“I told him the truth. ‘You stank!’ I said. ‘You just
stank!’”
I gather that the consultant had a good enough
relationship with the CEO that he could get away with saying that. I also
gather that the consultant’s message to us was: As a consultant/coach, you owe it to your clients to tell them the
unvarnished truth.
Now, to the consultant’s credit, he also proceeded to say
that he provided specific behavioral examples of what the CEO did wrong and
could have done better. As I’ve noted before, feedback does no good unless it’s
specific enough to guide the recipient to particular actions he needs to
change. But I also wonder whether the CEO actually heard much of anything else
the consultant had to say after being on the receiving end of such an odious
(and odorous) judgment.
I think this situation is a good example of the potential
downsides of trying to “help” someone by giving him feedback. The author and
consultant Marshall Goldsmith makes the following (somewhat radical)
observation about the nature of feedback:
“There is a fundamental problem with all types of
feedback: It focuses on the past, on what has already occurred – not on the
infinite variety of opportunities that can happen in the future.”
Goldsmith goes on to point out other problems with
feedback – for example:
·
Feedback tends to overfocus on gaps, deficiencies,
and shortcomings. “Negative feedback often becomes an exercise in ‘let me prove
you were wrong,’” says Goldsmith. “This tends to produce defensiveness on the
part of the receiver and discomfort on the part of the sender.”
·
No matter how much we remind ourselves that
feedback is about our performance, not about us personally, in practice few
people can make that fine distinction. As Goldsmith observes, “Almost all feedback is taken personally (no matter how it is delivered). People’s
sense of identity is highly connected with their work. It is hard to give a
dedicated professional feedback that is not taken personally. Personal
critiques are often viewed as personal attacks.”
·
By focusing on the negative, feedback can
reinforce the recipient’s sense of futility in the pursuit of improvement. Says Goldsmith: “Feedback can reinforce a
feeling of failure. How many of us have been ‘helped’ by a spouse, significant
other, or friend who seems to have a near-photographic memory of our previous ‘sins’
that they share with us in order to point out the history of our shortcomings.
Negative feedback can be used to reinforce the message, ‘this is just the way
you are.’”
So does Goldsmith advocate that people just ignore those
areas where a change in behaviors and actions could lead to improved
performance?
Hardly. Instead, he proposes an alternative to feedback
called “feedforward.” In essence, feedforward proceeds from the individual’s
request for ideas for improvement in a very specific area. The person receiving
the request then provides one or two quick ideas that the individual might consider
trying out. The only reply permitted is “Thank you” – no discussion, no
comment, and certainly no push-back (“I already tried that, and it didn’t work”).
The individual then seeks to get as much feedforward input from as many people
as she can, to create a database of ideas from which she can select.
According to Goldsmith, the advantages of the feedforward
approach include:
·
Rather than getting stuck on the problems of the
past, the individual focuses on future possibilities and begins to envision
herself successfully changing her behavior.
·
The approach encourages positive,
forward-looking thinking and keeps the individual’s mind on how she might be
able to put one or more of the ideas into effect.
·
By proceeding from the individual’s request, the
approach reinforces the idea that the individual ultimately has ownership of
the issue and the selection (and implementation) of the idea.
·
By not permitting a response, the approach
avoids the major downfall of most advice-giving, that is, the tendency of the
recipient to bring up reasons why it won’t (or didn’t) work.
·
Unlike feedback, which can really only be given
by someone very familiar with the individual’s past performance, feedforward
ultimately can be given by anyone!
I think Goldsmith’s feedforward approach is consistent
with the “coaching through the gap” approach I’ve described previously. Both
methods start with a “current state” – the identification of something that the
individual wants to change – but very quickly move toward a vivid envisioning
of a desired future goal. The bulk of the coaching interaction then focuses,
not on why things are the way they currently are, but on how to start moving
toward that better future state as quickly as possible.
(The primary difference, I think, between feedforward and
coaching through the gap: In the latter, the brainstorming of ideas for change
should start with the coachee, to reinforce his ownership of the entire
process. Only after the coachee has generated some ideas should the coach offer
some feedforward ideas of his own.)
REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER
·
Is your approach to “helping” people primarily
focused on giving them feedback as to things they’re not doing right? Do you
get the sense that that approach is causing negativity, defensiveness, and a
sense of futility?
·
In your coaching sessions, do you provide people
an opportunity to first volunteer their own assessment of their performance and
the areas in which they need to improve? Do you then give them a chance
(through powerful questioning) to start populating the database of ideas for
how they might act differently in the future? Only then do you start to
contribute some ideas of your own?
·
What would happen if you – for your own
development – asked several people to provide “feedforward” input for a
behavior of yours that you’d like to change?
No comments:
Post a Comment