Releasing the lion inside: a new paradigm and practice for feedback – Part 2

The environment: two systems

Let’s look at the system first and then turn to the impact of the relationship. We have identified two opposite types of systems that provide a context for feedback.

System 1: the jungle	System 2: the pride
Mistakes are signs of failure, to be avoided if humanly possible	Mistakes are inevitable and a source of learning
Growth happens until you become a leader or senior manager	Continual growth is open to everyone (and necessary)
Good work is met with silence	Achievements are recognised and celebrated
Development is a sign of deficiency and aims to fill gaps	Development is about building on strengths more than gaps or weaknesses
Potential is the gift of a few – the leader’s role is to spot and nurture future stars	Everyone has potential – the leader’s role is to help others achieve it
Creates caution, self-protection, and defensiveness	Creates trust, openness and curiosity

Specific organisations may combine elements of systems 1 and 2. Behaviours and attitudes may vary between specific contexts and between different parts of the organisation. But we observe that the more system 2 is present and experienced, then the more feedback is likely to be received positively, and the converse is true for system 1.

In our experience system 2 is rare; and where it does happen, it does not do so by accident. This is because system 1 predominates in most societies and is rooted in the dominant paradigm of development in which “development area” means “gap”, “weakness” or “deficiency”.

Organisational awareness

It follows from this typology that each organisation that aspires to enable useful feedback needs to know what they have from systems 1 and 2. General awareness of the dominant culture, behaviours, and beliefs can be accessed through myriad organisational development assessment tools. Information about how feedback is experienced in the organisation needs more bespoke exploration, perhaps following an engagement or Happiness at Work survey (here)

One of the products of such a survey should be a deeper awareness of common practices around feedback, sometimes distilled into familiar ‘rules’ about feedback. One contentious example is whether those receiving feedback should simply accept it and just say “thank you”. In our view, this is unhealthy and assumes that the feedback offered will be high quality. Firstly, as we argue below, a key part of the process of assimilating feedback is for the receiver to understand its meaning for them. Discussion and exploration with the giver can support that. Secondly, just saying “thank you” only works when the feedback is well-intentioned, well-observed and well-articulated. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Exploration can help the giver refine what they wish to convey and make it more meaningful and actionable. Entering dialogue around feedback is not the same as resisting it and, in our view, should be encouraged.

To generate a positive context for feedback, members of the organisation also need to be aware of any biases in feedback practices. General societal images and assumptions about gender, age, disability, ethnicity, sexuality, and identity can skew feedback practices and norms.

If an organisation is serious about diversity and inclusion, it needs to be vigilant about how invisible norms and prejudices might affect the practice of feedback.

Recent research by Kieran Snyder and Aileen Lee (here) bears this out. They found that women and people of colour are significantly more likely to receive non-actionable feedback or feedback on their personality and are therefore less likely to receive specific, actionable feedback that points to opportunities to grow and progress.

If you would like to find out more, follow on to Part 3.