C Academy of Management Executive. 200s, Vol. 19. No.

Actionable feedback: Unlocking

the power of learning and
perforlllance illlprovernent

Mark D. Cannon and Robert Witherspoon

Executive Overview
Delivering critical feedback can be brutal for everyone involved. Most managers hate
giving critical feedback, and most employees detest receiving it. In addition, critical
feedback often fails to produce the desired results. We describe how cognitive and
emotional dynamics-how we think and feel while giving and receiving feedback-can
complicate this process, making it more painful and less useful than it should be. These
dynamics often interfere with the ability of recipients to process and respond
constructively to feedback. They also interfere with the ability of feedback givers to
formulate and deliver feedback that is high quality and does not produce defensiveness.
Further complicating matters, both feedback givers and receivers have a difficult time
recognizing how their own cognitive and emotional dynamics are hindering their
effectiveness in the feedback process. We illustrate how these dynamics hamper the
feedback giving and receiving process and how understanding them can help managers
produce more actionable feedback on performance (feedback that leads to learning and
appropriate results).

Critical Feedback learning and tangible, appropriate results. such as

increasing effectiveness and improving perfor-
It's no §lecret that most people dislike giving criti-
mance on the job. When we say "managers," we
cal feedback. l To compound the problem, delivery
are referring mainly to an employee's direct boss,
of critical feedback frequently fails to lead to a but also to other key parties (including one's other
desirable change in the recipient's behavior. 2 In superiors, peers, and subordinates) who may pro-
addition. recipients of critical feedback sometimes vide support and feedback to that employee over
retain hostile feelings towards the givers for years time.
after the fact and may even lash out at them. 3
Nonetheless, because assimilation of accurate
feedback is crucial to employee learning and de- The Impact of Feedback on Learning and
velopment,4 managers are charged with the re- Development
sponsibility of providing it. In an effort to assist The importance of feedback for learning and im-
managers with this challenging task, we will ex- provement has long been recognized by psycholo-
plore what makes feedback-giving so difficult and gists. s A McKinsey & Company survey of over
what can be done to make it less painful and more 12,000 managers throughout the world also sup-
useful. ports this recognition (see Figure 1).6 As Figure 1
More specifically, we will describe the cognitive illustrates, managers consider "candid, insightful
and emotional dynamics-how we think and feedback" extremely important to their develop-
feel-that interfere with the quality of feedback ment, but most do not believe their companies do a
giving and receiving. We will also explore how good job of providing such feedback. This finding
understanding these dynamics can help managers ;xxrallels our experience in coaching a wide range
produce more actionable feedback. By "actionable of people who commonly complain that they get
feedback" we mean feedback that produces both little guidance or feedback on their work.
120
2005 Cannon and Witberspoon 121

100 I

Howwe-JI
ce>mpany
75 l
1
Job assignments

provides
(exceileffi.
qood)

sot
:,~
' I
Coachi".g,
Training feedback

J'-_0_·_1_4 . .,_ _.M,._liln_t_o_rln_Q_-'- -->'

2S 50 7S 100
Importance to my development
(critical. very Important)

.JOB ASSIGNMENTS I 9 candid. insightful feedback

1 Promote high performers quickly 110 Informal coaching from boss
2 Build skiils to boost career
prospects 1 ..ENTeRING
3 Fast rotation and advancement II 11 Great mentor
4 Roles with P & l responsibility 1 12 Great senior role models
5 Spe<:ial project opportunities 113 Mentoring advice on develop'
6 On-the'job training i ment

COACHING,FEEPBACK TRAINING
7 Told my strengths and weaknesses 14 Traditional classroom training
8 360 0 feedback

Figure I
Factors that Drive Development

Talented people depend on others for honest as· despite its potential benefits, a review of studies
sessments of their work in determining what to do on feedback by Kluger and DeNisi showed only a
better. Without feedback about their performance, modest positive relationship between feedback
they have a hard time figuring out how to im· and performance; in fact, in 38 percent of the cases
prove? With constructive feedback, they can learn studied, feedback actually had a negative impact
sooner and with much greater specificity. Also, as on performance.s
talented people make efforts to improve them·
selves, objective observers can help them under-
Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics
stand whether their efforts are on track or not and
how they might be improved. Our focus in this article is on the cognitive and
Thus, feedback can be highly useful. However, emotional dynamics or challenges that make giv-
122 Academy of Management Executive May

ing and receiving feedback so difficult and that pre- nitive and emotional complications associated
vent feedback interventions from achieving their po- with receiving feedback transcend mere unpleas-
tential benefits. In contrast to many other antness.
managerial responsibilities. giving and receiving A lengthy history of psychological research dem-
feedback can be very personal and can be charged onstrates that people tend not to view themselves
with high levels of emotion for both giver and re- accurately, and they are not good at accurately
ceiver. However, traditional management education perceiving how others are seeing them.l 2 Specifi-
has focused more on analytical tools and skills9 that cally, they see themselves more positively than
are not well matched to the psychological aspects of others see them; thus, critical feedback is likely to
giving feedback. Thus, many managers are uncom- appear inaccurate, and receivers are likely to dis-
fortable with the high levels of emotion that can be agree with it.
involved in the process. In addition. people some- Attributional biases or errors affect both manag-
times react to feedback in unpredictable, even vola- ers and subordinates and can lead them to form
tile ways. Recipients have been known to become conflicting views. For example. most people have a
angry, cry, storm out of the -office, lash out verbally. "self-serving bias,"13 which means that in assess-
physically attack, and even in very rare instances to ing our own work we tend to see ourselves as
kill the manager. lO Attacking the manager may be responsible for successes, and blame failures on
unusual. but a common outcome is that delivering others or external forces. By contrast, managers.
feedback. especially critical feedback. produces who are in the observer role. experience an "actor/
strong emotional reactions that may hinder learning observer bias"14 and are more likely to attribute
and development. failures to internal causes (the subordinates them-
In addition to emotion, cognitive processes of selves), to discount subordinate successes. and to
both managers and subordinates can contribute to find subordinate performance lacking. IS
difficulties in giving and receiving feedback. Man-
Further complicating matters, inaccurate posi-
agers and subordinates often have very different
tive self-perceptions (positive illusions) may be
ways of evaluating and making sense of behav-
more than just self-indulgent flights of fancy.
ior. ll Thus, they may find themselves in significant
Shelly Taylor. et a1. have argued that positive illu-
disagreement regarding performance ratings and
sions are a hallmark of mental health and are
feedback. Given these cognitive and emotional dy-
crucial to enabling people to avoid depression and
namics, managers who wish to deliver actionable
maintain the self-esteem, confidence, and opti-
feedback would be wise to understand them and
mism that keep them motivated, persistent, and
how to deal with them constructively.
productive. IS Similarly, Bandura has demonstrated
As we explain below, the roles of feedback giver
and feedback receiver each evoke their own set of that high perceived self-efficacy enhances perfor-
cognitive and emotional processes that may inter- mance on a variety of tasks, and he has argued
fere with learning and development. First, we will that seeing yourself as more capable than you
examine some of the cognitive and emotional dy- really are enhances your performance more than
namics associated with the receiving role. This accurate self-perceptionsP Thus. subordinates may
will provide an understanding of the potential dif- resist feedback not only because feedback seems
ficulties managers face in approaching subordi- inaccurate, but because accepting critiques could
nates. Second, we will examine several feedback undermine their self-esteem and self-efficacy.
statements that were given by managers, and we Furthermore, depending on the content and de-
will illustrate their counterproductive characteris- livery of feedback, it may be received as a per-
tics. Third, we will describe the cognitive and emo- sonal attack, threatening one's ego or identity. IS
tional dynamics that affect feedback givers and This may provoke deeper psychological fears for
that lead them to produce such nonactionable the receiver around questions such as "Am I worth-
feedback. Finally, we will illustrate how under- while?" "Am I likable?" "Am I capable?" etc. In
standing the dynamics associated with feedback such cases, receivers can experience a strong
giving and receiving can be used to help manag- "fight or flight" emotional reaction.
ers produce more actionable feedback. In addition, feeling attacked or threatened tends
to create stress that hinders learning. Research
suggests that a common reaction to stress or the
Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics Impacting
experience of threat is to circle the emotional wag-
Feedback Receivers
"'l'l. ons and defend oneself. This response is charac-
Although it is common knowledge that receiving terized by increased rigidity, a restriction in infor-
critical feedback is unpleasant, the potential cog- mation processing, and a constriction of contro1.l 9
2005 Cannon and Witherspoon 123

