I was involved in a discussion recently about whether there is such a thing as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ feedback (for the record, I believe there is just feedback, the positivity or negativity rests in how it is communicated and received). When I work with leaders, feedback is a common theme. They want to hear my opinion on how I experience them, and value ‘straight talking’. What is less clear is how and why they struggle in developing relationships with colleagues/staff to support them to get feedback on an ongoing basis. 
Robert S. Kaplan‘s recent article in McKinsey Quarterly, Top executives need feedback – here’s how they can get it, attempts to get under the skin of the issue. Kaplan argues:
Many executives find that as they become more senior, they receive less coaching and become more confused about their performance and developmental needs. They may also become increasingly isolated from constructive criticism – subordinates do not want to offend the boss and may believe that constructive suggestions are unwelcome and unwise. …[They] may not have focused sufficiently on developing mutually trusting subordinate relationships that would make getting feedback and advice a lot easier.
He suggests the following strategies: cultivate junior coaches, practice self-disclosure, develop questioning and active listening skills and delegate a key issue to a team of key staff and give them genuine autonomy to come up with the answers. I suspect three assumptions underpin Kaplan’s thinking:
- ‘Coaching’ is an appropriate frame for this type of conversation with ‘subordinates’ (as an aside, the use of the word ‘subordinates’ is unfortunate, given the military echoes and inherent notion of something or someone being ‘of less importance’. There is an immediate discounting of the junior member of staff and their opinion.)
- Any advice or feedback given will actually be listened to, and whilst Kaplan acknowledges the difficulty some execs have in this area, I believe he underestimates the problem. Recent research by See, Morrision, Rothman & Soll has shown that “powerful people are less likely to take advice from others, in large part because they have high confidence in their own judgment and don’t feel the need to incorporate outside views. By not factoring in others’ advice, however, people in power risk making flawed decisions.” Bankers spring to mind…
- Leaders have the skills/knowledge to set the appropriate conditions in their work relationships that will result in a high level of mutual trust, honesty and an ability to actively listen.
So what to do with the leader who wants feedback in order to develop them self and/or improve their organisation?…. You could follow Kaplan’s advice, although unless you address the power issue and really establish the extent to which a leader is willing to take advice, it would be pointless. Just because someone says they want feedback does not mean they are listening. As See (et al) note in their recent research, some leaders frame taking advice as a sign of weakness, so a purely rational approach is not going to work. Human beings – and believe it not leaders – are human. Whilst some may appear otherwise on occasion – they are rational, emotional and relational.
Leaders who do not understand that they are in relationship deny reality and ignore the fundamental dynamics of human interaction. Conventional approaches to leadership development and coaching can fall short in terms of developing leaders and setting the conditions for honest dialogue, so why not try something different?…
Taking a relational approach to leader feedback: Strategic & Intimate Interactions
Sonia M. Nevis, Stephanie Blackman and Ed Nevis, who have a background in Gestalt psychology, describe a powerful framework for analyzing and improving relationships in The Need For Balance (PDF). They break interactions down into two types:
Intimate Interactions - “bring us closer to each other through caring about what each person is thinking or feeling. The intent is to enhance connectedness as a desirable goal in its own right. This behaviour is used as a way of being together in a mutually powerful way.”
Strategic Interactions – “the ways in which individuals exchange influence when the goal is to accomplish a specific task. Here, the intent is to use hierarchical power and to be less concerned with equality. Achieving the goal is of primary importance and, though connectedness is still desired, mutuality gives way to getting something done. Hierarchy is maintained by a willingness to lead and a willingness to follow.”
All relationships are based on a series of interactions that can broadly be defined as either strategic or intimate, and the balance between the two determines the degree of mutuality and connectedness in a relationship. That in turn has a direct bearing on effectiveness and performance. An excess of one or the other and the relationship will be unbalanced. For example, too much intimacy makes high levels of productivity harder; too much of the strategic leads to a cold and distant working environment, and followers will feel less inclined to follow, or be honest in their feedback.
My approach would be to suggest my client begin by assessing the nature of the relationship he/she has with a person, whether the conditions exist for true and/or useful feedback to be honestly shared, and if not look at what needs to change. Is this the only way? Of course not, and it is closer to the reality of human dynamics and social interaction, whether in an organisational setting or otherwise.
