Although there are exemplary relationships, communicating with the boss is not always easy, either because of the hierarchical distances still maintained by many organizations, or because of the profiles of individuals; But there is one case where communication is often especially difficult: feedback. When, motu proprio or upon request, we opine face to face on the performance of another person, the relationship runs the risk of becoming darkened, of being violated. And if the feedback is upward feedback - a practice still rare, but increasing - the formulation must be especially careful.
If the boss asks for feedback, we have to stop and think… It seems that Ted Sorensen, John F. Kennedy's special advisor, once subtly disagreed with him, saying, "That sounds like the kind of idea Nixon would have." I must confess that I was more direct the first time that, who had been my teacher and later would be my first boss, asked me if I had any reservations about the idea of working with him. I answered something like: "Well, it didn't seem right to me that you didn't show up for the interview that we had arranged for a few days ago: I was waiting for you for more than an hour." Yes, it depends on how you say it; I am afraid I said it that way, and that political correctness was not my thing in those early 1970s, when my profile showed immaturity and perhaps relational awkwardness.
More recently, about five or six years ago, the chief executive of the consulting firm where I worked gave me comments (along with his closest collaborators and a client) a text that he had written as an introduction to a book. This time I bit my tongue and, displaying ironic bits, pointed out some ideas that, in my opinion, should not be formulated in this way. I think the management team had shown their approval, but the client and I agreed on our suggestions (although they were not incorporated). I still think that executive suffered from a lack of self-knowledge, and that almost everyone failed in this. We are all sinners and the delphic mandate remains an extended pending issue; But perhaps the wrong perception of oneself is especially serious in senior managers. Indeed,We tend to interpret anything negative that is said to us as aggression, and from there our attention is focused on reaction and not on reflection. Already our perception of the realities of the environment is incomplete and filtered by our brain, but our own reality - we do not see ourselves - escapes us even more, much more.
Feedback for self-knowledge
Good feedback facilitates self-knowledge, and we know from many leaders, inside and outside the business world, that they asked their surroundings for this opinion. We had summoned Kennedy and I bring you another timely case. After his first act as President of the United States - the inauguration in 1961 - he called an old friend, Bishop Philip M. Hannan, with whom he had sometimes chatted about the art of public speaking, and asked about the speech. The bishop had liked it and made it known to him, but he certainly had something to add: "Perhaps you should have spoken a little more slowly, to await the reaction of the crowd." Kennedy was well aware that the Bishop would know how to tell him everything he thought; in fact, he became a kind of shadow adviser during his presidency.In the business world, there are more and more executives and managers who, on the one hand, ask the professionals in their environment for opinions on the decisions to be made, and on the other, request feedback on their actions, for and in favor of self-knowledge.
However, effectively showing a disagreement - however small it may be and even if it is served upon request - to whoever holds the power requires some skill and, in some cases, courage. Warren Bennis says he does not know of any senior manager who, deep in his heart, is not convinced that his own head is better than all others put together. If made visible, this belief constitutes an obstacle to overcome for those who formulate bottom-up feedback in the hope that it will not be outdated.
Bennis is perhaps still the greatest expert in leadership of organizations, and he knows well that the best leaders try to surround themselves with intelligent and honest people, capable of offering valuable feedback and help in decision making.. Lee Iacocca even went so far as to stimulate the feedback in those who he perceived as "the opposition". And is that the feedback is, as Ken Blanchard said, "the breakfast of champions". Only to non-champions can a good breakfast be indigestible, that is, a valuable and correctly formulated feedback. An executive can, yes, request and find enriching feedback from some of his collaborators, but among them there can also be panphilic, fearful and severe critics, as he can find downers, pleasers and other unsuitable stereotypes. You will need to identify your most valuable sources in search of good judgment, either in relation to your general conduct, or to a certain posture or performance.
There may be a manager who prefers calm to the truth, but this is not the case with the best. Faced with a wrong or incorrect judgment and if it is well-intentioned, a good manager could argue about it but not against its issuer; And if the judgment were intrinsically valuable, I would appreciate it. Receptivity to feedback is, without a doubt, a very useful quality for those who possess it and, of course, for managers. These need feedback as much or more than workers, but certainly the formulation must be taken care of, for the sake of effectiveness.
The formulation of feedback
It is not necessary to appear aristarcos when formulating our disagreements on the ideas, the action or the performance of other people, however good the intention, and whether they are hierarchical superiors or subordinates. In the case that concerns us with ascending feedback, we must leave our own initiative for exceptional cases; In this regard, André Maurois said that " criticism of the boss by the subordinate must be an accident, not a habit." But, whether the initiative is our own or if we have been asked for an opinion, I trust that the reader will agree to the following decalogue:
- Make sure that your boss is and is receptive. Limit yourself to the subject of feedback. Evidence that you have the expected respect. Bet on sincerity, subordinating it, if anything, to effectiveness. Be clear and brief in the formulation. as the negative. Express yourself by implying that the reason is not attributed. Facilitate the requested clarifications, but avoid the appearance of discussion. Take advantage of the opportunity to apply all your intelligence. Avoid feeling more important for having been consulted.