All of these can interfere with a person's ability to skilled third party, who has established rapport
learn and respond constructively to feedback. ~.L and assurances that confidences will be main-
In sum, a variety of cognitive and emotional dy- tained, may create an environment in which less
namics can interfere with the receiver's ability to filtering takes place and more valid data is pro-
process, learn from, and respond constructively to duced. However, although the role of third party
feedback. Thus, managers should consider these may have particular advantages, the insights in
complications and craft their feedback carefully in this article are designed to help enhance the abil-
order to avoid inadvertently causing the receiver to ity of individuals to function in any of the three
feel unfairly attacked or misperceived. roles of feedback giver, feedback receiver, or third
Cognitive and emotional dynamics also influ- party.
ence the feedback-giving role and can lead feed- When the managers provided the feedback
back givers to produce poor quality feedback that above, they perceived it as accurate and useful.
provokes a counterproductive, defensive reaction. However, we will next illustrate several shared
Next, we will examine feedback statements that counterproductive features of these feedback
were given by managers in order to illustrate the statements that limit their usefulness.
characteristics that limit their actionability. Fol-
lowing that, we will describe the cognitive and
emotional dynamics that lead managers to pro-
1. Attacks the Person Rather Than the Person's
d uce such poor quality feedback.
Behavior
This feedback is likely to be taken as a personal
Flawed Feedback
attack by the receiver because it criticizes the per-
All too often, performance feedback is not useful son or the person's character rather than address-
for its intended purpose. For example, the nonac- ing the behavior that is problematic. The feedback
tionable feedback statements below were made by giver's attribution appears to be internal (assign-
senior managers from organizations large and ing blame to the person rather than the situation)
small. Typically, this feedback was provided to the and stable (consistent across situations). Receivers
authors (in our capacity as executive coaches) as often experience this kind of feedback as sending
part of an interview 360-degree process, to then the message: "You are a fundamentally flawed,
share with our clients as a part of their 360-degree bad, or useless person, and that is just your na-
feedback. ture." Such feedback tends to provoke a strong
• We just can't trust Bill. defensive emotional reaction. 20
In addition to provoking an immediate defensive
• Pat does not stand firm.
• Jane is not a team player and is contentious. reaction, feedback that focuses the receiver's at-
• Phil is a poor manager. tention on the "self" rather than the task or task
learning tends to have a negative effect on subse-
• Lane is unprofessional.
quent performance. 21 Furthermore, this kind of in-
• Jerry is not committed.
ternal, stable formulation may be experienced by
• Ted adds no value.
the receivers as suggesting that they are not capa-
Most of these initial feedback statements were ble of change, and this can be discouraging to the
made as we interviewed a full circle of parties receiver.
(superiors, peers, subqrdinates, and sometimes An alternative style of formulating the feedback
customers), in a series of individual key person may be equally if not more accurate and is likely to
interviews. We usually started with a common set result in a more productive outcome. A typical
of questions that addressed areas such as feedback formulation might be something like
strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for im- "You are sloppy." Alternatively, the feedback could
provements, with ample opportunity for other com- be formulated along the following line: "I believe
ments. We then planned to debrief our clients from an alternative way of handling this situation
these interviews in a facilitated feedback session, would lead to better results." By beginning the
designed to help them understand the data and message with ''I'' rather than "you," the focus is
plan the next steps. less on blaming the other and more on helping the
Clients could conduct these interviews them- receiver understand the perceptions of the feed-
selves, but often choose not to due to the time back giver. This format also focuses attention on
demands, their lack of skill, or the desire to take the task and on an opportunity for producing better
advantage of the neutrality that a third party can resl,llts. This is also more likely to lead to a con-
provide. If threatening issues are involved, a structive dialogue.
124 Academy of Management Executive May

