Giving feedback that achieves the outcomes we want can be tricky. Here are some tips for making it stick.
In her book Radical Candor, Kim Scott tells what she calls her “um story”.
Not long after she joined Google, Scott gave a presentation to the CEO and founders of the company. After successfully navigating such a high-profile event, her boss (Sheryl Sandberg, no less) offered her some feedback. Much of this was positive: Sandberg clearly believed that Scott really had done a good job – and wanted her to take this on board.
But there was more. Sandberg picked up on the fact that Scott said “um” a lot when she spoke and offered support from a speaking coach. At first Scott couldn’t believe that her boss was picking up on an apparently minor thing and brushed it off. But Sandberg persisted, eventually securing Scott’s attention with the observation that saying “um” so much made her “sound stupid”.
When we first read this, it might sound a bit brutal. But Scott sees it as a perfect example of what she calls radical (or compassionate) candour: being able to give feedback in a way that’s direct enough for the message to hit home (candid) while also being respectful of the other person (compassionate).
Scott credits the encounter with two effects. Not only did it make her want to solve her “um” problem immediately. It also made her reflect on Sandberg’s style, how she combined praise and criticism to offer guidance in a way that really worked. It made her want to adopt that style with her own team.
We all want to give feedback to colleagues that has a similar effect: achieving the outcome we need while also building our relationships and modelling behaviours that add to what Scott calls “cultures of guidance”.
Giving feedback lies at the core of how we communicate at work, how we can support people towards performance and success. It offers the external perspective that helps people to learn from their experiences and to develop and grow. It can be used when we have to course correct and to acknowledge and build on things that have gone well.
That’s not to say that it’s easy. There are plenty of things that can get in the way, from the most basic of communication barriers to our own preferences and biases. It’s all too easy to rush to judgement; to lose our cool; to duck the difficult stuff.
Most of us can recall being on the receiving end of feedback that was vague, ill-timed, poorly delivered – and simply not helpful. We might have felt aggrieved about seemingly unsubstantiated claims about our personality or left unsure what we were supposed to do with what we were told.
This speaks to a fundamental feedback truth: feedback is only as effective as the recipient’s willingness or ability to receive and absorb it. If we are unclear, if we put people on the defensive, if we label them, then we’re hardly creating conditions that are conducive to learning and growth.
And it’s up to us, as leaders, to create the right environment for those “cultures of guidance” that help us to give feedback that leads to the right outcomes – for us, the recipient and our organisation.
Fortunately, Kim Scott also offers us a route map for giving feedback in a compassionately candid way. Here are her top tips.
Be humble
Be helpful
Give feedback immediately
In person (if possible)
Praise in public, criticise in private
Don’t personalise
It’s important to acknowledge that you may not have all the information or answers when we embark on a feedback conversation.
We have to guard against coming across as either arrogant or patronising, or making snap judgements based on only part of the story.
Instead, we need to be humble, willing to believe that we may be wrong and exploring with the other person any misunderstandings or misconceptions - on both sides.
A simple tool called Pendleton’s Rules can help with this. The Rules remind us that well-delivered feedback requires two-way communication. Our feedback conversations must actively invite participation and contribution from the other person (a judicious use of questioning can help here) and then actively listening to their point of view: listening to understand rather than jumping in with an immediate response of judgement.
The Rules also encourage us to focus both on achievement and on what could be done differently - like Sandberg’s balancing of praise and criticism of Scott’s presentation. The very act of focusing on the positive first helps to put the recipient at ease and make them much less likely to shut down, become angry or upset, and more likely to take on board any change that’s needed.
Even when things have clearly gone wrong, we need to resist the temptation to step in and try to ‘fix’ people. Mistake fixing might sometimes be necessary to prevent failure, but it does not, in itself, help people to develop.
Feedback is about learning. We need to find ways to help people understand and meet the challenges they’re facing. That means we need to be both clear and specific.
For example, instead of saying “You’re always interrupting in meetings”, try “I noticed in our meeting yesterday that you interrupted Dave from Accounts a number of times” - and build the conversation from there.
