This article will discuss how a leader can use simple coaching tools to lessen the risk of meeting defensiveness when delivering behavioral feedback to other leaders. Creating a culture of feedback is synonymous with building a high performance organization. Yet, delivering feedback remains problematic. We lack the tools to do this well. Standard feedback instruments rely too much on a telling style. My view is the answer lies in integrating coaching and feedback. I am suggesting a model based upon Questioning-Sensing-Observation-Suggestion.
Defensiveness
None of us really like receiving feedback, even though we often say it's a gift. In fact, as humans we have quite sophisticated defenses to guard us against harmful feedback. We all carry around with us a self image of who we are. Mostly, this is favorable. And this is probably a good thing. This allows us to feel good about ourselves for most of the time. So getting information from others that forces us to confront reality, rather than reinforcing the mental image we have of ourselves can be disconcerting.
Even positive feedback can fall short of our emotional needs: "You're one of the best people on the team" can land as "...so there are others better than me?". Achievement driven people are particularly prone to be hard on themselves when receiving feedback. They tend to dwell too much on "negative" feedback which points out the gap between the reality and their expectations of themselves.
D3: Deny, Deflect, Diminish
To defend ourselves from reality, we have an integrated defense mechanism that I call D3: Denial, Deflect; Diminish. For instance, when receiving 360° feedback we can simply deny the data is valid: "The competency model does not apply to me!". We can deflect the feedback: "Yeh, you know I was expecting this. This data comes from these guys Jeff hired. They just won't change." We can diminish it's importance: "Look, I know this HR-thing, report, whatever, makes me look bad, but I have to manage in the real world to get results. That's what counts!".
In fact, the examples above are quite obvious examples of defensiveness. Our D3 games can be even more sophisticated. I sometimes meet the High Agreer, who very quickly agrees with the data and then rushes on to identify a comforting solution, all to avoid confronting and reflecting on data that deep seated facets of their personality. There is the Confessor: "Oh my god! I'm so awful. How can I do this to people (head in hands)". By falling on their sword and becoming a victim, they similarly hope to avoid any reasoned discussion about what the data means and try to head off the possibility of agreeing a rationale personal change strategy.
Rather than receiving the feedback as information that might help us perform better, we interpret it through a mental prism: Our mindset.
Feedback to Leaders
So, into this mix the leader steps with the duty to deliver information that the other person doesn't want to hear. Even in highly measurable and well defined junior to middle management jobs this is tough. But, it gets even tougher at leadership levels. Here, the ambiguity, inter-connectedness of everything gives people plenty of scope to play games: For instance, "I'm taking the fall for the fact the company has no strategy" is a common deflective response used by leaders.
Current Models: Situation- Behavior - Impact
My view is that we are poorly equipped at leadership levels to address this. The Center for Creative Leadership developed their Situation - Behavior - Impact1 model to provide leaders with an analytical tool for delivering feedback to subordinates. A Leader coach first describes the situation that took place - what they saw. Next they describe the behavior the feedback receiver appeared to be using. Finally, they describe the impact this behavior had. So, "In the meeting yesterday, I saw you interrupt in the middle of Mary's presentation several times. I noticed this caused her to become annoyed. I could see it in her face".
The CCL model is something of a workhorse in the leadership development industry and has it's place. It is designed around the assumption of objectivity. However, my view is that it is too based upon a Tell position from the leader coach to their subordinate. I believe an alternative model is needed at senior levels in an organization. At this level, the hierarchy no longer supports a Tell positioning around feedback. In fact, if one leader is telling another using the S-B-I model, it is likely to trigger defensiveness no matter how correct the observations happened to be.
How WE trigger defensiveness in others
So often we describe people as being defensive unaware of how our own behavior and actions might have contributed to this. Listen around you in the office and try to notice how often we phrase feedback in either the accusative form: "You kept interrupting Mary's presentation yesterday"; or the coercive form: "You really need to listen more...". And, we often lapse into negative and implication laden questioning:"Why don't you listen more?". All of these interventions are likely to stimulate a person's defense mechanism as we inadvertently call into question their competence or independence.
We get even further stuck when we tried to prove that our feedback is "right". Feedback sessions can often become Attack/Defense sessions in which two highly achievement driven individuals try to win the outcome. We try to get the other person to "accept" the feedback i.e. admit they were wrong. Conflict can often ensue.
Feedback in once-per-year Attack / Defense Mode
One of my most common observations in which as an external coach is how many organizations lack a culture of feedback, where feedback can be freely given and easily received. Because feedback is so often conducted in the Attack/Defense mode, delivering feedback is often avoided by leaders until the mandatory once-a-year feedback form-filling session dictated by HR, and dreaded by most of those involved.
Towards A New Model: Questioning - Sensing - Observation - Suggestion.
At the leadership level, I urge clients to use more of a coaching approach to the deliver of feedback. It's not perfect, but experience and feedback to me from clients is that it does lessen defensiveness. I have formulated a simple process for doing this: Questioning - Sensing -Observation - Suggestion. The key point here is that rather than a Tell position, the alternative I'm suggesting is based more on questioning.
Questioning
A step so often missed but crucial to the feedback process is asking if you may deliver feedback to the other person. In a hierarchical setting the manager just presume he or she can. Yet, on a leader-to-leader basis or at senior levels the delivery feedback without permission will risk triggering D3 right away.
Once permission is granted, often asking a simple neutral question can prompt reflectiveness in the other leader: "What do you think about Mary's presentation yesterday?". "Fine. But I think I interrupted too much". By doing it this way you can save hours of argument and open up a coaching opportunity.