2. Vague or Abstract Assertions produce defensiveness because, if the recipients

can think of even one situation to which the
Although we may get the general picture of the
feedback does not apply, they may feel justified
problem, the feedback above is rather vague or
in seeing the feedback as inaccurate and in see-
abstract and could be interpreted in many different
ing themselves as being unfairly attacked.
ways. For example, when the statement "We can't
trust Bill" is made, we do not know whether it
means: 1) that Bill is suspected of stealing from the
company; or 2) that he acts on self-interest instead 5. Unclear Impact and Implications for Action
of the interest of the company; or 3) that he is Not only are we missing specific examples of what
well-intentioned but not sufficiently skilled to de- the person does, we also have no clarity on what
liver on his commitments. Each of these interpre- the feedback giver sees as the impact of this be-
tations could have very different implications. havior and why it is problematic. Therefore, we
This vagueness makes the feedback difficult to have little sense of what allegedly dysfunctional
interpret correctly. It also. may encourage defen- consequences are being produced, why this is im-
siveness because the fact that it is difficult to in- portant, and what should be done to fix the prob-
terpret may lead the receiver to see it as inaccurate lem. The feedback is not accompanied by indica-
and falsely accusational. tions of what specific behavioral changes are
desired from these recipients. Therefore, the recip-
ients may have difficulty inferring from this feed-
3. Without 111ustrations back what is desired of them and how they can
This feedback is also stated without illustrations rectify the situation.
or examples of what specific things these individ- In sum, these feedback examples have a number
uals do that leads the feedback givers to see them of characteristics that limit their actionability.
this way. Illustrations or examples may be essen- Ironically, even experienced managers commonly
tial for enabling the recipients to make a concrete produce feedback that is given with intent of being
connection with what the feedback giver is talking helpful that has these same general characteris-
about. Illustrations and examples make the feed- tics. Each of the feedback givers in the cases above
back more understandable and may also help to observed the receiver's behavior over a consider-
clarify what the implications for action might be. able period of time and had many interactions on
which to base their conclusions. Thus, each giver
should have been able to give multiple illustra-
4. 111·Defi~ed Range of Application tions of the behavior that was of concern and that
Another limitation is that the feedback is global. led to their conclusion. Instead, they merely stated
without any clarification about the conditions un- their conclusions in a way that was not particu-
der which the problematic behavior does or does larly helpful to learning or action. What leads even
not exhibit itself. We do not know whether this successful. experienced, highly educated, and
problematic behavior is exhibited almost all the highly motivated managers to provide feedback
time in almost all situations or whether it is only with so many limitations?
exhibited under certain conditions. Also, if it is the
latter, .there is no specificity or clarification as to
the conditions under which it is exhibited and Cognitive and Emotional Dynamics Impacting
those under which it is not exhibited. For example, Feedback Givers
in the feedback above when Lane is described as Not only do cognitive and emotional dynamics
"unprofessionaL" we do know whether the feed- lead people to produce poor quality feedback, they
back giver finds Lane unprofessional in virtually also interfere with our ability to assess the quality
everything he says and does, or just in some of our own feedback. Therefore, managers have a
particular area. The behavior of concern might hard time knowing what to do differently to make
exhibit itself only when making presentations to their feedback more actionable.
new employees, when dealing with a particular
member of the office staff, or with how raggedly
he dresses on casual Fridays. Without more
1. Inference-Making Limitations
specificity, the receiver does not get a clear pic-
ture of the target area of the feedback or of what .,.~ An understanding of human inference-making and
needs to be changed and what can be left as it is. sense-making should begin with the recognition
These types of global or blanket statements often that people eire constantly flooded with informa-
2005 Cannon and Witherspoon 125

tion from their five senses. Attending to and pro- tougher next time") that are listed at the top of the
cessing all the information would be overwhelm-.,.... ladder.
ing. Instead, people have learned to be selective
about where they focus their attention. So, without
even having consciously to attend to this process,
2. Attributional Biases
our minds naturally select observations or bits of
information on which to focus, and we make inter- When making inferences about other people's be-
pretations of what these mean. This happens so havior. a number of attributional biases or errors
quickly and so automatically that we are usually may be in operation.24 As was mentioned above with
unaware that we are even doing it. Argyris pro- the "actor/observer bias," managers are typically bi-
vided a helpful metaphor for this process, which he ased toward making internal (personal vs. situa-
calls the ladder of inference. 22 Figure 2 depicts tional) attributions. and this increases the likelihood
Argyris' ladder of inference with a few additional that the feedback will come across as a personal
refinements that were made by McArthur, Putnam, attack.25 Further, if the manager's attributions focus
and Smith of Action Design.23 In making infer- on a stable cause, such as lack of ability or a person-
ences, people start with objective data and obser- ality trait. the feedback may leave the receiver feel-
vations and then move up the ladder as they select
ing discouraged about the prospects for change. An-
what data to focus on and how to interpret it. Fig-
other attributional bias, the "false-eonsensus bias,"
ure 3 illustrates how very different interpretations
suggests that people overestimate the likelihood that
can be made from the same data~ In this case, Ellen
others will see things the same way they do. 26 Thus,
had been conducting performance appraisals; and
her boss made the following statement: "Perfor- managers are likely both to make overly critical or
mance appraisals aren't easy. Giving honest feed- blaming internal attributions and to fail to recognize
back as a part of performance appraisal is really that others may not agree with these attributions.
important. Of course, you still have to be some- Failure to recognize the gap between our conclu-
what diplomatic with people nowadays." Depend- sions and others' conclusions, when combined with
ing on where she focused her attention and what the human tendency to be overconfident in the accu-
assumptions she made, she could just as easily racy of our own conclusions, reduces the feedback
come to either of two opposite conclusions n need giver's ability to see the need to provide more con-
to be more sensitive next time" or "I need to be crete, useful information to the receiver.

Decide what to do

Explain/evaluate what's happening

Name what's happening,

Paraphrase the data

Select data

Available Data
Figure 2
Ladder of Inference
126 Academy of Management Executive May

IDecide What to Do I
I need to be tougher next time. I need to be more sensitive next time.

The manager is trying to help me The manager is trying to help me give

give better feedback by encouraging better feedback by encouraging me to
me to be more direct. be more sensitive.

The manager is giving me feedback

about the importance of directness

The manager has reservations The manager has reservations

about the amount of directness in .about the amount of sensitivity in
my feedback. my feedback.

"Giving honest feedback as a "You still have to be somewhat

part of performance appraisal is diplomatic with people nowadays."
really important."

