Skip to content

Esther Derby
Syndicate content esther derby associates, inc.
designing your environment for agile success
Updated: 52 min 22 sec ago

The Risks of Anonymous Feedback

Wed, 05/10/2017 - 21:45

In one of the online forums I participate in, someone declared that feedback between peers must be anonymous. His rationale was that people won’t be honest without anonymity.

I have found that it is possible to be honest and not anonymous. 

I’ve also found that anonymous feedback backfires in number of ways:

People veer into judgement rather than information when they hide behind anonymity.  That’s seldom helpful.  An anonymous zinger doesn’t help. Nor does a value statement such as,  “you don’t pull your weight” or “you’re stingy with information.”

Unless feedback is very specific,  the receiver may not recognize (or even  remember) what the feedback giver refers to.  With anonymous feedback, there’s no way to follow up and ask for examples, understand impact, negotiate a better way to work together, or make amends, if that’s what is called for.

It is fairly normal for people to try to guess who gave a particular bit of anonymous feedback, especially if the feedback is critical, judgmental, or conflicts with the receiver’s self-perception. People often guess wrong, and that distorts and damages relationships.

The practice of anonymous feedback erodes trust in the group.  A feedback receiver may wonder, “If he had a problem with me, why didn’t he tell me…”  People become more cautious, engage in more protective behavior, and hide mistakes or issues.

Honest, congruent person-to-person feedback requires thought and skill. But it is worth the effort. and contributes to a more resilient, and humane culture.

© Esther for esther derby associates, inc., 2017. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Categories: Blogs

Change Artist Super Powers: Empathy

Mon, 04/24/2017 - 18:33

Some people seem to think that empathy has no place at work…that work requires a hard-nose, logic, and checking your emotions at the door. But, in periods of change, emotions—which are always present, whether we choose to acknowledge them or not—surge to the surface. Ignoring the emotional impact of change doesn’t make it go away. Rather, attempts to depress or devalue people’s response to change may amplify emotions.

Empathy is the ability to recognize and vicariously identify someone else’s experience and emotions. Empathy enables you to understand someone else’s point of view, the challenges posed by the change, what they value, and what they stand to lose by changing.

Empathizing doesn’t mean you have to feel the same thing, think the same way, make the other person feel better, or fix the situation so everyone is happy. Demonstrating empathy means you listen, acknowledge, and accept feelings and points of view as legitimate. Empathy is fundamentally about respect.

Three kinds of empathy play a part in change.

Emotional empathy, understanding another’s emotions and feelings. This is what usually comes to mind first when people hear the term. Emotions are a normal part of change—from excitement, to grief, puzzlement, loss of confidence, and anger. Too often, people who “drive” change dismiss these responses and urge people “just get on with it.”

Cognitive empathy means understanding someone else’s patterns of thought and how he makes sense of his world and events. Understanding how others think about things may help you frame a new idea in a way that meshes with their views. That also helps you—you’ll know more about the obstacles and issues you are likely to encounter.

Point-of-View empathy combines a bit of both of these, and it allows you to say genuinely, “I can see how it looks that way to you.” Once you extend that courtesy to someone, he is more likely to want to see how the situation looks to you.

Empathy provides information that helps with change in at least two ways:

You can refine your ideas about the change based on local information, which people are more likely to share when you make an effort to listen and connect with them.

People are more likely to listen to you when they feel listened-to.

The more you listen, the more you learn about the needs and values of the people facing a change. And that is the key: People rarely change because someone has a bright new idea. They change to save something they value. But you won’t learn that unless you empathize.

© Esther for esther derby associates, inc., 2017. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Categories: Blogs

Jobs don’t fit in neat little boxes.

Sat, 04/15/2017 - 19:09

Most job descriptions decompose work into discrete chunks, clearly defining what each position must do. Competency models list required behaviors, seeking standardization across contexts. In essence, these models are akin to specifications for machine parts.

Complex knowledge work isn’t like that.

I prefer to think about jobs in terms of the work, impact on the organization, context, relationship, and collaboration. There’s a core of qualities, skills, experience, and demonstrated understanding necessary for the work. Context shapes what’s actually required to do the job and have an impact on the organization.

Sort of like a fried egg.

Doesn’t fit in a nice neat box, but closer to reality.

Job Descriptions vs. Jobs

 

© Esther for esther derby associates, inc., 2017. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Categories: Blogs