Asking for feedback
One of the hardest tasks in professional development is asking for feedback. It’s something which takes both courage and interpersonal skill to pull off.
Sometimes companies use dedicated tools to assist with the task. But, the best type of feedback is often face-to-face, with as little mediation as possible. In “A Review of Feedback Models and Theories: Descriptions, Definitions, and Conclusions”, Lipnevich and Panadero conclude:
Although researchers agree that feedback is essential for improved performance and can contribute to enhanced achievement on the task (reported effect sizes are as high as 0.73), we also know that 1) learners often dread it and dismiss it, and 2) the effectiveness of feedback varies depending on specific characteristic of feedback messages that learners receive
Increasingly, academic models of feedback incorporate reception as a critical component. The person receiving feedback plays the pivotal role. The focus “seems to be moving towards” helping the recipient incorporate feedback. The mediating factors matter.
Given the importance of reception, I find face-to-face is often the best way to go. Some people may prefer feedback-at-a-distance. But, trying to judge how someone will receive written text can be difficult. If we care about the reception of feedback, the relational context often matters.
Generally speaking, software companies tend to use models such as “360 feedback.” Often these incorporate an attempt at anonymity, but this usually fails. Firstly, unless it’s purely numerical, detecting likely authors from within a small pool is easy. Secondly, the impact of feedback, for most people, is more profound when part of an ongoing relationship.
Anonymous feedback is often chosen to encourage open and honest statements. But, this places the focus on the information provider, rather than the recipient. If recent academic focus is correct, we need the opposite approach.
There is a perception that anonymous, written feedback lessens distracting emotional components. Even if you accept this as a desirable outcome, in practice, it is untrue. Written statements, anonymous or not, contain much encoded emotion. Readers often react emotionally to written feedback. The veil of anonymity means the receiver has no way to clarify intent, or seek reassurance.
The idea that feedback should be purely transactional is false. Feedback should be a collaborative, iterative process that accompanies co-working.
I don’t know if these sentiments are generally applicable. But I know, for myself, I struggle to accept anonymous feedback. To remedy this, I make an effort to ask for direct, face-to-face feedback instead. It’s hard work, but it is feedback that really matters to me.
If I’m asked to provide anonymous feedback, I make a point of giving the person on the receiving end a copy of my responses. This gives them the chance to clarify or assess the information based on their knowledge of me. And, it helps me to bear their wellbeing in mind.
Tight feedback loops are something we generally approve of in the software world. Whether it’s “Agile”, Product Thinking or personal feedback, the more direct the better.
In their book “Six Simple Rules”, Morieux and Tollman argue
The more direct the feedback loops you create, the better you will meet your performance requirements and the more organizational complicatedness you can avoid.
They also argue against merely improving encoded mechanisms to measure performance. Instead, we need to rely more on peoples’ ability to weigh up rich, complex criteria. This lies at the heart of their argument about embracing complexity while avoiding complicatedness.
Feedback is complex, and we shouldn’t try to eliminate that complexity. What we should do is encourage direct, uncomplicated approaches.
I gathered feedback on these thoughts from my colleague Ruben. He agrees that face-to-face is often the “best and most meaningful way.” But, he also points out that it can also be the most difficult way. It requires a “level of confidence, rapport and psychologically safe environment”.
He is of course right. The need for psychological safety is something that industry studies increasingly underscore. The 2019 and 2021 DORA reports and recent work by Amy Edmondson point this out.
In my experience, the best way to generate a bond of trust is to work together. This forces everyone to go at a pace which all participants can bear.
Recently Alistair Cockburn has been working on the Heart of Agile movement. Sentiments such as trust and collaboration are starting to receive more focus. In “The Journey to Solution Focus”, Derbier and Pinter conclude that:
It is important to focus on supporting people on their journey to the solution, throughout the exercise, at their own pace.
To me, this just one key part of psychological safety which enables face-to-face feedback.