Ellen's Manager states: "Performance apprai en't easy. Giving honest

feedback as a part of performance appraisal is really important. Of course,
you still have to be somewhat diplomatic with people nowadays."
Figure 3
Ladder of Inference Example: Ellen's Feedback

3. Overconfidence ingly, we tend to expect others to see things the

same way we do. Consistent with the "false-
Inference-making is a natural process that people
consensus bias" mentioned above. it is as if peo-
use minute-by-minute in their daily lives. and it
ple are thinking "If it is obvious to me. it should
tends to serve people fairly well-it enables peo-
ple quickly to assess situations and decide how be obvious to them too."
to handle them. This might not be so problematic Because people think that their perceptions of
if it were not for human overconfidence. The ob- others are obviously correct. they often do not feel
servation that people tend to be overconfident in the need to explain or illustrate how they arrived
the accuracy of their perceptions is a very robust at their negative conclusions. Feedback givers
finding in the psychologicalliterature.27 Its rele- tend to forget that they may be missing something
vance here is that people tend to forget that their as a result of incomplete data. misinterpretation.
conclusions about other people are not cold. hard or relying on a faulty assumption. Thus. the infer-
facts. but are actually inferences made using the ence making process (as illustrated by the ladder
imperfect lens of subjectively filtered informa- of inference), bias. and overconfidence create gaps
tion with possible biases and misinterpretations. "'fc, in perception that lead feedback givers to produce

Instead. people often make little distinction be- poor quality feedback and to be unable to see what
tween their own perceptions and reality. Accord- is wrong with their own feedback.
2005 Cannon and Witherspoon 127

4. Third-Party Perspective Differences feedback glvmg process could potentially come

~J.. from many possible sources. 32 For example, man-
As Chris Argyris has demonstrated, a person's in-
agers have their own unrelated personal problems
volvement in designing feedback influences his or
her ability to assess its quality.28 When people and stresses. Irritation may be exacerbated by
design feedback they tend not to see the flaws in their personal anxieties about giving feedback
the feedback that they personally developed. How- and the frustration that has built up because they
ever, when they are observing the feedback given waited too long to address the problem. Managers
by someone else, they are able more easily to rec- may be affected by their working relationship and
ognize its limitations. For example, the limitations working history with the subordinate,33 their de-
of the feedback above are not difficult for others to pendence on the subordinate, the subordinate's
see. In fact, each individual who gave the above past performance, and their attributions regarding
feedback might be able to look at the feedback the subordinate performance.34
others gave and recognize its limitations. However, Interpersonal affect, and to a lesser extent mood,
when they look at their own feedback, they tend to have been shown to affect performance ratings. 35
have a difficult time seeing those same limita- The way that managers make sense of subordinate
tions. People see their conclusions as obvious and shortcomings can also affect feedback. Managers
self-evident, and they expect others to see things are more likely to be punitive when they make
the same way. By contrast, a more neutral observer internal (personal vs. situational) attributions as to
can often view the situation more objectively and their subordinates' shortcomings. 36 Manager feed-
can readily identify the limitations in the feedback back can also be influenced by whether they be-
that the feedback giver is constructing. This diffi- lieve the subordinate's behavior has impac,ted
culty in seeing the limitations of our own feedback them. Managers who believe both that they have
is a key reason why managers produce poor-qual- been affected negatively by a subordinate and that
ity feedback. the cause was lack of effort provide feedback that
As a result of the inference-making limitations, is more punitive than it would be otherwise. 37
attributional biases, overconfidence, and third- Occasionally, managers let their emotions get
party perspective differences described above, the best of them and spontaneously lash out at a
feedback givers tend to be insufficiently aware of subordinate. Feedback that is delivered merely as
how large a gap may exist between their percep- a by-product of a manager letting off steam is
tions and those of the receiver. Thus, feedback unlikely to generate a constructive response. Feed-
givers tend not to prepare sufficiently to play the back tends to be most helpful when it is given with
role of educator when giving feedback. We tend the intent of development,38 and the way feedback
not to ask the question: "What examples, evidence, is crafted or delivered might affect the way the
or data will the other person need in order to make receiver perceives the giver's intent. When feed-
an informed judgment as to the accuracy of my back givers make clear that their intent is to de-
assertion?" Instead, although managers recognize velop employees and coaching is provided to sup-
that the recipient will not want to hear critical port that development, employees are especially
feedback, they tend to expect that, once they get likely to use feedback to achieve performance
past the initial upset, the nature of the problem gains. 39
and the solution should be somewhat self-evident Other managers are aware that subordinates
to the recipient,29 By contrast, in many critical feed- can react strongly to feedback and may even use
back situations, people hGlve sharply different per- that knowledge to provoke a response. For exam-
ceptions about the status quo, the desirable alter- ple, researchers have found that accuracy is not
native, and what should be done to get there. 30 always a primary goal of the appraisal. and some
managers have deliberately distorted ratings in a
negative direction with the intention of "shocking"
5. Strong Emotions Can Impact Ratings and the subordinate into better performance or of
Feedback Formulation and Delivery teaching a subordinate a "lesson."40 Such feedback
Although emotions may be most intense for those might make a point, but would not necessarily be
receiving feedback, they can also be strong and constructive.41
influential for those giving feedback. 31 The feed- In sum, strong feelings from a variety of causes
back givers' emotions can influence performance may be another factor contributing to the poor
ratings, formulation of feedback, and delivery of quality and harshness of the feedback above. Next,
feedback. Any of these can affect how the receiver we will tum our attention to illustrating how an
responds to the feedback. Emotions that affect the understanding of these cognitive and emotional
128 Academy of Management Executive May

dynamics can be used to produce feedback that is Case #1: "We just can't trust Bill"
more actionable.
Context: The owner of an entrepreneurial busi-
ness expressed concerns about Bill's (Chief Oper-
Producing Actionable Feedback
ations Officer) trustworthiness. As the owner was
One useful leverage point for improving feedback questioned, more clarity emerged about how he
involves drawing on the strengths of a third-party perceived Bill as a roadblock to new ventures.
described above. Specifically, the perception gaps
that inhibit our ability to see the problems with our
own feedback tend not to inhibit our ability to see
Dialogue
the problems with feedback given by others, pro-
vided we are in a dispassionate observer role. A Owner: We just can't trust Bill.
third-party perspective and an understanding of Coach: Can you give an example of what Bill
the ladder of inference can be extremely helpful in does that leads y011 to conclude that you can-
assisting a feedback giver in designing more ac- not trust him?
tionable feedback. Owner: He is constantly criticizing.
To illustrate how this works, we draw on data Coach: Can you give me some examples?
from our own coaching experience. As noted Owner: In our meeting last week, we discussed
above, we prefer to gather 360-degree feedback two new ventures. He was overly criticaL rais-
through key person interviews. One reason is that ing all potential problems he could think of
we have found that written comments (or "verba- and did not say anything to acknowledge the
tims") in response to 360-degree survey instru- importance of growing through new ventures.
ments are often not very actionable. Similarly, the Coach: Are there other examples of being overly
initial feedback statement in an interview is often critical other than with new ventures?
of poor quality as discussed above. However, the Owner: Well, actually he isjust fine on the day-
interview format enables us to ask questions that to-day operations. It is really just on the new
help the feedback giver to produce more specific, ventures, but the new ventures are really im-
valid data and thus produce more actionable feed- portant to our company.
back for the receiver. In particular, we use our Coach: OK, and can you clarify how you would
third-party perspective and our understanding of like him to behave if he believes he sees a
the ladder of inference to help feedback givers legitimate problem with an idea?
recall and clarify the data, observations, exam- Owner: Well, his technical skills are good, and
ples, or experiences upon which they based their we do want his critiques, but we also want to
conclusions about the receiver. know what strengths he sees and what it
The first three feedback statements in bullet- would take for him to put his full support be-
points above ("We just can't trust BilL" "Pat does hind an idea.
not stand firm," and "Jane is not a team plo:yer and
is contentious") are examples of the initial feed- Eventually the feedback was reported as fol-
back that was given in key person interviews. Now, lows: When it comes to new ventures, the owner
we will illustrate how a third-party perspective sees you raising a number of reservations, but not
can be used to assist the feedback giver in moving sharing what you see as strengths or clarifying the
down the ladder of inference in order to produce conditions under which you could fully support a
more actionable feedback. new idea. For example, '" Therefore, he is not
In the next section, we share more of the context clear whether there are any conditions under
of each case, the questions that we asked the feed- which you would support a new idea. In the future,
back givers in order to assist them in giving more he would like you to share your thoughts on both
actionable feedback, and the eventual feedback the assets and the liabilities of new ideas. He
that was reported. We have found that a useful would also like you to clarify the conditions under
way to begin is simply to ask the feedback givers which you would be willing to support a new ven-
to share some specific examples of what leads ture.
them to see the receiver the way they do. This The initial feedback was abstract and would
helps the feedback givers to move down the ladder likely have been resented by Bill because saying
of inference. We also believe that these questions someone cannot be trusted is a very serious charge
help to reduce the feedback giver's overconfi-.,.:. and may have been experienced as a personal
dence, attributional bias, and irritation toward the attack on his character. However, asking the owner
receiver. for specific examples helped to lead him down the
2005 Cannon and Witherspoon 129

