This is not the first time I have written about Daniel Pink. He writes about motivation and therefore about giving feedback.
Pink’s book “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” gives strong evidence that once employees receive sufficient compensation to be reasonably comfortable in their lives, more money is only relevant for those who see high salary as a way to score success. Most people actually become less productive when the money they get continues to increase.
Instead he says that three things strongly motivate most of us: autonomy, mastery and purpose.
As each person and situation is different, it is the responsibility of the leader to understand what motivators are most important to each employee and recognize that these may change as the life situation of the employee changes. For example, a person who just enters the workforce and is being paid a starting salary may well have a strong motivation to achieve more financial independence and thus will respond to materials rewards. This may even intensify if the person starts a family and has additional costs for larger housing, a car, etc. But at some point in time it may be that an employee will look to be motivated to contribute to the improvement of society through the driver of search for meaning.
Returning to the individual feedback intervention, we should remember that feedback – including criticism – should not do serious harm to the relationship between leader and employee. When the relationship is harmed, trust is eroded and over time an adversarial relationship develops. Therefore, praise should be given in a public setting whenever possible and criticism reserved for private settings.
Since every work project has some positive aspects, a good strategy for those private sessions is to use the sandwich technique. Start by speaking about something positive regarding the matter under discussion. Then carefully explain what you dislike, making sure to follow the guideline of “soft on the person, hard on the problem”. Say things like “The presentation wasn’t good because…”, rather than “you weren’t good”. And make sure to end on a positive note. Here is a simple example:
“I would like to speak with you about the report you submitted. I really liked your inclusion of quotes from customers to underscore the high acceptance rate we have been seeing in the market. But I think you also need to incorporate the statistical research we have done. I would like to see hard numbers along with the qualitative feedback. I know you have that data and it shouldn’t take much time to plug them into the appropriate places. Then you will have a very powerful report.”
In that example you not only see the sandwich technique but also what leadership guru Ken Blanchard ("Whale Done - The Power of Positive Relationships”) calls redirection. Don’t just say that something was bad. Lead the person to things they can do to improve it.
Keep in mind that some cultures appreciate directness while others prefer a softer approach which protects the individual self-esteem. As with so many intercultural matters, it is best to match the style with the expectation of the person receiving the message.
One more area that can be problematic in intercultural settings is the degree of hyperbole that one uses. One person might say that a presentation was outstanding while the other might describe it is not bad. And ironically they may both feel the same about that presentation. Americans are well known for their use of hyperbolic language. Give an American a rating scale of 1 to 10 and don’t be surprised if he or she writes in 11! On the other hand, Germans, especially German engineers, are notorious for refusing to give anything the highest available ranking because nothing is perfect. One of my German clients uses a rating system with four options: good, pretty good, pretty bad, bad. It was quite a shock to me when I received my first ratings in that system and found that the predominant selection was “pretty good”.
Once again, it is the responsibility of the leader to find the right words to convey what he or she intends. In communication theory, it is said that meaning is in people, not in the words themselves. Each of us carries a unique dictionary in our heads which gives connotative meaning to words based upon our personal experiences as well as our shared (cultural) experiences. The colors red, white and blue each have different meanings in different cultures. And a dog may be man’s best friend or a scary threat, depending on you past experiences.
Herb