How to get better at receiving feedback

In my two previous posts I have written about the theoretical and evidence base on how to make PRAs more effective.  In this post I will be considering the implications of Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen's new book - Thanks For The Feedback - for the both the design of PRA systems and how as individuals we can get better at making the most of PRA systems.

Stone and Heen state that even when negative feedback is given in the most highly skilled manner, the receiver of the feedback is likely to react badly, with this being the result of the tension between being valued for who you are (appreciation) and the need  to learn and grow (development). Stone and Heen state that feedback invariably sets off one of three triggers.

• Truth triggers are set off by the substantive nature of the feedback, in terms of its accuracy, relevancy and consistency with other evidence, for example, are lesson observation grades consistent with student feedback and achievement,
• Relationship triggers - the way in which the feedback is received is influenced by the nature of the relationship with the giver -be it the head-teacher, head of department or colleague - are they credible, authentic and does the feedback come with the 'baggage' of previous encounters.
• Identity triggers - the feedback may lead to the individual challenging his or her sense of identity, of who they are, what they contribute and the value they bring as a teacher, lecturer or manager to a school or college community.

As such, given the inevitability of these responses it is incumbent upon the receiver of feedback to develop strategies to manager his or her tendencies and associated triggers.  Stone and Heen identify six steps for becoming a better receiver of feedback, and these include:

1. Know your tendencies - do you have a pattern in responding to feedback - is it defensive, passive or aggressive.
2. The need to disentangle what is being said from who is saying it.
3. Encourage coaching from the giver of the feedback.
4. Unpack the feedback - ask questions to explore the reliability and validity of the feedback - are other people saying the same thing?
5. Ask for just ONE thing to improve - what small step can I take to get better at the task at hand?
6. Once the feedback has been unpacked - identify small changes and steps which can be used to try out new ideas and behaviours to see if they work.

So what are the implications of the above for PRAs in a school or college setting.  It seems to me that four implications come to mind.

1. More resource/training/coaching should be committed to helping individuals get better at receiving and acting upon feedback - as this is a skill that can be developed.
2. PRA systems which seek to combine appreciation, evaluation and coaching in the same session have inherent challenges, which need to be acknowledged and recognised.
3. Reliable, valid third-party standards and benchmarks should be used where applicable and this helps disentangle the what is being said from who is saying it.
4. PRAs are a process not an event - and should be treated as such.  Are three 15 minute conversations, with each conversation focussing on one of appreciation, evaluation and coaching better than 60 minutes trying to do all three at once.

Theoretical Frameworks for Providing Feedback to Teachers - Part Two

In this post two key questions will be asked

• Who is best placed to give feedback or manage the performance, review and appraisal (PRA)?
• How important are personality types in influencing the effectiveness of PRA?

As in my last post I have used Gary P. Latham, Bonnie Hayden Cheng and Krista Macpherson's chapter on Theoretical frameworks for and empirical evidence on providing feedback to employees (published in Sutton et al's (2012) book Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice.) as the source material.

A primary objective of PRAs is to bring about continuous improvement, yet on so many occasions this fails to happen.  So it seems reasonable to ask who is best suited to undertake the role of giving feedback or undertaking the PRA.  In the context of a school or college, the HOD, Senior Teacher or Head-teacher would appear to be the most appropriate individual. However, Dweck's (1999) implicit person theory (IPT) suggests that this traditional hierarchial practice may need to be reconsidered.

IPT theory states the likelihood of giving developmental feedback is a function of an individual's belief of whether ability is fixed or capable of being developed.  A number of empirical studies have suggested the desirability of knowing a manager's (head-teacher, senior teacher or HOD) views on the malleability of ability before relying on that manager to provide developmental coaching, or allowing them to conduct formal PRAs.

Higgins' (1997)  theory of regulatory focus and fit, stresses the importance of taking into account the personalities of both the appraiser and the appraisee.  In this theory personalities are divided into two types, personalities with a :

• Promotion focus - goals are seemed as a desirable end state
• Prevention focus - trying to avoid error or failure.

Sue-Chan, Wood and Latham (2012) found that when feedback was given by an individual with a prevention focus, those appraisees who also had a prevention focus performed significantly better than others with a promotion focus.  Surprisingly, the majority of individuals performed better when the feedback received was presented by an individual who had a promotion focus - what worked, what could we do more of, what next) - regardless of whether they (the appraisee) had a prevention or promotion focus.

Sue-Chan and Latham (2004) also explore the issue of who is the best source of feedback : manager, external coach, peers or self and interestingly found that external coaches were superior to peer and self-coaching when increasing teamwork.  This could be explained by external coaches being seen as far more credible than peers or others.

So what are the implications for PRAs in schools and colleges.