ladder of inference and enabled him to make his an idea how we can test it. We will give Pat a
feedback more actionable. job which demands that he demonstrate those
skills!
Case #2: "Pat does not stand firm." Coach: Great, what job would that be?
Vice Chairman: Well, I'm not sure specifically
Context: Pat, a Senior Vice President and the now, but we should probably shift Pat to a
director of financial reporting in a Fortune 50 com- CFO function for one of our big businesses to
pany, had been successful but had not advanced create a fair test.
recently, and it did not appear that he was being
groomed for further advancement. In short, his ca- The surprise outcome in this case was that the
reer seemed stalled. Therefore, Pat initiated the Vice Chairman, upon further reflection, realized
360-degree evaluation in order to explore what that Pat had never actually been tested, and he
might be blocking his advancement and what, if decided to give Pat the opportunity to prove him-
anything, he could do about it. The pivotal key self. The questions clarified why the Vice Chair-
person interview took place with the corporate man was concerned about Pat, but also clarified
Vice Chairman, who oversaw the finance and risk that Pat had never actually exhibited the quality
management function and served as Pat's 3-up that he was perceived as having. Our goal was not
boss (Pat reported to the comptroller, who reported to advocate a point of view. We were only trying to
to the CFO, who reported to the Vice Chairman). gather valid data. However, this case illustrates
what a powerful impact a few questions can have
on the feedback giver's overconfidence.
Dialogue This dialogue was shared with Pat, and a few
months later he was offered a new position and
Vice Chairman: Pat does not stand firm.
accepted it. The expectations for the new position
Coach: I get the general idea. What would be an
were made clear, and Pat had an opportunity to
example of not standing firm?
prove himself. Since then, Pat made a successful
Vice Chairman: Well, that is hard to say, but let
transition to the new position, as described else-
me illustrate. When Pat's boss comes in to
where. 42
review our 4th quarter earnings release, we
may have ideas about how to goose up the Case #3: "Jane is not a team player and is conten-
numbers a little and make things look a little tious."
better for the quarter. Many of these ideas We will share a final case in summary form to
might be perfectly fine. but if any of them were provide one additional illustration of how feed-
ever to stretch into a grey area, we would have back can become more actionable as feedback giv-
to count on the comptroller to say, "That is ers are assisted in coming down their ladders of
going too far, and I will not sign that." I fear inference.
that Pat would not stand firm against the ideas
of top management the way his boss does. Context: Jane was an Executive Vice President
Coach: What leads you to see him this way? who was fairly new to a huge privately held firm
Vice Chairman: Well, he is affable, amiable, and with strong traditions and cultural expectations for
anxious to please and does not have sharp how things should and should not be done. The
elbows. initial feedback giv:en was that she was not a team
Coach: OK, I can see how you would wonder player and was contentious. In this case the piv-
about him. However, I still am not getting a otal key person interview came with Jane's boss,
clear picture. Is this a demonstrated weakness the president of one of the finn's leading business
or just an untested skill? Can you think of units.
anything Pat has done that leads you to con-
clude that this is a demonstrated weakness?
Vice Chairman: (pauses to contemplate for mo- Dialogue
ment, then shakes his head no.) That is a good President: Jane is not a team player and is con-
distinction. I think it is an untested skill. tentious
Coach: OK, so you believe it is an untested skill. Coach: Can you give an example of what Jane
Do you have ideas about how you could test it? does that leads you to conclude that she is not
Vice Chairman: No, not for now. a team player and is contentious?
Coach: OK, let's continue the interview ... President: She is inappropriately challenging
Vice Chairman: (About five minutes later he in- and disruptive.
terrupts his own train of thought) Wait, I have Coach: Can you give me an example of that?
130 Academy of Management Executive May

