When psychologist Naomi Winstone, PhD, started delving into research about constructive feedback, she found an abundance of literature on how to have these conversations but little on whether the recommended strategies were working. In response, Winstone, director of the University of Surrey’s Institute of Education in the United Kingdom, started investigating the effectiveness of different types of feedback and was surprised by what she found. In multiple experiments, Winstone found that people were far more likely to recall evaluative feedback—feedback about something they have already completed—than feedback on how they could improve on a future task, also known as directive feedback (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 44, No. 12, 2018). For Winstone, the findings were somewhat puzzling because in recent years, studies in education have shown that students prefer directive feedback because it motivates them to improve their grades.
(original article https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/10/career-constructive-criticism?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=apa-monitor-workplace&utm_content=constructive-criticism) “Our results demonstrate how little we know about what happens after feedback is given,” she said. “We should not assume people know how to use the information to improve, and my goal is to help people develop skills to leverage this input more effectively.” Winstone and other psychologists at the forefront of feedback research are discovering that the skills needed for both delivering and receiving constructive criticism are not always intuitive, and investigators are starting to understand how to increase the odds that these interactions will help students, employees, researchers, and leaders be successful. For psychologists, the latest findings can inform how they provide feedback in their roles as graduate student advisers, clinical supervisors, journal editors, lab directors, and managers. Work environment mattersWinstone believes that one of the critical, yet often neglected, elements needed in conversations is time spent teaching people how to use the feedback they receive. Rather than assuming her students will remember comments about how to improve their work, she encourages them to keep a record of feedback. She recently developed an online tool called FEATS (Feedback Engagement and Tracking System) that helps students log the feedback they receive, categorize their strengths and weaknesses, and identify a plan for improvement. Industrial and organizational (I/O) psychologist Lisa Steelman, PhD, has found that the work environment is another key factor that influences whether people use the feedback they get. At the most recent annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, she presented results of a study in which senior and middle managers received 360-degree feedback from peers and subordinates before participating in a 5-day leadership development program focused on performance improvement. The participants also rated how supportive their work environments were for feedback in areas such as credibility of supervisors, quality of ongoing feedback, levels of empathy when feedback was delivered, and accessibility of leaders for regular check-ins. Then the managers returned to their workplaces to use their newly learned skills. “We found that leaders in a supportive environment for feedback had much better performance improvement over time than those in the unsupportive feedback environment,” said Steelman, a professor of I/O psychology at the Florida Institute of Technology. “This shows that feedback does not happen in a vacuum, and we need to set the stage by creating a growth-oriented environment.” One of the ways she has created a supportive environment is by making herself more accessible to her students. “When students see me walking quickly in the hallways as I rush to class, they assume I am not available,” she said. “I noticed that they would approach me with comments like, ‘I’m sorry to bother you.’ I’ve intentionally started walking more slowly, and I check in with them proactively to see how they are doing. I may not deliver feedback during these informal interactions, but this sets the stage for later feedback by promoting an environment that supports coaching and mentoring.” Similarly, New York University’s Jay Van Bavel, PhD, has fostered a feedback culture in his Social Identity and Morality Lab by modeling the importance of intellectual humility. He shares his draft papers with students in the lab and invites an open discussion where they can offer feedback. “I’m in a position of power, and it’s important for my students to see that I am open to receiving criticism,” said Van Bavel, an associate professor of psychology and neural science. Everyone working in the lab also shares their papers. “It’s not really about one senior person giving feedback, because everyone has a turn giving and receiving comments,” he said. Winstone also emphasizes to students that receiving a critique of their work is just the beginning of the process, not the end. “There is often a power dynamic in which the professor or manager is seen as the gatekeeper and thus the feedback should not be questioned,” she said. “But I urge my students to respond to my input and explain why they wrote something in a certain way, because I may have misunderstood or been biased.” The role of empathyResearchers have also been questioning feedback strategies focused on using a specific sequence of positive versus constructive comments, such as the “feedback sandwich” in which the person giving feedback offers a praise statement before and after constructive criticism. One recent study compared three different forms of feedback given to people who were learning how to work with children with intellectual disabilities: the feedback sandwich, three constructive comments followed by three praise comments, and in-the-moment feedback that was constructive or praising (Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 41, No. 1, 2021). The participants watched a training video, implemented what they learned in a role-playing exercise, and received feedback on their performance in one of the three ways. Then they role-played and received feedback two more times. The researchers rated the performance of the participants in 10 areas, and all three feedback groups performed equally well. “This suggests that the order of praise and constructive statements may not matter in the context of teaching a new skill,” said study author Summer Bottini, PhD, BCBA-D, a postdoctoral psychology resident at the Marcus Autism Center in Atlanta. In a follow-up survey, the participants also rated their preferences when receiving feedback, and the responses showed that they cared more about the interpersonal abilities of the person giving the feedback than the delivery method. “People want input from someone who is genuine, engaging, kind, and clear,” said Bottini. Although soft skills are valuable when building rapport and trust, leaders who embody these traits are often more likely to feel reluctant to offer constructive criticism because they place a premium on relationships, and delivering negative feedback conflicts with that goal, said I/O psychologist Christopher