There are those who think that these recommendations suggest a somewhat exaggerated distance of dignities, when it comes to feedback directed (without too much formalism) to an immediate and accessible boss; It can be: it depends on the characteristics of each interpersonal relationship. In any case, and although it goes without saying, it must be the boss and not the subordinate who reduces the distance. In companies, cultural changes on the one hand, and the so-called knowledge and innovation economy on the other, are reducing these hierarchical distances, although there are still managers who congratulate themselves on the power that they administer and nurture their ego with it. In some cases, the ego is so well fed that narcissism is incurred, but this is fortunately not the norm.
We are imagining a situation where boss and subordinate are alone; because if it were not so, something could possibly be wrong. A director may call her closest associates to a meeting to assist in decision-making, but should not do so to ask for feedback. If one were to find himself in such a trap - obliged to give his opinion to third parties on the actions of the boss - and indeed had any criticism to make, he would have to gauge the circumstances before opting for political correctness, or doing it for the sincerity. It cannot be generalized, but the fact is that tricky intentions exist, and one sometimes has to use intuition or suspicion to detect them and get out of trouble.
This reflection is also valid, if the reader agrees, in cases where there are no third parties in front. Even in the most normal case of boss authenticity, in formulating bottom-up feedback we must always be careful and respectful when disagreeing.. Due to excessive respect, probably nothing will happen, but, by default, we can lose our predicament even irreversibly: mistakes can be forgotten, but the boss usually remembers disrespect. It should also be noted that we all have a partial and somewhat blurred vision of reality, so we should not strive to possess the truth. Neither should we go through the branches, nor extend ourselves in the intervention; But, if the boss is sincere and receptive when asking us for his opinion, we must be sincere in giving it: the white lie would adulterate the practice.
To insist on the care of the forms, I bring back an experience of mine lived in the 80s: a case of criticism on my own initiative. We were eating four colleagues in a cafeteria near the office, when our boss arrived and we had to make room with us. Immediately he asked me about a work matter, and I, who preferred to deal with it in private, replied that we were eating and it was not the time. More than twenty years later, I think that I was right in the background but not in the way, and that the responsibility of the boss can generate anxiety and neurotic behavior; in fact, our relationship was somewhat stormy and did not last long. I also witnessed, in one of those mass communication events in a large company, how a manager reproached the president for buying a competing company,operation that had not yielded the expected results: "It didn't take a lot of intelligence to realize that…". I was somewhat stunned by those words of the manager before more than a hundred people, although the president replied calmly. Today I know that these operations of buying or selling companies are sometimes orchestrated with the presence of particular spurious interests, and that, although they certainly do not always seem "smart", they can be "interesting"; But, in any case, the intervention of that manager was striking, whether or not it had to do with his departure from the organization a short time later.although the president replied calmly. Today I know that these operations of buying or selling companies are sometimes orchestrated with the presence of particular spurious interests, and that, although they certainly do not always seem "smart", they can be "interesting"; But, in any case, the intervention of that manager was striking, whether or not it had to do with his departure from the organization a short time later.although the president replied calmly. Today I know that these operations of buying or selling companies are sometimes orchestrated with the presence of particular spurious interests, and that, although they certainly do not always seem "smart", they can be "interesting"; But, in any case, the intervention of that manager was striking, whether or not it had to do with his departure from the organization a short time later.
To empathy and other social skills, we must add intuition, prudence and other strengths (perhaps a sense of humor, humility, self-control…) when formulating our criticisms; But let us not forget good judgment and open-mindedness. Surely no one will ask us for an opinion if we lack good judgment and perspective; but in no case should we feel as possessors of the truth, nor should we aspire to have our opinion prevail over that of the boss, because he assumes responsibility. They are truisms, but they also point to mistakes that some of us have occasionally made and that have helped us to learn. In this (possible error) that I am commenting on now, I do not remember ever having incurred, but perhaps it is worth dedicating a few lines to it. This is the favorable feedback (and even the congratulation) formulated spontaneously because,Although everything depends on the circumstances and the forms, it may not be recommended. In opinion, one attributes a capacity that one must be sure of possessing and that is recognized. However favorable our judgment may be, we must be legitimized to formulate it: the boss might think that our opinion is neither relevant nor asked… Yes, there is room, as we said, for well-formulated negative feedback motu proprio, under the assumption to amend a committed mistake, avoid its recurrence, or simply contribute to permanent improvement; But perhaps the best of the best is that we can limit ourselves to the occasions when we are asked to do so.However favorable our judgment may be, we must be legitimized to formulate it: the boss might think that our opinion is neither relevant nor asked… Yes, there is room, as we said, for well-formulated negative feedback motu proprio, under the assumption to amend a committed mistake, avoid its recurrence, or simply contribute to permanent improvement; But perhaps the best of the best is that we can limit ourselves to the occasions when we are asked to do so.However favorable our judgment may be, we must be legitimized to formulate it: the boss might think that our opinion is neither relevant nor asked… Yes, there is room, as we said, for well-formulated negative feedback motu proprio, under the assumption to amend a committed mistake, avoid its recurrence, or simply contribute to permanent improvement; But perhaps the best of the best is that we can limit ourselves to the occasions when we are asked to do so.But perhaps the best of the best is that we can limit ourselves to the occasions when we are asked to do so.But perhaps the best of the best is that we can limit ourselves to the occasions when we are asked to do so.