President: WelL she publicly shared _reserva- much more subdued and the givers more reflective
tions in my top management meeting about a after the questioning. Also, some feedback givers
project that was really already decided on. have volunteered in the course of interview ses-
You see, by the time an issue gets to the top sions to have arrived at insights (and even an
team meeting, it should already be decided on. "Epiphany" about one of our clients) during a key
These meetings are more symbolic and more person interview. The case with the Vice Chairman
like just giving a blessing to the plan. Rather is a particularly powerful illustration of reducing
than making the effort to work out potential overconfidence. Although he started out blaming
disagreements before the meeting, she waited Pat, he eventually ended up taking personal re-
until it was basically a done deal. and then sponsibility for not having tested his attribution
publicly challenged it. about Pat; and he even provided an opportunity for
Pat to prove himself.
After asking a few more questions we clarified
that the feedback giver was mainly concerned
about her behavior within the context of top man- Putting This Knowledge to Work: Towards an
agement team meetings. His request was that she Actionable Feedback Environment
bring her disagreements to him in private to work
In the cases described above, the third party was
them out prior to top team meetings. This feedback
hired both to gather and deliver the feedback.
was much more actionable than his original state-
However, many organizations may not choose to
ment. Jane learned that she had misread the cul-
allocate resources to doing 360-degree feedback
ture of this organization and the expectations sur-
with key person interviews; alternatively. manag-
rounding the top team meetings. Coming from
ers may need or want to formulate and deliver
another organization, she had expected that the
their own feedback. This final section of the paper
top team meetings would be problem solving ses-
illustrates how understanding the cognitive and
. sions to jointly thrash out differences among the
emotional dynamics described above can be use-
President and his key lieutenants on the team.
ful to managers who need or choose to take the
Instead, the President saw these top team meet-
initiative for formulating and delivering feedback
ings as blessing sessions, to ratify decisions
themselves.
reached earlier with each of the relevant Executive
We believe that understanding these dynamics
Vice Presidents. Compounding the problem, Jane's
and their assets and liabilities for each of the three
boss had never informed her about his expecta-
roles of feedback giver, feedback receiver, and
tions_ Similarly, none of her new peers pointed out
third party is important for developing an action-
these ll:L1.stated expectations either. Thanks to her
able feedback environment. We will explain the
360-degree feedback, Jane finally had clarity on
common vulnerabilities associated with each role
what her boss wanted from her.
and how understanding the dynamics can assist a
In sum, we relied on our third-party perspective
manager in any of these roles to support the devel-
and knowledge of the ladder of inference and at-
opment of actionable feedback.
tributional bias to help feedback givers retrace
their own inference making process to get more
concrete, valid data. We also applied our coaching
feedback Giving Role
skills by listening first, asking searching ques-
tions, and then providing actionable feedback that As was illustrated above, the feedback that man-
could be easily assimilated and acted upon. Com- agers spontaneously give is often not very action-
pared to the original feedback statements, the re- able and tends to produce defensiveness, hard
crafted feedback was framed less as a personal feelings, and meager learning. Without an aware-
attack, was less vague, had more specific illustra- ness of the cognitive and emotional dynamics in
tions, a clearer range of application, and more play, managers have a difficult time knowing why
specific implications for action. When it was re- their feedback is not working, and many learn to
ported, it was received constructively. avoid giving feedback.
In addition, and while difficult to gauge, we be- By contrast, managers who understand these dy-
lieve that this process reduced the intensity of the namics can take a more informed approach to giv-
givers' negative emotions and their overconfi- ing feedback. 43 Rather than attribute defensive-
dence. Whereas some of the initial feedback state- ness to the receiver's unwillingness to face the
ments were accompanied by a tone of voice. bod)'f~ truth, they can see that defenSIveness may be pro-
language, or facial expression that suggested irri- voked by the poor quality of their feedback. In
tation with the receiver, these indicators seemed addition, they are aware that feedback that is more
2005 Cannon and Witherspoon 131

actionable will produce less defensiveness, more find useful in assessing the validity of the feed-
learning, and better results. back.
With an understanding of these dynamics, tJ:lty In addition, a technique that can be helpful is
can become aware that they may not be good formulating feedback using an "1" message. Peo-
judges of the quality of their own feedback. They ple tend to formulate feedback starting with "You,"
also recognize that subordinates are affected by such as "You are ...," "You did ...," or "You caused
their own cognitive and emotional dynamics and ...," and such feedback tends to be received as an
may have difficulty learning from feedback that is attack. By contrast, formulating feedback using an
not formulated and delivered effectively. In addi- "1" message helps the feedback giver to "own"-
tion. they also become aware that a third party can acknowledge and take personal responsibility
be a great asset by being better able to see and for-his or her emotional reactions that might af-
point out the limitations in the feedback that the fect the way they formulate and give the feedback.
managers are working to refine. This can help managers keep focused on the task
Of course, a skilled coach or human resource and task learning while producing feedback that is
professional can be very helpful here. A skilled less harsh and attacking.
facilitator can help more quickly to achieve action- To illustrate how an "1" message could make the
able feedback. However. whether the person has feedback more constructive, consider the following
training or not, merely having a third-party per- initial thought that a manager might have and
spective in and of itself can be helpful. The observ- how it can be transformed using an "1" message.
ers can at least point out what is not clear, explain Upon observing deficient performance, a manager
how they imagine the feedback would be inter- might have an immediate thought such as: "You
preted. and describe how it might impact the re- would have to be a complete idiot to handle that
ceiver. In addition. a third party who understands situation the way you did. or maybe you just don't
the ladder of inference can help the feedback giver give a damn about your performance. Either way,
move down the ladder to produce more concrete you better not do that again." If the manager were
and specific feedback. to share this thought, it would likely provoke a
Furthermore. if a third party is not readily avail- defensive reaction. Now consider the following ex-
able. managers can now have the basic insights ample that illustrates how the feedback could be
necessary to produce better feedback on their own. formulated more constructively using an "1" mes-
They are aware that they retrace the steps in their sage:
own inference-making process by walking down
I feel frustrated because I perceive that the
the ladder of inference while watching for overcon-
way this situation was handled may have (fill
fidence, attributional biases, and emotional bag-
in the blank. .. damaged my credibility with
gage. The following are good questions we can ask
my own boss, or caused us not to hit our sales
ourselves to get down the ladder and improve our
target, etc.). I would like to ha;ve a discussion
feedback:
in which we clarify what happened, under-
• How did I arrive at this conclusion? stand why, and explore what we can do to
• What illustrations. examples, etc. would I need keep this from happening in the future.
to share with the other person in order for him or
her to understand why I see it this way? In sum, understanding the cognitive and emo-
• Under what conditions have I observed this be- tional dynamics associated with giving and re-
havior? , ceiving feedback puts managers in a better posi-
• What do I see as the specific, undesirable con- tion to navigate the feedback territory. They know
sequences of this behavior? the direction they need to go, what to watch out for,
• What would be the most constructive way to and what resources can help them. Consequently,
. help this person achieve better results? they are more likely to go into feedback sessions
• How might my emotions be affecting my evalu- better prepared, with a more open and less conde-
ation and intentions? scending attitude, and be better able to manage
defensive reactions if they occur.
If a feedback giver nonetheless experiences a de-
fensive reaction, a knowledge of the cognitive and
Feedback Receiving Role
emotional dynamics may enable them to handle it
more constructively. Specifically, they understand Although we have focused primarily on the role for
why the receiver might be skeptical of the feed- the feedback giver, managers typically have
back; thus. they are more likely to inquire into bosses of their own and thus also become feedback
what other data or examples the receiver might recipients. Thus, managers may also be vulnera-
132 Academy of Management Executive May

