For instance, Argyris and Schön observe that we often “ease-in” when offering feedback that we don’t think the recipient will like. We don’t directly deliver the feedback but instead cover it over with false praise (“this was a wonderful statement, filled with great insights, however . . . ) or hesitant qualification (“I might be mistaken, but I think you did something . . .”). The recipient of our feedback is likely to assume that we are holding back because what we have to say is quite harmful. They become defensive. We offer even more false praise or even more qualifications and defensiveness further increases. A “vicious circle” of increasing mistrust is created.
If Chris Argyris or Don Schön were to enter the picture at this point, they might suggest that we test out an alternative scenario, where we believe Susan when she indicates that she is looking forward to our feedback. They would challenge us to review and potentially revise our psychosocial template regarding how people in general react to negative feedback and how Susan, in particular, would react to what we would like to tell her.
First, Argyris or Schön might ask why we are giving Susan this feedback in the first place, if we anticipate that she will just get defensive and angry. They might bring up a comment they have often made in their books: Just because we get a bit defensive when receiving negative feedback does not mean that we are not open to learning from this feedback. It is always difficult to hear “bad news”; however, these are the occasions when we can learn most about our behavior and how we can do a better job in the future. Engaging our polystatic perspective, the message might be: “Our anticipation regarding Susan’s ‘real’ interests in our feedback might be inaccurate; perhaps we need to consider an alternative anticipation”.
Either Chris Argyris or Don Schön might also suggest that we are setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy if we set ourselves up to respond by “easing in” when anticipating Susan’s defensiveness. Our tentative presentation of the feedback could make Susan increasingly uneasy about what we have to say, which leads to us being even more tentative and Susan being even more defensive. It gets even more complicated and destructive. The vicious cycle becomes “self-sealed.” If Susan is very defensive, then we certainly can’t tell her that we think she is defensive. Susan, in turn, can’t let us know that she thinks our feedback is being delivered ineffectively or that she thinks we are holding back the “really bad news”. Nothing of real importance can be shared. The situation turns increasingly “ugly.” Both parties are holding on to anticipations that lead to future avoidance. We have decided to avoid Susan at all costs in the future, given her defensiveness. Susan is similarly determined to avoid future interactions with me and certainly will never request my feedback in the future.
We could turn the self-fulfilling prophecy on its head by beginning with the assumption (anticipation) that Susan is open to our feedback. Our willingness to share what we have to say without “softening it” might convey to Susan that our feedback is not intended to be harmful and is really not that “bad’ and, even more importantly, that we trust (anticipate) Susan’s strength and commitment to ongoing improvement. We anticipate openness and success, which leads to actual openness (on Susan’s part) and success (our delivery of helpful feedback), which leads to further openness and success resulting from this interaction (and others in the future).
Argyris and Schön might offer one other suggestion. At some point, we might want to share our assumptions and anticipations with Susan. We would engage in what is sometimes called “meta-communication” (Bateson, 1972; Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson, 1967), where we talk about what we have just been talking about. With Susan, we reflect on our own concern about how she might take our feedback. Susan could then reflect on how she really felt when we offered to provide her with feedback and indicate what she has done with the feedback that was provided. Both parties learn from this process of meta-communication. While a modicum of trust must be established between the two parties before this powerful process can be engaged, it ultimately can be a source of important shared insight. Joint reflective practice has been engaged. Action science is in full operation.
Download Article
