Kinder, better form of feedback

Kinder, better form of feedback 

‍

Many of you may have encountered a situation like this: during an online meeting, your team member, Rachel, is engaged in a difficult conversation with a remote colleague, Tom. Tension fills the virtual space as Tom expresses his anger, raising his voice and using confrontational language, virtual communication channels and cultural differences made the matter worse. In his frustration, he accuses Rachel of incompetence and unwillingness to cooperate, attributing all the problems to her. The harsh exchange, audible to everyone nearby, leaves Rachel embarrassed. In response, she hastily closes her computer, seeking refuge from the perceived verbal abuse, her face red with embarrassment.  Imagine stepping into the shoes of a supervisor overseeing both Tom and Rachel. In this role, you might feel compelled to talk to Tom, and we aim to explore this specific type of feedback in this article. 

‍

In simple situations, feedback proves highly effective, particularly when individuals require clearer instructions or additional information. When applied correctly, simple constructive feedback serves as an efficient and essential leadership practice. However, when it comes to intricate interpersonal interactions, both the act of giving and receiving feedback can become unsettling. Consequently, there is an extensive body of literature dedicated to the art of providing feedback (you can find an overview of this literature at the end of this article). Many authors aim to establish universal guidelines applicable to a multitude of situations and types of feedback, viewing well-delivered feedback as a panacea for most management challenges.

‍

Nevertheless, this article aims to demonstrate that in complex scenarios where individuals grapple with numerous challenges and navigate intricate relationships, the conventional rules of simple feedback fall short. What's required is a radical shift in our underlying assumptions and our approach to feedback.

‍

The deep reason feedback fails

‍

Despite strong endorsement of feedback, a different picture emerges when we ask both leaders and their employees about their experience of feedback in real-life situations. The feedback givers and recipients very often share a similar sentiment: not only do they feel uneasy about giving or receiving feedback, but they intuitively doubt that the simple rules are actually helping to make feedback better.

‍

The conventional way of looking at feedback suggests that the difficulty arises because we don’t like to be seen as flawed, and discussing our mistakes or weaknesses is inherently distressing. While this might be partially correct and our psychological make-up tends to dislike the negative information about us, there is evidence that a substantial group of people actually seeks feedback about themselves - to improve and grow. Consequently, many rules for giving feedback focus on lowering the impact of the negative information by either hiding it in the middle of some positive feedback or by softening the message. (sandwich) The apparent failure of this approach for more complex situations is something that all of us have experienced - and can be illustrated by the situation from the beginning of this article. It seems that focusing on circumventing the psychological defence mechanisms by tweaking the feedback form is not sufficient and might often further alienate the parties or add to the sense of disconnection. 

‍

The real issue with feedback, in its conventional form, goes deeper. The intense emotions, defensive behaviour and sometimes even conflict that feedback sparks stem from a different source. What truly bothers us, and causes us to reject feedback that is offered, is when we feel we are not understood, when we are not seen for who we are, and when our behavior and what is visible is taken as the full picture. This sense of unfairness of feedback is a much stronger force than our natural dislike of negative information about ourselves. 

‍

Obviously, the sense of being misunderstood and potentially unfairly blamed cannot be fixed by tweaking the form of the message. Even when a conventional version of constructive feedback adheres to the proclaimed “best” practice – being timely, private, behaviour-focused rather than personal, and accompanied by concrete examples and suggestions for improvement – it can still feel unfair and truly offensive in its inability to see who we are in our entirety. It is not uncommon that in these situations feedback is perceived as a veiled form of disciplinary action or as a means of exerting control and power. 

‍

How did we get to this point?

Historical baggage

‍

The concept of feedback originates from the study of mechanisms and cybernetic systems. Often depicted through the example of a thermostat in a living room, a feedback system maintains a constant temperature by sending signals to the heating system to activate when the temperature drops and to deactivate upon reaching the preset level.

‍

However, such examples can instil a reductionist mindset in our understanding of feedback, drawing unwarranted analogies between the operations of machines or cybernetic systems and human interactions. This reductionist perspective becomes evident in attempts to interpret feedback predominantly through a behavioristic framework. In doing so, feedback is oversimplified, likened to a process where inputs (feedback) mechanically induce desired outputs (behaviour changes), similar to setting a thermostat or programming a computer. This approach overlooks the complexities and subtleties of human behaviour and interaction. Neglecting these mechanical roots of feedback and their impact on our perception can warp our understanding of feedback in social contexts and potentially misguide our efforts to develop suitable rules for its application.

‍

The historically rooted mechanistic nature of constructive feedback as we practice it today sharply contrasts with its anticipated outcomes. We aspire for feedback to encourage personal growth, foster innovation, enhance communication, and even improve organizational culture. Yet, these benefits are unlikely to be realized when people depend predominantly on external guidance (feedback). If our objective is to promote self-direction, a sense of personal agency, honest communication, and to genuinely acknowledge the complex nature of our world and the messiness of human interactions, then employing feedback based on its mechanistic origins is likely counterproductive.