ble to the same cognitive and emotional dynmp.iCs quality feedback by asking the kinds of questions
their subordinates face in receiving feedback. that we illustrated in the three cases above. Such
However. understanding these dynamics may en- questions help feedback givers come down their
able managers to recognize the importance of ladder of inference and produce feedback that is
striking a balance between maintaining positive more actionable. The same kinds of questions as
self-perceptions and periodically adjusting self- described above can be helpful:
perceptions for the sake of learning.
• Could you give me an example of the behavior
Another complication is that their bosses may that concerns you?
not understand the cognitive and emotional dy-
• Can you help me understand how you came to
namics that affect feedback givers, and thus may that conclusion?
give feedback that is not actionable and that may • Can you help me understand the situations in
not even be accurate. The typical receiver might which you have seen the behavior and what you
feel unfairly attacked and also might feel stuck, see as the impact?
not wanting to seem defensive, but not wanting to • Can you clarify what you would like to see this
accept inaccurate feedback. However. with an un- receiver do differently?
derstanding of the cognitiv~ and emotional dy-
namics, the receiver is more capable of recogniz- In addition to assisting in the formulation of feed-
ing that the giver may have misperceptions but back, third parties can help feedback givers pre-
may also have some helpful observations that pare by role playing possible reactions that the
should be uncovered. Rather than feel stuck, the receiver might have and coaching the giver on how
receiver can a~k questions that will help the giver to deal with them constructively. Third parties
move down the ladder of inference and provide might ask themselves the following question:
more actionable feedback. For example. the re- "What would I be feeling if I received that feed-
ceiver can ask questions such as: back and why would it provoke that reaction?"
• Could you give me an example of the behavior Reporting their answers to this question could pro-
that concerns you? vide an additional valuable source of data for the
• Can you help me understand how you came to feedback provider. Furthermore. in cases where
that conclusion? troubled communication between the giver and re-
• Can you help me understand the situations in ceiver exists. third parties could also sit in on the
which you have seen the behavior and what you feedback session and intervene as necessary.
see as the impact? One of the main complications for third parties is
• Can you clarify what you would like to see me that they may not feel knowledgeable or skilled
do differently? enough to assist. However, the third parties have
potential value even if they lack training. In such
One additional common problem is that many cases, they can simply empathize with how they
managers fear giving critical feedback. so they would feel if they were receiving the feedback. and
avoid doing SO.44 Under these conditions, receivers respond with statements such as: "If I received that
will not learn unless they proactively seek feed- feedback. I would be puzzled as to what you
back. With an understanding of the dynamics and wanted me to do differently. Could you be more
with a set of questions to ask to help facilitate the specific?" Although this kind of trial-and-error ap-
development of actionable feedback. the receiver proach may not be elegant, it may still help feed-
is better positioned to ask for feedback and receive back givers to be more constructive than they
a useful response. would be otherwise.

Third-Party Role Conclusion

Given the vulnerabilities associated with both the In conclusion, we have explained that critical feed-
giver and the receiver role. a third party who does back delivery often turns out to be more painful
not have strong emotions about the situation can and less useful than it should be. This is because
offer a more objective perspective that can be in- cognitive and emotional dynamics lead feedback
valuable to those who are giving and receiving givers to produce poor quality feedback and lead
feedback. Third parties can be especially helpful if them to have difficulty seeing the weaknesses of
they understand the cognitive and emotional dy- their feedback. At the same time. the cognitive and
namics associated with the other roles and if they ,,~motional reactions experienced by receivers can
have some training in how to intervene. Third par- provoke extreme negative reactions even to accu-
ties can help feedback givers to formulate better rate feedback. Through understanding these dy-
2005 Cannon and Witherspoon 133

namics, enlisting third parties, and self-question- sal positivity bias in attributions?: A meta-analytic review of in-
ing, managers can deliver more actionable dividual. developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serv-
feedback that produces greater learning, less de- ,. ing attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin. 130(5): 711-747.
17 Bandura. A. 1990. Reflections on nonability determinants of
fensiveness, and more appropriate action. competence. In Sternberg. R.I.. & Kolligan. I. (Eds.), Competence
considered: 315-362. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18 Miller, D. T. 1976. Ego involvement and attributions for
success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Endnotes
ogy, 34: 901-906.
I Tesser. A.. & Rosen. S. 1975. The reluctance to transmit bad 19 Staw. B.• Sandelands. L.. & Dutton. I. 1981. Threat-rigidity

news. In Berkowitz. L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Ad-
psychology (vol. 8). New York: Academic Press; Bond. C.• & ministrative Science Quarterly. 26(4): 501-524.
Anderson. E. 1987. The reluctance to transmit bad news: Private 20 Moss. S. E., & Sanchez, 1. I. 2004. Are your employees avoid-
discomfort or public display? Journal of Experimental Social ing you? Managerial strategies for closing the feedback gap.
Psychology. 73(2): 199-207. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 32-44.
2 DeNisi, A.. & Kluger. A. 2000. Feedback effectiveness: Can 21 DeNisi & Kluger, 2000. op. cit.
360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management 22 Argyris. C. 1982. Reasoning, learning, and action. San Fran-