Rosen, PhD, a professor in the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas who studies the use of feedback in leadership roles. “Most people agree that constructive criticism is important for learning, but leaders higher in empathy are more at risk of avoiding these conversations and may even be more likely to inflate performance ratings,” he said. To better understand why certain leaders are averse to giving constructive criticism, Rosen and his colleagues conducted several studies, and they found that people who are high in empathy reported increased levels of distress and lower attentiveness while working after providing negative feedback to subordinates. They were also less productive at work after these conversations because they then struggled with executive functioning and problem-solving tasks. Conversely, managers low in empathy reported feeling more attentive and less distressed after delivering negative feedback (Journal of Applied Psychology, in press). “We found that the experience hijacks them emotionally and cognitively, and it impairs their performance,” Rosen said. Leaders high in empathy can offset the psychological costs by taking breaks after providing constructive criticism, he said. Rosen, who believes he is high in empathy, tries to avoid scheduling these conversations before important deadlines or presentations. He also strives to offer feedback to graduate students frequently so the experience feels less intimidating and is a familiar part of the growth process. Consistency is keyAlthough constructive criticism is vital for people who want to improve performance, psychologist Cydney Dupree, PhD, an assistant professor of organizational behavior in Yale University’s School of Management, recently found another reason people may be tempted to avoid these important conversations. In a recent study, she discovered that people who identify as White and liberal tended to present themselves as less competent when they interacted with non-White people, while White conservatives presented equal competence when they interacted with White versus Black people. In a series of experiments, she found that White liberals used fewer words related to competence, such as “competitive” or “assertive,” when talking with a Black person or mostly Black audience than when talking with a White person or mostly White audience (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 117, No. 3, 2019). “This is likely a well-intentioned, yet patronizing, attempt to connect with racial minorities by distancing themselves from stereotypes that depict White Americans as dominant,” she said. “Ironically, they are aligning with stereotypes that depict minorities as incompetent.” The findings relate to delivering feedback because leaders unknowingly influenced by this desire to connect with people of color may unintentionally avoid giving negative feedback, or they might patronize researchers of color by trying to appear less competent themselves. To avoid these pitfalls, Dupree suggests that managers, advisers, and mentors create a standardized list of specific topics to provide feedback on and to schedule sessions regularly. “Avoid skipping topics, and update the list regularly, being sure to focus on relevancy to the job,” she said. Increasing the quality and frequency of feedback is also a goal for Carol Falender, PhD, who has worked as a training director of APA-accredited internships for more than 20 years. One of the most common errors she sees among supervisors is a failure to provide frequent feedback. “They may fear that feedback will strain or rupture the relationship,” said Falender, an adjunct professor at Pepperdine University and a clinical professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “But the consequence is that supervisees don’t have an opportunity to respond to or learn from this input, and they often feel blindsided when they eventually receive evaluation.” Falender teaches clinical supervisors to incorporate feedback into each supervision session, ideally linking comments to direct observation of patient sessions. For example, a supervisor could observe that the supervisee changed the subject when a patient became angry. “Then the supervisee can reflect or clarify the reasons for their behavior, and this leads to a collaborative discussion,” she said. Feedback from afarSubmitting papers to journals is another aspect of psychologists’ work that involves critique, and the protocol for providing feedback can vary widely between editors. Although most researchers agree that rejection is part of the territory, the way editors communicate feedback can significantly influence the experience and possibly the career trajectory of an author. “It’s painful to have a paper rejected, but it’s even more difficult when the feedback is brief, with words like ‘the paper wasn’t a good fit,’” said Thalia Goldstein, PhD, editor of Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. “A more detailed explanation can help authors improve their work or take the paper to another journal.” Although it takes time to flesh out a critique, Goldstein, an assistant professor of applied developmental psychology at George Mason University, simplifies the process by using a template that starts with an introduction about how the paper was reviewed and the reason for the rejection. The next section includes a more detailed explanation of questions or concerns from reviewers, and she always includes comments about the paper’s strengths. “Every paper has positives and negatives,” she said. “The goal is to help the field of psychology, so I try to give some sense of encouragement.” Like Goldstein, Robin Codding, PhD, editor of School Psychology, uses a template to guide all of her feedback on journal submissions. In a rejection letter, she often recommends other journals that might be a better match for the paper. “I always recognize the work the authors have done and express my appreciation for their effort,” said Codding, an associate professor in the Department of Applied Psychology at Northeastern University. Researchers also frequently receive feedback about their work on social media, but etiquette online can be unpredictable, said Goldstein. “I’m active on Twitter, and I enjoy seeing research that would not otherwise cross my desk,” she explained. “But it can be a risky environment to exchange feedback because negative comments can go viral.” For Van Bavel, this reality overtly contradicts the feedback culture he is trying to encourage in his lab. “It is crucial for scientists to be open to critical feedback, but the social media environment makes this difficult when moral outrage is often encouraged because it generates more attention,” he said. When he disagrees with research findings posted on social media, Van Bavel is careful to explain why he disagrees and link his opinion to supporting evidence. He also avoids tagging people when he offers criticism to reduce the chances of igniting a negative-feedback firestorm. “When people feel threatened, they become more closed-minded,” said Van Bavel, who studies social threat and belongingness. “Both in person and online, we should criticize with kindness. Rather than attacking people as individuals, we need to focus on behavior that can be changed.”