‍

Further difficulties come from deep-rooted assumptions about feedback. These assumptions are often unconscious yet very damaging to the process of feedback. Consequently, feedback recipients often feel misunderstood and reject the feedback completely. I will highlight four particularly unhealthy assumptions inherent in conventional feedback methods and explore how they contribute to the challenges faced in delivering effective, constructive feedback:

‍

1. We have some knowledge that the other lacks

When we honestly look at the conventional concept of feedback there is an overarching unwarranted assumption: that the feedback-giver possesses knowledge the recipient needs to hear. This very assumption causes many feedback recipients to feel misunderstood and the feedback unfair.

Let’s go back to our little scenario: Tom is surely aware that his treatment of Rachel was not acceptable nor did it help the situation he was trying to solve. He did not intend to lead the conversation where it ended. Usually, Tom has the knowledge and skills to handle similar situations and is likely frustrated with how he handled the situation this time. In other words, he does not need to be told anything (or told off for that matter!).

Unfortunately the conventional way we understand feedback calls for the feedback-giver to provide information - perhaps to describe the assumed “better behaviour”.  This assumption often makes feedback givers focus on telling rather than inquiring, creating a monologue that feels like critique if not discipline and invites defensiveness as it completely ignores the feedback recipient's point of view.  

‍

2. Overestimating the assumed knowledge

In reality, those who provide feedback often have a limited understanding of the situation. As external observers, they've only recently become aware of the specific circumstances and are typically unaware of the broader context and various unseen factors that may be influencing the situation. This limited perspective is compounded by the Dunning-Kruger effect, where individuals display excessive confidence in their knowledge shortly after acquiring new information. As a result, feedback-givers, following the well-meant guidance to offer “timely” feedback, are likely to overestimate their knowledge while failing to fully grasp the complexities at hand. Such a situation is likely to cause the feedback recipient to feel not understood. 

‍

3. Fundamental attribution error

The concept of the fundamental attribution error plays a significant role in how we evaluate others' behaviours and decisions. This cognitive bias leads us to overstate the influence of an individual's personal traits and understate the impact of external circumstances. As a result, even when feedback is intended to be about specific behaviours and not the person, it is often delivered with a focus on the individual's choices. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that the fundamental attribution error also causes us to overvalue situational factors in our own behaviours while undervaluing the role of our personal choices. Consequently, feedback can be perceived not only as a personal attack but also as an unjust one, as it seemingly overlooks the external factors that may have influenced the behaviour in question.

‍

4. Retrospective coherence

When offering feedback, we often do so with the advantage of hindsight. This ability to retrospectively analyze events, known as retrospective coherence, enables us to clearly discern how various elements interacted and influenced one another over time. It's important, however, to acknowledge that this clear understanding of cause and effect is typically not present during the actual unfolding of events. In the midst of a situation, our foresight is limited, and our grasp of how our actions will shape the future is often based on conjectures that guide our decisions.

‍

Retrospective coherence allows us to easily trace causal connections, but it can also lead feedback providers to erroneously believe that such clarity was available in the midst of the situation. Offering feedback from this standpoint feels profoundly unfair, both to the context of the situation and to the person receiving the feedback. It overlooks the uncertainty and limited visibility that characterizes decision-making in complex situations.

‍

The discomfort many of us feel towards feedback can likely be attributed to these flawed assumptions. We are intuitively sensing that feedback cannot be reduced to a mechanistic process akin to a thermostat regulating temperature in our living room. We all tripped in some way over the four killers. We all are guilty of assuming superior knowledge, acting with overconfidence based on limited information, placing too much emphasis on a person's internal psychology as opposed to situational factors, and expecting the clarity we have in hindsight to have been present in the moment. 

‍

A kinder, better form of feedback: Make it NON-directive

Based on the analysis provided above, it becomes evident that we must redefine our concept of feedback, leaving behind the flawed assumptions rooted in mechanistic parallels. It's apparent that fixing feedback requires a fundamental shift in the underlying assumptions that underpin it.

‍

A promising approach to rethinking our understanding of feedback involves relinquishing the need to impart information or direction to the recipient of feedback. Instead of directing the feedback recipient towards different behaviours, the focus of feedback shifts to the meaning-making by the other person. This shift allows the feedback giver to move away from assuming that the other individual is doing something wrong and instead fosters curiosity about why they have chosen specific behaviors.

‍

As coaching we know intimately how powerful is when we are able to put aside our judgement and assume a good intent instead; already Aristotle himself noted that humans inherently strive for what they perceive as good. According to this perspective, even actions that may appear harmful to oneself or others are undertaken under the belief that they serve some positive purpose or represent the best option among available choices. This viewpoint suggests that human behaviour, even when seemingly negative, is driven by an underlying positive intention or rationale.