More experiences
All this has a lot to do with the culture of the organization. Large companies often place a great deal of emphasis on internal communication, although some perhaps more on liturgy than doctrine. I wanted to do a test and, about ten years ago and after reading an interview that had been done, I went by email to the president of my company, a multinational with thousands of employees in Spain. I considered it a daring myself because, although I had greeted him a long time ago, in the image that I had of him at that time, he was a tall and hieratic man, surrounded by bodyguards and separated by a few hierarchical levels. However, I wanted to send you some comments suggested by the reading, in relation to the “emotional activation” (motivation) of the employees. Not two days, not two weeks,but two months later, to my surprise, his secretary called me and said he was turning me over to the president (I remember that I instantly stood up): it was him, indeed, and he was cordial to me. When the scare passed, I decided that I should not discuss it with any colleague; Later I thought it would have been enough for someone to have answered me politely on their behalf and by email. I'm sure I didn't say anything significant in my comments, but the fact that he answered me himself and on the phone seemed initially very positive; Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.His secretary called me and said he was passing me to the President (I remember that I instantly stood up): it was him, indeed, and he was cordial to me. When the scare passed, I decided that I should not discuss it with any colleague; Later I thought it would have been enough for someone to have answered me politely on their behalf and by email. I'm sure I didn't say anything significant in my comments, but the fact that he answered me himself and on the phone seemed initially very positive; Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.His secretary called me and said he was passing me to the President (I remember that I instantly stood up): it was him, indeed, and he was cordial to me. When the scare passed, I decided that I should not discuss it with any colleague; Later I thought it would have been enough for someone to have answered me politely on their behalf and by email. I'm sure I didn't say anything significant in my comments, but the fact that he answered me himself and on the phone seemed initially very positive to me; Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.I decided that I should not discuss it with any colleague; Later I thought it would have been enough for someone to have answered me politely on their behalf and by email. I'm sure I didn't say anything significant in my comments, but the fact that he answered me himself and on the phone seemed initially very positive; Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.I decided that I should not discuss it with any colleague; Later I thought it would have been enough for someone to have answered me politely on their behalf and by email. I'm sure I didn't say anything significant in my comments, but the fact that he answered me himself and on the phone seemed initially very positive; Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.Later I thought that I had left the protocol script and that, after two months, the president had no other choice but to call me and thus show consistency with the official culture.
I also remember another time, a long time ago - the reader will apologize for having had to resort to their own experiences - when a collective communication session was organized so that the Management could comment on the results of a recent survey of people's satisfaction. The truth is that we were not professionally satisfied (less than on previous occasions), and we had some expectation regarding the analysis that managers would make. The intervener ended up shifting the responsibility for the poor results of the survey to the workers, and I remember it (I may be wrong, but I remember it that way) as the greatest display of corporate cynicism that I have attended in my professional career. Although we were asked not to interrupt the intervention with comments or questions,I wanted to send a message of disagreement to the manager and, sitting in the third row, I shook my head repeatedly until I was seen. As he insisted again and again on his reproach to the workers, I did it with my shake of the head; I think the whole room noticed the gesture and that some colleagues joined me. Naturally, I made an enemy and paid for it, but a few years have passed and I still condemn more the cynicism displayed by that young and ambitious manager, than my profile responded back then.I made an enemy and I paid for it, but a few years have passed and I still condemn more the cynicism displayed by that young and ambitious manager, than my profile responded back then.I made an enemy and I paid for it, but a few years have passed and I still condemn more the cynicism displayed by that young and ambitious manager, than my profile responded back then.
Final messages
I trust that some young reader will learn, if necessary, from my mistakes of the past, but above all from his own if there are such. I end this text remembering that respect between hierarchical levels should be mutual. The subordinate must always respect his boss, who bears collective responsibility, but he must also respect his subordinates: in the era of permanent learning and development, there is not so much room for manipulation. And a final allusion about the great pending subject, self-knowledge in all our personal dimensions: with or without feedback, let's make an effort about it. Daniel Goleman alerted us about the self-deception of managers, telling us about a timely study by Robert E. Kaplan.There are certainly managers who do not digest success (perhaps early) and show arrogance, thirst for power, the need to look perfect and other personality disorders, before ending up failing. Obviously, the smartest managers digest their successes and even their failures well, and value good feedback if necessary. Thanks to the reader for your attention and remember: as upward feedback emitters, let's take care of the shapes and hit the bottom.