Executive, 14(1): 129-139; Audia, P.. & Locke. E. 2003. Benefiting cisco: Iossey-Bass
from negative feedback. Human Resource Management Review. 23 Philip McArthur. Robert Putnam. and Diana McLain Smith
13(4): 631-646. of Action Design made additional refinements in Argyris ladder
3 London. M. (1995) Giving feedback: Source-centered ante- of inference and provide helpful information regarding how the
cedents and consequences of constructive and destructive feed- ladder of inference and other Argyris concepts can be used
back. Human Resource Management Review. 5(3): 159-188; With effectively in practice. See actiondesign.com for further infor-
hindsight. co-workers see warning signs of L.A. killing. San mation.
Francisco Chronicle, 31 Iuly 1995. 24 Kunda. Z. 1999. Social cognition: Making sense of people.
4 Locke and Latham (1990) note that the importance of feed- Cambridge: MIT Press. .:
back for improving performance is "well-established if not one 25 Ilgen. D.. & Davis. C. 2000. Bearing bad news: Reactions to
of the best-established findings in the psychological literature" negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology. 49(3): 550-
(p. 173) Locke, E.. & Latham. G. 1990. A theory of goal setting and 515; Moss. S., Valenzi. E.. & Taggart. W. 2003. Are you hiding
task performance. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. from your boss? The development of a taxonomy and instru-
5 Ibid. ment to assess the feedback management behaviors of good
6 Michaels. E.. Handfield-Iones, H., & Axelrod. B. 2001. The war and bad performers. Journal of Management, 29(4): 487-510.
for talent. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 100. 26 Ross. L. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcom-
7 McCall notes that the learning the right lessons from expe- ings: distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz (Ed.),
rience is nol "automatic." See McCall. M. W. 2004. Leadership Advances in Experimental Psychology (vol. 10): 173-219. New
development through experience. Academy of Management Ex- York: Academic Press.
ecutive. 18(3): 127-130. 27 Iuslin. P., Winman. A.• & Olsson. H. 2000. Naive empiricism
8 Kluger. A.. & DeNisi. A. 1996. The effects of feedback inter- and dogmatism in confidence research: A critical examination
ventions on performance: A historical review. a meta-analysis. of the hard-easy effect. Psychology Review. 107(2): 384-396.
and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological 28 See Argyris. C. 1982. Reasoning, learning, and action. San
Bulletin. 119(2): 254-284. Francisco: Iossey-Bass. Argyris describes the process in this
9 Mintzberg. H. 2004. Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the book. In addition. Argyris has taught the XIY case at Harvard
soft practice of managing and management development. San Business School for many years. and he uses it to illustrate how
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. observers can readily see the flaws in what the feedback giver
10 With hindsight, co-workers see warning signs of L.A. kill- is saying. However. when they are in the feedback giving role
ing. San Francisco Chronicle. 31 Iuly 1995. A17; Iackman, I.. & they are unable to see the flaws in their own feedback.
Strober. M. 2003. Fear of feedback. Harvard Business Review. 29 Argyris. C. 2004. On organizationallearning (2 nd ed.). Mal-
81(4): 101-107. den. MA: Blackwell Publishing.
11 Martinko. M.. & Gardner. W. 1987. The leader/member at- 30 London. M. 1997. Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using
tribution process. Academy of Management Review. 12(2): 235- feedback for performance improvement. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence
249. Erlbaum.
12 Brown. 1. D. 1991. Accuracy and bias in self-knowledge. In 31 Forgas. I. 2003. Affective influences on attitudes and judg-
Snyder. C.R.. & Forsyth. D.R. (Eds.). Handbook of social and ments. In Davidson. R.. Scherer. K.. & Goldsmith. H. (Eds.). Hand-
clinical psychology: 158-178. New York: Pergammon. book of affective sciences: 596-618. New York: Oxford University
13 Miller. D.. & Ross. M. 1975. Self-serving biases in attribution Press.
of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82: 213-225. 32 Also see Musch. I.. & Klauer. K. (Eds.). 2003. The psychology
14 Iones. E.. & Nisbett. R. 1972. The actor and the observer: of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion.
Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In Iones, E.. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kanouse. D.. Kellye. H.. Nisbett. S.. Valins. S.. & Weiner. B. (Eds.), 33 Fedor. D. B. 1989. Investigating supervisor attributions of
Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown. NJ: subordinate performance. Journal of Management 15(3):405-416.
General Learning Press. 34 Moss. S. E.. & Martinko. M. I. 1998. The effects of perfor-
IS Martinko & Gardner. 1987. op. cit. mance attributions and outcome dependence on leader feed-
16 Taylor, S. E., Lerner, J. S.. Sherman, D. K.. Sage. R. M.. & back behavior following poor subordinate performance. Journal
McDowell. N. K. 2003. Portrait of the self-enhancer: Well ad- of Organizational Behavior, 19: 259-274; London. M. (Ed). 2001.
justed and well liked or maladjusted and friendless. Journal of How people evaluate others in organizations. Mahwah. NJ: Law-
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1): 165-176; Mezulis. A. H.. rence Erlbaum.
Abramson. L. Y.. Hyde. I. S.• & Hankin, B. L. 2004. Is there a univer- 35 Robbins. T.. & DeNisi. A. 1998. Mood vs. interpersonal af-
134 Academy of Management Executive May

feet: Identifying process and rating distortions in perfon;nance 44 Moss. S. E., & Sanchez. J. 1. 2004. Are Your Employees
appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(3): 313-325. Avoiding You? Managerial Strategies for Closing the Feed-
36 Mitchell, T., & Wood, R. 1980. Supervisor's responses to back Gap. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1): 32-44;
subordinate's poor performance: A test of an attributional Lee. F. 1993. Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad news is
model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 25, communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Ap-
123-128. plied Social Psychology, 23(14): 1124-1149; Longenecker. C.,
37 Moss. S., & Martinko. M. 1998, op. cit.
Sims, H., & Gioia, D. 1987. Behind the mask: The politics of
38 DeNisi & Kluger, 2000, op. cit.
employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive,
39 Luthans, F.. & Peterson. S. 2004. 36D-degree feedback with
1(3): 183-193.
systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning
combination. Human Resource Management, 42(3): 243-256; Mark D. Cannon is an Assistant Professor of Leadership, Policy
Smither, J., London. M.. Flault, R., Vargas, Y., & Kucine. 2003. Can and Organizations and of Human and Organizational Develop-
working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback
ment at Vanderbilt University. He investigates barriers to learn-
ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel
ing in organizational settings such as positive illusions, indi-
Psychology, 56(1): 23-44.
vidual and organizational defenses, and barriers to learning
40 Longenecker. C., Sims. H., & Gioia, D. 1987. Behind the
mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Manage- from failure. He has published l"ecently on executive coaching
ment Executive, 1(3): 183-193. topics, including coaching leaders in transition. He received his
41 Baron. R. 1988. Negative effects of destructive criticism:
Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from Harvard. Contact:
Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal mark.d.cannon@Vanderbilt.edu
of Applied Psychology, 73(2): 199-207.
42 See the "CFO Case" in Witherspoon. R. & Cannon. M.D.
Robert Witherspoon is a seasoned executive coach and Presi-
2004. Coaching leaders in transition: Lessons from the field. In dent of Performance & Leadership Development Ltd. in Wash-
A. F. Buono (Ed.). Research in management consulting. Vol 4: ington. D.C. As a coach to leaders and their organizations, he
Innovative perspectives in management consulting. 201-228. helps clients improve their business results by developing key
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. people. He is the lead author of Four Essential Ways that Coach-
43 Wiswell, A.. & Lawrence, H. 1994. Intercepting managers' ing Can Help Executives. a best seller from the Center for
attributional bias through feedback-skills training. Human Re- Creative Leadership. He holds advanced degrees from Prince-
source Development Quarterly, 5(1): 41-53. ton and University of Paris. Contact: Robert@TopCoaches.net