‍

By assuming a positive intention behind every action or decision, we can approach feedback situations with curiosity rather than judgment. We can be non-directive and in the same time help the other person to think through the meaning-making process and possible alternatives to the chosen behavior. 

‍

Let’s use our hypothetical scenario from the beginning of this article to describe the difference: as a supervisor to Tom and Rachel, you probably see Tom’s behaviour as problematic. You can offer information about the importance of collaborative communication practice, point out the impact of Tom’s behaviour and outline the alternative behaviours that would be preferable. In doing all that, you still do not know why Tom behaved that way, you are blind to the reasons Tom had. The non-directive feedback could start from a place of curiosity and open up a space for a very different conversation. There are important questions you need to pay attention to: Did Tom consciously choose to behave that way or was it a slip he regrets? Did he feel he had a choice at all? How come from all the possible options he ended up acting the way he acted? How did Rachel contribute to the exchange? 

‍

Being curious liberates the feedback-giver from a worry about how to best communicate his/her point of view: what to say and how to phrase it, so it does not trigger a defensive reaction on the other side. Instead of assuming we know what should have been done we are searching for how the other person made sense of the situation. We are seeking to better understand the way the other person arrived at the particular outcome we witnessed. What were the important factors that contributed to the outcome? What was important from the point of view of the other person? How the whole situation initially develop? What circumstances contributed to the outcome? 

‍

Non-directive feedback is not attempting to capture the meaning-making process of the other person in its entirety. It focuses on the concrete situation in question. Non-directive feedback is accessible to coaches, leaders, and anyone willing to embrace this feedback style. Like many transformative processes, the most significant adjustment happens in our mindset. It allows us to elevate the concept of feedback beyond telling or even conversation, viewing it as a deep exploration of how both parties perceive and interpret a situation - how they make meaning of what is happening to them.

‍

Practice of non-directive feedback 

While providing feedback, it's not necessary to conceal our viewpoints or beliefs about better approaches to understanding or managing a situation. However, it's essential to recognize that we, as feedback-givers, do not hold any superior knowledge or insight that places us above the other in the dialogue. Such conversations can be seen as a chance for reciprocal learning – uncovering the logic behind the other person's actions from their standpoint. In this role, we might discover new perspectives and gain a more comprehensive understanding of the situation from the viewpoint of the other party. When we see somebody doing something we would not do, we need to ask, “Why is that?”, (not: why did you do this?) “How does it make sense for the person to do that?”, “Is there something I (they) do not see that makes that behaviour rational?”, “How can we make sense of the situation together to understand why our opinion about it differs?”. 

‍

In parallel to the non-judgemental approach of coaching, non-directive feedback starts from the place of curiosity in our mind before we start talking to the other person. Non-directive feedback requires us to fully respect that whatever the other person did, was at the very moment what he/she was capable of doing. It was a choice of the best option that was available for that person at that moment in time. We might suspect that whatever happened is the result of sub-optimal meaning-making on their side: there could be a missing skill, false assumption, past experience that skews the way they see the present or simply a bad habit. A skilful exploration of the difference in our ways of seeing the situation is the core of the non-directive feedback. 

‍

Why non-directive feedback works better

By not focusing on what happened, but rather on how the other person chose to do what they did, we are avoiding almost all problematic features of the conventional feedback process outlined above.  The key distinction between conventional and non-directive feedback lies in the recipient’s sense of being understood rather than judged. This approach allows the feedback to bypass most of the traps of the conventional feedback and learn something in return. Furthermore, the effectiveness of non-directive feedback is much higher than the conventional counterpart because the learning for the feedback recipient comes at the level of meaning-making (learning how to think about the situation rather than how to react) and therefore can be applied to future situations that are quite different from the one discussed. By focusing on the meaning-making and not the actual behaviour, we are as well strengthening the personal growth of the feedback recipient. We are giving back the sense of agency (returning the locus of control to the person). 

‍

There is yet another layer to this process:  By engaging in a non-directive feedback conversation we are participating in a crucial social process that we all rely on to better understand what is going on around us. Social norming of our personal meaning-making processes is helping us to better understand ourselves and the complex environment we navigate.  

‍

New skills to practice

Although the most important thing is to approach the feedback situation with curiosity, there are some skills that will help us to explore more deeply the meaning-making of the other person. In particular, we need to ask different questions and listen in a different way. 

‍

Our questions must have a different direction. We are primarily interested in how the person thinks about what happened rather than what happened. We are not seeking to understand the story, but rather how the other person constructs his or her story and how that construction creates meaning. 

