On How Not All Feedback Is Created Equal
We live in a corporate culture where feedback is considered gold. But, in reality, not all feedback is fair or valuable. Might there be a difference in quality or reliability of feedback depending on who gives it to you? Absolutely.
There is a secret crisis in feedback. Around 60% of our rating of other people is more to do with us than with the person we’re evaluating, according to research and something called the idiosyncratic rater effect. Basically, humans are terribly inaccurate when it comes to rating other humans.
Yet we hang on the words on our bosses like they are pure gold. We are incentivized too, often these ratings determine if we are getting a raise, a promotion, a bonus, or if we even feel seen or heard or appreciated at work. But the shortcoming of human inability to accurately rate others leaves it totally open to bias or manipulation.
Despite this, 96% of employees claim they want to regularly receive feedback. Perhaps those feedback-seekers can fare better by simply choosing better people to receive feedback from. I’m wondering: according to scientific research, who would be the best pick?
Reciprocity Styles
Research by Adam Grant shows us that workplace success depends on how individuals approach their interactions with other people. He identifies three workplace reciprocity styles: givers, takers, and matchers, identified by their behavioural styles.
Takers are characterized by getting more than they give, putting their own interests above the needs of others. Givers, on the other hand, are other-focused, helping whenever possible and feasible, striving to be generous with time and energy. Givers are relatively rare, as most of us tend to be Matchers. Matchers fall in between, trying to build an equal balance of giving and receiving.
Want The Honest Truth? Find Yourself a Giver
Taking time to give careful and fair feedback takes work and energy. Advising someone with no strings attached is probably more rare than we care to realize. That’s why seeking a Giver is your best bet for fair feedback.
There are many ways the feedback-giver could let their own needs get in the way of giving good advice. For example, protecting their own ego by giving advice that backs up previous decisions they’ve made (ex. My decision to put you on this task when you had no experience in was a good one, you just didn’t try hard enough to get up to speed), or giving advice that will actually benefit them instead of you (ex. Advising you to hire Trevor onto your team, but it turns out Trevor has a skill that would actually be more beneficial for the feedback-giver’s team rather than the feedback-receiver’s team, and he will inevitably do work for their team, leaving you with the bill and effort of hiring him).
Givers, without a psychological need to gain anything in return, will have less stake in how the feedback impacts them but rather be able to freely extend their thought to what will most benefit your improvement. With the aim of generosity, and a goal of giving you the best quality advice, they might be able to do a better job of putting your needs at the forefront in the crafting of their feedback.
A Taker could see being asked for feedback as an opportunity to get more in return for this gift. Having their own interests at heart makes them a less reliable source of feedback.
What if Only Matchers Are Available?
Matchers operate in a pattern of tit for tat reciprocal exchanges. Leveraging this knowledge, there are a few things that might help increase the neutrality or quality of feedback if it’s only available from Matchers.
Context. Try picking Matchers that are removed from your situation enough not to have a stake in the outcome of the feedback. Your direct boss, manager, or peers have a vested interest in your feedback - it is too much a reflection of them. Matchers who can more objectively, and emotionlessly, evaluate you from one step away (that is, they can observe your performance still, but don’t have a strong vested interest in the outcome), will be able to give you more neutral and fair advice.
Exchange. Matchers operate on a system of exchange. Start the feedback conversation on the right foot by offering to do them a favour, and most specifically, offer to provide them with feedback too. Many companies are embracing 360 feedback so this technique should work on a Matcher at any level.
Remind. Remind Matchers of a time you did something beneficial for them before asking for feedback. Or, remind them that the giving of feedback is an important part of their role in the organizational ecosystem, as is your own role to ask for it. Anchoring Matchers back to the system of feedback exchange will emphasize a sense of duty in their role as feedback-giver.
Check-In Emotionally. Since we know feedback ratings are more about the rater than the feedback receiver, take a moment to check-in on the feedback-giver’s emotions. You don’t want to get a bad rating just because the feedback-giver is having a bad day. Use your own perception to judge if this is really a good time for the conversation. If the Matcher is having a bad day, they might appreciate your care and giving of space.
Take Feedback with a Grain of Salt
Since we are well aware of how feedback can be so biased and unreflective of you and your performance, take it with a grain of salt. Be empowered to think critically about feedback as reflective of you, and search for the moments of truth in the words that you can take and apply to push yourself to the next level of competency. But don’t let nasty, unfair feedback change the way you think of yourself at your core.
We’re all on a journey to get better. Let’s get there together.
Love,
