Page 16
ManageMent
www.us-tech.com Effective Feedback is not a Sandwich or a Seagull By Kevin Higgins, CEO, Fusion Learning M
anagers rely on team mem- bers with improving skills and performance to improve
their products and services. But man- agers who praise their team members without offering suggestions for im- provements will not provide the nec- essary guidance for improvement. And managers who suggest ways for team members to improve without celebrating their successes will build a team with skills but lacking in con- fidence. Team members rely on feed- back to improve and be successful, but the feedback must be balanced, and not in the form of a one-way conversa- tion from a manager to a team mem- ber or performer. There are two types of one-way
feedback conversations. The first is the “sandwich,” where a manager tells a performer what they did well, adds negative feedback as the middle of the conversation sandwich, and tops it with more positive feedback. Sandwich feedback is a bad habit based on years of management histo- ry; it is a habit that must be broken. The second type of one-way feed-
back conversation is the “seagull,” which is worse than the sandwich. In
a seagull feedback conversation, a manager doesn’t attempt to engage a performer. The manager simply pres- ents negative feedback and tries to move on. It is likened to a seagull which is a bird that likes to fly by, go to the bathroom, and fly on. With seag- ull feedback, action has been taken by a manager, but with little positive meaning for a performer. In contrast, a two-way feedback
conversation allows a performer to present his or her own views. They can be part of the diagnosis and, most importantly, part of the solu- tion. A manager who allows a per- former to celebrate their success and who reinforces it will encourage that performer to provide an honest opin- ion on how they can improve. And by them offering their own opinions, the chance of them implementing the ideas dramatically increases. A man- ager’s commentary may be very sim- ilar in one-way and two-way feed- back versions, but the chance for change can be dramatically different. A manager can “tell” a performer all they want in a one-way feedback con- versation, but by engaging them in the review process in a two-way feed-
back conversation, they create an en- vironment with better chances of changes being made. An effective two-way feedback
model has four easy-to-follow steps: l
the performer did well. l
the performer did well. l
prove. l
what a performer can do differently to improve.
what they can do differently to im- The manager adds suggestions on
A manager asks a performer what The manager adds what they felt The manager asks the performer
Steps one and two build confi-
dence. Steps three and four build skill. All four steps help build a con- fident, skilled, and engaged team member.
Step One. The first step in a two- way feedback conversation begins with the manager asking the per- former “What do you feel you did well?” At this point, a manager can prevent their mind from drifting to their own thoughts on the feedback by asking a series of questions of the performance, including:
l Why was that a strength? l What is an example?
that point? l
customers? l
l How did the customer react at How can this be used with other What might have happened had
you not done this? A manager should discuss these
perceived strengths with the per- former so that both clearly under- stand that they are strengths and can be used in the future. The man- ager can then ask for a second strength or move to step two in the two-way feedback conversation.
Step Two. The second step involves a manager telling a performer: “Here is what I felt you did well.” The man- ager’s comments should be focused, specific, helpful, and genuine. They should also detail what a performer might not have mentioned, and should encourage the performer to contribute additional thoughts. Step two is the outer part of the
“sandwich,” but is also an important part of the four-step two-way feedback conversation. Managers must avoid feeling comfortable executing step one and spending too little time on step two. Performers need a manager’s thoughts as well as their own ideas, to help them build confidence. A manag- er should pause after steps one and two to ensure that the performer knows that the manager is celebrat- ing their success. This will earn the right to move to steps three and four in the two-way feedback conversation.
Step Three. Step three begins with the question: “What will you do dif- ferently next time?” It is a question that can truly open Pandora’s Box, and can be a difficult question for
many people who are told to be strong and not admit weakness. In step three, a manager must be pa- tient and allow a performer time to think. If a performer tries to dodge the question, the manager can try asking it in a different way, such as “What would the customer suggest you do differently?” or “What would you have done to gain a deeper un- derstanding in the meeting with the customer?” or even “What additional questions might have been asked in the meeting with the customer which might have been helpful?” Once a performer shares their
thoughts, the manager should inves- tigate these suggestions with the performer. This can be done with some simple questions for the per- former, such as “Why do it different- ly?” or “What might have happened if you had done it?” or “How do you think the customer would have react- ed?” Once a manager and performer have discussed and investigated one change, the manager can ask for an- other change and repeat the process, or move to step four.
Step Four. In step four, a manager offers suggestions on how a per- former can improve. As in step two, these comments should be focused, specific, helpful, and genuine. They should be based on a manager’s real- istic observations of what a per- former might have missed. The man- ager should keep the performer in- volved in the conversation, so that it is truly a two-way process. Steps three and four can help
build the confidence of a team’s mem- bers. A manager who pauses after each step can ascertain whether a performer (and the manager) is com- mitted to any proposed changes. A performer who spends the time and energy to offer their own insights is more likely to make the changes needed to improve. Equal time is not required for
each step. Different people have dif- ferent abilities to assimilate informa- tion. Performers lacking confidence may need more time during steps one and two, while individuals with confi- dence but lacking skill may need more time in steps three and four (after their confidence has been reinforced by means of steps one and two). This four-step approach is hardly
a scientific breakthrough, simply com- mon sense. Unfortunately, it is not common practice. However, by putting it to use, managers can help team members become more involved and more willing to be part of a positive
and constructive feedback process. Contact: Fusion Learning, Inc.,
272 Richmond Street East, Suite 200 Toronto, ON M5A 1P4 % 416- 424-2999 fax: 416-424-1522 or 259 West 30th Street, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10001 % 212-461-3195 Web:
www.fusionlearninginc.com/ #sthash.Fzz4DAJ3.dpuf r
March, 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116