The SBI(O) (situation-behaviour-impact-(outcomes)) model can help us to be more precise when giving feedback. By asking us to consider context, it also supports humility.
It helps us to frame feedback conversations by asking us to:
S: explore with the recipient the situation in which that person found themselves
B: how that person behaved as a result
I: the impact of their behaviour
O: possible alternative behaviours and outcomes.
It’s a way to make sure we have clear, specific conversations and keep our focus on what needs to happen or change (or be built on) as a result. It also helps to depersonalise what we say, which will also help to take the sting out of it.
We will still open the conversation with a (specific) observation about the issue we want to discuss. But we will also be clear that this is a starting point only and that we will be exploring the situation with the other person.
Being helpful might also mean enlisting the support of others, perhaps a coach or mentor, or a colleague who can support the recipient to learn (like Scott’s speaking coach). Sometimes, the conversation will be enough in itself.
When Sheryl Sandberg alerted Kim Scott to her “um problem”, she did so immediately after her presentation. That meant that the issue was nipped in the bud while Scott was still new to the company.
It’s natural to put off what might be a tricky feedback conversation, but delay will only make it harder. Be timely. Remember, too, that guidance doesn’t have to be about scheduled, lengthy meetings. It can also be informal and impromptu.
When we’re planning our time, it can help to allow time for guidance conversations, even if we won’t know precisely what they’ll be about.
Above all, don’t let things fester. If something needs to be dealt with, deal with it. If praise is due, don’t wait.
People also like to know how they’re doing, so avoiding giving feedback might feel like their efforts are going into a “black hole”. Not very motivating.
Scott reminds us that the clarity of our guidance “gets measured at the other person’s ear, not at our mouth”.
We need not just to speak, but to be heard. Giving feedback in person means that we can also observe the other person’s non-verbal cues – their body language - making it easier to gauge their response. A video call is the next best option.
We may, of course, avoid giving feedback in person or via video precisely because we feel uncertain about how the other person will react. But even if the person becomes upset or angry, being able to see them will help us to understand that reaction and to respond accordingly.
It will also help us to balance our compassion with how they’re feeling with making sure our message is getting through.
Criticising someone in public is much more likely to trigger a defensive reaction and make it much harder for them to receive our message and learn from it.
Public praise and recognition can be especially powerful for some people, as well as offering the opportunity for others to learn from what went well too.
But this is not a hard and fast rule: be aware that some people dislike being praised in public, so bear in mind personal preferences too.
When Sandberg describes the impact of Scott’s “um” problem to her, she very clearly said that is made her “sound stupid”, not that she was stupid.
That’s an important distinction. When we give feedback, it’s important to be as objective as possible, to avoid labelling people: say “that’s wrong” rather than “you’re wrong”. Personalising any issue only makes it harder to resolve.
Beware, too, the fundamental attribution error, our tendency to attribute all sorts of personal characteristics to explain a person’s behaviour when that behaviour is just as likely to be down to the situation or context they found themselves in.
Taking a positive, contextualised approach to giving feedback does not mean that don’t make clear what we want to say; it helps no one to avoid tackling underperformance or behaviour that needs to be adjusted. And feedback that’s little more than meaningless praise is not really feedback at all.
Instead, we need to see feedback as being about learning.
The trick is to look for the learning opportunities in all situations. Like Sheryl Sandberg, we need to balance praise and criticism in ways that are sincere and humble and help to move people forward, not just when things don’t go well, but also to build on positives.
When we deliver feedback in a compassionately candid, future-focused way, where the recipient is an active participant in the conversation, that feedback is much more likely to be received and acted upon.
If in doubt, just remember Kim Scott and her “um story”.
Identify two ways that Pendleton’s Rules can help us to give good feedback.
Outline what the acronym SBI(O) stands for.
Reflect on how you usually approach giving feedback. How might Kim Scott’s tips help you to plan for a feedback conversation that achieves its aims?