Like through East Africa, here in the Nairobi central business district, offices usually come with managers who are faced with the dilemma of giving feedback to the subordinates.
Colleagues see regional marketing manager Moraa speaking to her team each Tuesday morning giving formal advice. She uses positive reinforcement in calm language, acknowledging recent project success, and praising specific behaviour.
Group members value her clarity, which maintains the respect and development culture of the organisation. Moraa encourages workers to ask questions, reflect on their job, and look for areas of improvement.
On the other hand, Nyabuto, who also serves as a department head in the same firm, tends to offer criticism that frequently triggers defensive reactions.
His team members recall instances where Nyabuto publicly criticised people in front of others, questioning their professionalism.
Workers feel shock and annoyance, and therefore there give back minimal communication and display lower levels of motivation to improve themselves or the department. Nyabuto’s approach with blunt remarks and not a lot of empathy drowns out the reason for the criticism. Inasmuch, it generates fear instead of a positive motivation for change.
Most organisational development professionals cite a series of studies that indicate the complexities and negativities of providing professional feedback.
But in contrast, authors Craig Chappelow and Cindy McCauley cite other viewpoints, which contend that managers generally learn little from weakness or deficiency detection. Positive criticism stifles learning and development, say some academics, whereas strength-based professionals foster a focus on what workers can do instead of what they are doing wrongly.
Various researchers acknowledge both styles that managers utilise are interested in enhancing performance, but the two have differing opinions regarding how to assist leadership.
Chappelow and McCauley emphasize that bad news need not be delivered with care and consideration. Interestingly, they stipulate that providing positive feedback first actually minimises an employee’s fight-or-flight response.
They suggest employing a method known as “Situation-Behaviour-Impact” (SBI), which states the situation the needs to be addressed, describes what was observed by the manager or those who reported the situation to the manager, and then cites the effect of the behaviour is having on a team or the organisation as a whole.
They describe how one interruption of a staff meeting can cause disappointment, fear, and reluctance to share opinions, all stated politely but can be improved simply by stating the feedback in the SBI model.
Managers and supervisors across Kenya can employ SBI by clearly separating statements of observation from interpretive comments.
Specific mention of project deadline or meeting time followed by objective description of action observed fosters trust that the employee has in their manager. Receivers of feedback acknowledge reference to events spoken of on fact, and that requires reflection rather than resisting it.
Events inciting negative observation still need empathy. Manager’s tone of emotion through comforting words with encouragement is not a sign of criticism but of cooperation. Such a dynamic eases the path to improvement.
Kenyan corporate culture often incorporates many of these techniques naturally and gives an edge to our Kenyan businesses as we compete globally.
Staff benefit by opening their minds when receiving feedback. Blind spots that characterise a person may be unknown to them, but others point them out. External feedback is thus soft on areas one must improve.
Staff who become aware that they are not being given much in terms of genuine supervisory guidance can ask for check-ins or even informal performance reviews in order to receive more thorough feedback. Peers also can give valuable comments, particularly when people are working on projects.
Accepting constructive criticisms without defensiveness makes for quicker development and adaptation even if managers do not constantly providing feedback.
In summary, long-term sustainability of leadership typically relies on open managerially discourse exhibiting both an employee’s strength and weakness.
The above research suggests that managers risk getting derailed if they do not address weaknesses, and their study offers a model for constructive, balanced observation. Kenyan experts in their professions can gain even more from constructive dialogue when it is given with empathy, precision, and accuracy.
Widespread use of mechanisms for feedback using respect and detail strengthens individuals and organisations enhance performance.
Results then would include better staff retention, improved motivation, and increased performance if businesses learn of the power of more effective feedback as an improvement tool.
Have a management or leadership issue, question, or challenge? Reach out to Dr. Scott through @ScottProfessor on Twitter or on email [email protected]