‍

Listening for structure

Most of us are accustomed to listening to the content of what is said, and perhaps how it's expressed - the facts and emotions. These aspects are vital for understanding a situation. Some coaches excel in detecting what is left unsaid or deliberately avoided. The art of non-directive feedback requires in addition to that, learning how to listen for the other person's process of meaning-making. 

‍

This specific form of listening focuses on the 'structure' of the conversation. 'Structure' here refers to the key elements of the dialogue that transcend specific facts, such as underlying assumptions and interpretations. It notices what the other person pays attention to, discerning between what they perceive as absolute and what they consider changeable, and understanding how they perceive specific elements of their world in relation to each other. This type of listening aims to grasp how the recounted events and facts are shaped by the other person's interpretation of reality, what they consciously pay attention to, and their sense-making process.

‍

While listening to structure is a complex skill, there are several concrete markers that can guide our efforts to understand another's meaning-making:

‍

1. It is very likely that when someone views a situation as entirely positive or negative, such an understanding is indicative more about how that person perceives the situation than about the situation itself. Seeing things as extremes or black-and-white alternatives (fully positive or fully negative) is an indication of a certain way of relating to the situation rather than an objective assessment of it. In our non-directive feedback dialogue, we need to pay attention to where such extreme evaluations occur and help the other person see their own contribution to the picture or reality they hold.
2. At other times, we can notice in the way the other person reasons about the situation that certain things are always coupled. Somebody can, for example, assume that in order to succeed a struggle with others is needed. Consequently, in an attempt to succeed, such a person is likely to confront and fight with people around, possibly alienating even those who would want to help to succeed. Recognizing these fixed pairings in someone's thoughts can reveal a lot about their understanding and interpretation of events.
3. There are numerous other areas that can be seen as potentially fruitful windows into the meaning-making of others. We could pay attention to the way values function in the other person’s thinking (given and immutable or useful principles that can be scrutinized and are context-dependent) or we could focus on what is always the case regardless of the situation and why. Often we learn a lot about meaning-making looking at how the person regards failure, punishment, responsibility, habits or automatisms. Our exploration of these structural elements of the situation, rather than what happened, can bring us closer to the meaning-making of the other person. 

‍

Conclusion

The current way of thinking about feedback is changing. More people are realizing that the usual methods don't work well, especially in complicated situations. To improve feedback, we need to change many of our deeply rooted assumptions that make the current form of feedback harmful. These assumptions include the idea that the person giving feedback knows better, relying too much on their limited view of the situation, wrongly focusing on personal traits instead of the situation itself, and being misled by looking back with the benefit of hindsight. These assumptions - we call them feedback killers - make feedback seem unfair and like an attempt to control others, instead of helping them understand and grow.

‍

Let’s start learning together the non-directive way to approach feedback. It seeks to create an environment where both people explore how they make sense of things to better understand the actions taken or words spoken. It's important to see that every action is done with a good reason in mind and to approach feedback with curiosity, not judgment. This non-directive way involves paying attention to how the conversation is structured and trying to understand how the other person thinks and understands the relations between things, rather than focussing on the actual story.

‍

The selected literature

The spectrum of feedback-related literature is broad, featuring diverse viewpoints from numerous notable authors. Various efforts to reform how feedback is given, aiming to reduce natural defensiveness and the inclination to find fault with either the feedback or the giver, have achieved only little success. It seems that while these attempts to improve feedback focus on modifying its form, they actually protect the dysfunctional core and basic assumptions of conventional feedback. 

‍

• The influential excellent book by Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen stands out particularly because it refuses to fix feedback from the feedback giver side, but rather focuses on how we can receive it in a way that is helpful. 
• Amy Edmondson highlights the importance of psychological safety in feedback, yet does not recognize that the problem is inherent in the very assumptions of constructive feedback concept which leads to minimizing space for frank and open discussions about things that matter most. 
• Kim Scott takes a contrasting stance with her "Radical Candor" approach, advocating for direct yet empathetic communication. 
• Stephen Covey and Brené Brown, through their respective works, emphasize the importance of preserving relationships over focusing strictly on feedback mechanics.
• Joe Hirsch replaced the traditional term “feedback” with “feed-forward,” aiming to sidestep some of the challenges associated with conventional feedback by linguistic trickery, leaving the core problems untouched.  
• The only radical departure from the conventional concept of feedback is offered by Carol Sanford who critiques traditional feedback for its potential negative impact on organizations, suggesting a move away from it in favour of alternative forms of developmental conversation. 
• Similarly Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, in their book "How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work," introduce “deconstructive feedback,” which uses a developmental lens to examine the underlying meaning-making processes. 
• Finally, Marshall Rosenberg presents an alternative to feedback with his “Nonviolent Communication”.

‍

The last three approaches were inspirations for the non-directive feedback concept outlined in this text and are fully compatible with it. 

‍