I used to explain to managers that the reason why they needed to ensure
that their employees got feedback was this:
Imagine someone whose "business objective" was to walk from here to that
door. This person takes one step, in some direction. Now they must
decide whether to continue (take another step in the same direction) or
change direction. They stand there, with one foot lifted off the floor,
desperately trying to make this decision. Without feedback (comparing the
direction of their first step with what is needed to achieve the
objective) they will be stuck with their foot in mid-air forever --
frozen in place. Of course this doesn't really happen, with most
employees, because they have learned that inaction is unacceptable; so
they will make a decision and either continue or change.
One lesson: People need feedback so desperately that, in the absence of
actual feedback, they will invent it.
Another lesson -- about the timeliness of feedback (which is most often
the real issue in practical situations, I've found.)
Imagine that you are at a bowling alley. Your employees are bowling,
their "business objective" being to knock down the pins at the end of the
alley. However, someone has dropped a heavy, soundproof curtain down
between the pins and the head of the alley from where the employees roll
the balls. They can neither see nor hear any results of their bowling.
So you, being a good manager, position yourself at the curtain so you can
see their results and relay them back to your employees. You're going to
"give them a little feedback."
The first ball is rolled, goes under the curtain and strikes some pins.
You say nothing. The employee asks, "Where's my feedback?" You reply,
"Not to worry. I'll tell you how you did at your semi-annual review.
Just keep bowling!"
So -- the problem in many organizations is how the information (feedback)
systems are designed. And most of them are designed as "management
information systems" -- which means, the information is collected from the
points of action in the organization (out where people are doing the real
work), summarized a level at a time, and over the course of too much time
presented in neat packages to central managers. Both the timing and the
level of summarization may be quite appropriate and even useful to central
managers -- that's not my complaint. My complaint is that then this
delayed and summarized information is then distributed back into the
system, level by management level, until many weeks or months later the
people who are actually doing the work get "information" that is not
useful as feedback at all. To return to my first story, they've long
since had to decide whether to take the next steps in the same or
different directions and they've made up their own feedback about it to
avoid being frozen in place.
These stories may give you a clue as to wherein the solution may lie. But
if you want my opinions and experience, I'll be happy to share them at a
later date.
--"John W. Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>