Even if you don't get it so easy, questioning allows you to fully understand the mindset of the other person, and you get information on what they were trying to do: " Fine, I just hope she took my comments on board, that's all"; or "You know, I've told her about these things before and I was just so frustrated to hear it coming again". You may pick up openings from this, such as frustration and explore these feelings more.
And, important early warnings can be revealed about their D3 mechanisms. "Oh yeh, I always like winding Mary up, don't you?" (diminishing defense).
Sensing
As soon as we start asking questions, we begin picking up vital sensory information.
We listen for the content and context of the information from the feedback receiver. We listen for what is being said, and what is not being said. We listen for how it is being said, in terms of key words, imagery and phrases. We notice what we say has an impact on their verbal and non-verbal responses.
We observe their body language and the extent to which it is relaxed and open. We notice how as we change our posture, we prompt a change in theirs.
Through our touch and body posture we can create rapport with the other person. Double handed handshakes, hand on shoulders, hand gestures, and sitting/standing location vis-a-vis the other person (i.e. I understand 65° is supposed to work best, but I'm checking on that), can all help build the trust needed to deliver feedback.
Being aware of our own "umming" and "aarring" as the other person speaks. What is this doing? Is it making the person more relaxed or more defensive?
I'm not sure how we might use our sense of smell, but perhaps in some subtle way we do pick up subtle changes in scent.
The key point here is that we need to be fully aware and in-the-moment and not too caught up with our own thinking process. By being aware of what is going on within ourselves and between us we can provide learn vital intelligence about their mindset and behavior and ours.
For instance, do they interrupt you while you're talking? What impact does this have on you? What does this suggest about a pattern of behavior and the impact on their other relationships?
Observation
Stating your observations simply and neutrally can itself overcome defensiveness. "I noticed you intervened a lot during Mary's presentation yesterday. She might have seen that as an interruption. What do you think?" (cycle back to question).
There are several key points about Observation:
State the observation from yourself, rather than refer to the third person (We, the strategy, the report, etc). This is counter to a lot of the Biz-speak books that say we should use We all the time. "I" speaks from a sense of openness. The more directly personal you can make the connection the less D3 you are likely to incur.
Express your observations in the language of perception - which is all the statements can be: "I saw...; I felt that...; I noticed...; My view of what happened is that....". This suggests that we can never be sure. We can modify our position if new information comes from the other person and we are less likely to appear judgmental.
Observations can be feelings, also. "I'm concerned that your interruptions may have left Mary feeling annoyed."
By talking from the self, you are less likely to be contradicted. It is illogical to say "no you didn't feel or perceive that". The language of perception is unfamiliar in the hard thinking fact-based business world and for this reason it can signal that this is a different type of conversation.
Once you have shared your can loop back to Sensing: "I'm sensing you're finding hearing this feedback difficult. How are we doing here?".
Suggestion
When the feedback receiver is ready to listen, it is often helpful to make a suggestion about what they can do differently in future: "What I suggest for next time is that you wait until a natural pause in the flow of the presentation before speaking up". A suggestion should be relevant to your observations and actionable in behavioral terms: "I suggest you change your attitude" is not really a suggestion at all but an implied accusation.
One of the most effective suggestions is to disengage the feedback session with the simple "I suggest you just think this over and decide what you want to do". We do not need to win an argument. Our purpose in delivering feedback is to stimulate the other person to think about their behavior. This does not have to happen in the moment. Sometimes, leaving the person to mull it over is the most effective thing. It is their decision how to act. By leaving them accountable you are far less likely to trigger the defensiveness than for example: "So, you commit to doing things differently next time, right?". Remember, sullen compliance is merely a sophisticated deflection strategy on the part of the feedback receiver.
Be there for the person. A suggestion such as "I can watch out in the next presentation and give you feedback afterwards, if you'd find that helpful", can make the person feel supported.
Behavioral Feedback
The real focus of this approach is to concentrate on behavior. This is what we can observe and it is what the other person can change. However, behavior does not exist in isolation from either the mindset that shapes behavior nor the results that flow from it. So, if we have expertly conducted ourselves as above, and yet we still meet defensiveness and that this defensiveness seems to be a recurring pattern in the other person, we may want to state our observation, with a question attached: "I've noticed that you often seem to react defensively when receiving feedback from me. For instance, I hear you say things that seem to deflect the issue on to someone else (behavior). How are you feel when you receive feedback?". Or alternatively, "How valuable do you think this feedback is?", (mindset, searching for thoughts and feelings ).
Another way into deeper feedback conversation is by looking at the results from the behavior. "What do you think the impact of yesterday's presentation will be on your relationship with Mary?". By looking nat feedback from the perspective of outcomes you can help the feedback receiver become more reflective. And, the more you can encourage them to do the reflection, the better.
Coaching and Feedback
I am really suggesting that feedback is best delivered in a coach-lite mode. Asking deep coaching questions ("How does this fit into your life plan?") does not exactly help when the feedback receiver is absorbing uncomfortable and disconcerting information. At the same time, being too telling or instructing will choke off the other persons capacity to listen. My suggestion on this is for the feedback provider to stick to What & How questions, alternating with I/My statements while focusing on perception and observation.
Conclusion
I realize that this approach will contradict much of the literature on feedback which states that we need to be objective. The assumption of objectivity and being fact-based is the very reason we get into such a mess over feedback. If we approach feedback with the mindset that we are doing no more than sharing our perception and impressions and starting a dialogue about this, we are far more likely to encourage reflection in the feedback receiver.
©Andrew Atter
