focus on the future, people can accept and be motivated by the feedback they get, even when that feedback is largely negative. We believe this approach can be implemented by feedback givers, feedback recipients, or, ideally, both. We propose these steps:
- Express the goal of improving things for the future.
- Specify the ideals, what you are hoping for.
- Praise what has gone well in the past and stick to the facts where performance has been disappointing; avoid discussing causes and explanations.
- Assume motivation and competence to improve.
- Invite discussion of what to do next, including potential opportunities and worthwhile actions.
- Develop solutions together.
Do you wish your organization did a better job with feedback? If your company or not-for-profit is interested in participating in an intervention study to improve performance management through the use of future-focused feedback, please contact us at HumanlyPossible.com.
The study, “The future of feedback: Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback,” was authored by Jackie Gnepp, Joshua Klayman, Ian O. Williamson, and Sema Barlas.
Jackie Gnepp, Ph.D. is a psychologist and the president of Humanly Possible®, providing organizational consulting, management education, and executive coaching designed to help individuals and organizations develop leadership, boost performance, and maximize effectiveness.
(Image by Joseph Mucira from Pixabay)