• Thought must be given to who participates in the PRA, the automatic default response that it should be the Head-teacher/ senior teacher or HOD may contribute to the oft lack of success of a PRA
• All other things being equal, feedback given with a promotion focus is likely to lead more successful PRA outcomes.  PRA models using a solutions focus orientation are worthy of further consideration.
• Finding ways of accessing external coaches maybe worthy of consideration.

In my next post I'll be considering the implications for the receivers of feedback and will be referring to Sheila Heen and Douglas Stone's  recent book Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well (Viking/Penguin, 2014),

References

Dweck, C. S.  (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.  American Psychologist, 41, 1040 - 1048.

Higgins, E. T., (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain, American Psychologist, 52, 1280 - 1300

Latham, G.P., Hayden Cheng, B., and Macpherson, K. (2012) Theoretical frameworks for and empirical evidence on providing feedback to employees,  pp 187 - 200  in Sutton, R.M. Hornsey, M.J., and Douglas Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice, Oxford, Peter Lang.

Sue- Chan., & Latham, G.P. (2004) The relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches, Applied Psychology : An International Review, 53, 260 - 278

Sue-Chan, C., Wood, R.E., & Latham, G.P. (2012) Effect of a coach's regulatory focus and an individual's implicit person theory on individual performance, Journal Management, 38, 809-935

Sutton, R.M. Hornsey, M.J., and Douglas (2012) Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice, Oxford, Peter Lang.

Providing feedback to employees (teachers) and goal setting- what's the evidence - Part One

As many teacher performance, review and appraisals (PRAs) will be taking place during this term, it seems relevant to review the available theoretical frameworks on both the giving of feedback and the effectiveness of goal-setting.

This is particularly important for two reasons; one, the emphasis that OfSTED places on the role of leaders and managers in bringing about rigorous performance management and improvement; two, research suggests that one in three organisational feedback interventions result in a decrease in job performance (Kluger and De, Nisi, 1996).

To undertake this task I have used  Gary P. Latham, Bonnie Hayden Cheng and Krista Macpherson's chapter on Theoretical frameworks for and empirical evidence on providing feedback to employees as the  source of evidence based research and which was published  in Sutton et al's (2012) book Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice. 

Given the range of issues involved, this post the focus will be on the effectiveness of goal-setting in bringing about improvement in job performance.

• Locke and Latham's (2002) goal-setting theory states that specific high goals lead to higher performance than easily achieved goals or goals that are non-specific.  Locke and Latham argue that feedback only has value to the extent to which it leads to subsequent action and the setting and gaining commitment to specific high goals.
• Using a field experiment Latham, Mitchell and Dossett (1978) found that employees who received feedback and had specific high goals/targets, performed better than employees receiving generic feedback, with no goals set, or employees who received no feedback and no subsequent setting of goals.
• As for feedback by employees on a managers performance, Tourish and Tourish (2012), found that 360 degree feedback from employees made a difference when managers believed they could do what they were being ask of.  Self-efficacy would appear to be a key moderating variable, with managers needing a degree of support to ensure they have the confidence to act on the feedback received.

So what are the implications of the above for teachers and managers?

It would appear that the ubiquitous SMART goals do have a role to play in teacher PRAs.  However, what matters is the skill by which these SMART goals are set, in terms of their appropriateness and challenge.

Skill is also required is not just what goals are set, but how those goals are set, so the teach/member of staff has the confidence to achieve what they have been asked of.

None of this should be particularly 'earth-shattering' but there again we probably have all experienced poorly delivered feedback, with imprecise goals and which has led to a reduction in confidence.

Next week part two of this review of the evidence on providing feedback will focus on the appraising and coaching of employees, and who is best placed to do it.

References

Kluger, A N and De Nisi, (1996).  The effects of feedback interventions on performance :  A historical review, a meta analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory, Pyschological Bulletin, 119, 254- 284.

Latham, G.P., Mitchell, T.R., and Dossett, D. L (1978).  The importance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63 pp 163 - 171
Latham, G.P., Hayden Cheng, B., and Macpherson, K. (2012) Theoretical frameworks for and empirical evidence on providing feedback to employees,  pp 187 - 200  in Sutton, R.M. Hornsey, M.J., and Douglas Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice, Oxford, Peter Lang.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G. P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of task setting and task motivation : A 35 year odyssey.  American Psychologist, 57, pp 705 - 717

Sutton, R.M. Hornsey, M.J., and Douglas (2012) Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice, Oxford, Peter Lang.

Tourish, D. and Tourish, M (2012) Upward communication in organisations : How ingratiation and and defensive reasoning impede thoughtful action, pp 233 - 246  in Sutton, R.M. Hornsey, M.J., and Douglas Feedback : The communication of praise, criticism and advice, Oxford, Peter Lang.