0 Comments
Highly successful people master these 3 skills, say bestselling authors BrenĂ© Brown and Simon Sinek7/10/2023 The skills that can make you highly successful aren’t necessarily innate. You can practice them, and get better at them. That’s according to bestselling authors and leadership researchers Brené Brown and Simon Sinek, who sat down with Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant for a recent episode of his “ReThinking” podcast. “They’re skills that are observable, measurable, teachable — we can practice them,” Brown said. Specifically, Sinek and Brown highlighted three soft skills that highly successful people tend to share:
Here’s how to practice them as comfortably as you can, according to Brown and Sinek. Public speakingPublic speaking can help boost your confidence levels and leadership skills, according to Stanford University Graduate School of Business organizational behavior lecturer Matt Abrahams, who referenced a corporate study of more than 100,000 professional presentations in a 2016 university blog post. But it’s one of the most anxiety-inducing workplace skills of them all: 15% to 30% of people actively fear it, found a 2016 study published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education. Even for Sinek, who’s delivered multiple TED Talks, public speaking and communicating effectively with others can be hard. His solution is more physical than mental, he said. “There’s a physiological connection between our hands and how fast we talk,” said Sinek. “I talk very fast and I move my hands a lot. If I’m with other people that speak fast and move their hands, it’s all good ... If I’m in a meeting with somebody who is slower, they think before they speak, what I’ve learned to do is to interlock my fingers and to hold my hands still.” Holding his hands closed helps him speak more slowly without devoting too much focus to it, allowing him to instead pay more attention to the conversation, he said. “This wonderful physiological connection has really helped me be heard and understood by people who think [differently] than I do,” Sinek said. Boundary settingWhen you’re engaged at work, your work often turns out better. But it’s hard to be enthusiastic about any given project when you’re dealing with life’s stressors, and even harder when other people are constantly confiding in you about theirs. Empathy is an important soft skill in the workplace, but “you can’t give what you don’t have,” Brown said. “You’ve got to set boundaries, and you’ve got to model boundaries,” she said. “I would dig into ... why are you taking care of other folks’ s---? Is that where you think you have value?” The first step to setting boundaries, especially when you’re trying to protect your mental health: Figuring out what you need or want to get from any given conversation, New York-based psychologist Shaakira Haywood Stewart told CNBC Make It in 2021. Then, tell your colleagues what you are and aren’t willing to work on, and offer solutions for any potential problems that might arise from your boundary-setting. “It’s hard to not respect someone who’s coming with information, suggestions and not complaining,” added Debra Kissen, the clinical director of Chicago-based cognitive behavioral therapy treatment center Light on Anxiety. VulnerabilityA lot of Brown’s research centers around the concept of showcasing vulnerability in the workplace. It pushes you to “show up and put yourself out there to be all in, when you don’t have any control over how it’s going to go,” she told NBC’s “Today Show” in 2019. To her, that doesn’t mean dishing your personal business to managers or colleagues. Rather, it means being transparent about circumstances that may hinder your performance or morale. Maybe you don’t know how to use a new piece of software, or you’re dealing with a family issue that’s distracting you. Be forthcoming about these situations, Brown recommends. “It takes a tremendous amount of courage” to open up when things are hard, she said on Grant’s podcast — but doing so is a sign of strength, not weakness. “You can say, “I’m really struggling right now. I’ve got some stuff going on and it’s hard, and I wanted y’all to know,” Brown told the TED podcast WorkLife in 2021. “And I want you to know what support looks like for me is that I’ll check in with you if I need something or I may take some time off.” Correction: This story has been updated to reflect that a 2016 study on fear of public speaking was published in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education. Disclosure: NBC and CNBC are divisions of NBCUniversal. The SCADamp team made it on the news again! This time NBC news in Georgia.
SCADamp, an innovative program in Georgia, assists students, staff and alumni in improving their networking and communication skills. NBC News' Maya Eaglin talks to students and teachers in the program about how it effectively helps students get their first job. Watch Now! https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/innovative-program-scadamp-helps-gen-z-nail-big-career-moments-186587717531 |