Digest 2. How to avoid that negative feedback backfires: The power of fairness
Photo created by black.salmon - freepik
In the last digest we saw that the frequency and quality of feedback can impact employee’s well-being. Specifically, negative feedback may have harmful effects and it should be kept to the minimum necessary. Moreover, another study from the same researchers, Sparr and Sonnentag (2008), found that feedback perceived as fair has a positive impact on the well-being of employees. In other words, when giving negative feedback, it is critical that supervisors focus on delivering it in a way that ensures perceptions of fairness. But what do we mean by perceptions of fairness?
Most commonly, fairness perceptions are categorized into 3 types: distributive fairness – appropriateness of the outcome received compared to a standard or coworkers; procedural fairness - consistency of application of procedures, their prevailing ethical standards, their accuracy and correctability; and interactional fairness – the quality of treatment and communication to the employee during the feedback delivery.
So, when in fact we must deliver negative feedback, what exactly is the best way to do it so that we guarantee these perceptions of fairness?
There is a better way to give negative feedback.
A study by Chory and Kingsley Westerman (2009) explored this question by surveying 251 people from a variety of organizations on their perceptions of a recent incident where they had received negative feedback. The following 4 feedback dimensions, adapted from Geddes and Linnehan (1996), were used:
Infographic created by REAL PAL - Feedback dimensions
The study results revealed that all 4 feedback features predicted the 3 types of fairness. Overall, participants viewed the negative feedback they received as fair if they perceived it as clear and constructive, and if it was communicated by a superior who was knowledgeable of the employee’s work and who consistently applied the standards of evaluation. However, the dimensions that appear to be most important in influencing fairness perceptions are evaluative consistency and feedback constructiveness.
Organizational implications
Based on the results of this study, organizations should work to create a just atmosphere when delivering negative performance feedback by guaranteeing managers are especially consistent and constructive in their feedback.
To be perceived as consistent: managers and organizations should define and communicate clear standards of performance at the beginning of every employee’s experience. Maintaining and clearly communicating these standards to employees at the beginning of their employment, as well as at the start of any new project, will create perceptions of fairness. In the situation of needing to change the evaluation standards, it should be communicated right way and with transparency, ensuring consideration for employee’s opinions and acceptance.
To be perceived as constructive: managers should be trained to deliver feedback in a respectful and sensitive manner and to ‘‘show that one appreciates the other’s general abilities and particular possessions or performances as the reflections of those abilities’’ in order to reduce employee perceptions of threats (Lim & Bowers, 1991). Additionally, other studies have found that the use of harsh, non-specific feedback with a focus on internal causes (e.g. that focuses on the employee personality) for low performance made receivers angrier and tenser than constructive feedback. So, it may be important to also guide managers on how to deliver specific feedback, focusing on external rather than internal causes for low performance, and avoiding the use of severe or punitive tones.
In short, these procedural and stylistic features of feedback transmit respect and a concern for the receiver’s self-esteem, thus leading to perceptions of fairness. As perceptions of unfairness in appraisals have been associated with lower organizational commitment, lower job satisfaction, lower job performance, and higher intentions to quit, implementing training interventions designed around the recommended principles would have a reasonable return on investment.
——
Reference: Chory, R. M., & Kingsley Westerman, C. Y. (2009). Feedback and fairness: The relationship between negative performance feedback and organizational justice. Western Journal of Communication, 73(2), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310902856055