-
Are your employees avoidingyou? Managerial strategies for
closing the feedback gap
Sherry E. Moss and Juan I. Sanchez
Executive OverviewWhen employees perform poorly, they should
seek feedback from managers. In return,
managers should give constructive feedback to employees, so that
they can improve theirperformance. However, this kind of meaningful
exchange about employee performance isoften precluded by managers
themselves. Some managers have an overly supportivestyle and feel
uncomfortable giving negative feedback. Other managers are
intolerant offailure and react harshly to feedback-seeking from
poor performers. This causesemployees to stop asking for feedback
or even to avoid discussing performance with theirmanagers
entirely. Some employees, such as those who generally fear negative
feedback,will be more likely than others to avoid feedback from
their managers, even though itmight be helpful. Others will be
reluctant to seek feedback because of the potential costof being
perceived as incompetent. These actions of employees and managers
canmutually instigate and reinforce one another, creating a vacuum
of meaningfulexchanges about poor performance. We refer to this
phenomenon as the feedback gap.We propose a get-well plan that
offers concrete guidelines so that managers can narrowthe feedback
gap. Our prescription stimulates managers to view feedback about
poorperformance as a learning opportunity, rather than as a chance
to blame others.
........................................................................................................................................................................
One day before the shuttle Columbia broke up overthe skies of
Texas on February 1, 2003, NASA engi-neers were engaged in an
intense debate by phoneand e-mail over potential wing damage from
ex-treme heat, a scenario much like the one investi-gators believe
happened.1 For some still unclearreasons, the engineers never took
the matter to topNASA managers. Similarly, the direct
subordinatesof authoritarian leader Saddam Hussein were ap-parently
so afraid of bringing him bad news thathe did not receive accurate
reports of the coalitionforces rapid approach toward Baghdad in the
2003Iraq War. In the Chinese province of Guangdong,sources have
speculated that government officialsinterfered with information
concerning the rapidspread of the Severe Acute Respiratory
Syndrome(SARS), apparently because they might havefeared their
superiors reaction.2
In each of the above scenarios, evidence sug-gests that
employees consciously decided to avoiddiscussing problems with
their superiors. Such de-cisions not to communicate performance
concerns
to ones superiors are unlikely to help the organi-zation learn
from its mistakes.3 The most basicpremise of learning, in an
organizational sense,is the detection and correction of error;4
thus,when employees identify a problem or have a con-cern about
performance, they should engage infeedback-seeking behavior and ask
their managerfor information or guidance. In that same
ideallearning organization, managers provide helpful,constructive
feedback when employees performpoorly. Employees, in turn, use such
feedback toimprove their performance.
As the examples of the shuttle Columbia, IraqWar, and SARS
somberly illustrate, employees arenot always the active seekers of
feedback por-trayed in the ideal learning organization.5
Partic-ularly in the case of poor employee performance,both
managers and employees often neglect toengage in the kind of
meaningful and constructiveexchanges that lead to improved
performance. Inthe case of managers, this communication
failurestems from one or both of the following: a strong
Academy of Management Executive, 2004, Vol. 18, No. 1
........................................................................................................................................................................
32
-
sense of discomfort when giving negative feed-back or a lack of
tolerance for poor performanceand the accompanying emotionally
charged reac-tions. The result is that either no feedback is
givenor feedback is delivered in a manner which hin-ders
performance improvement. In the case of em-ployees who perform
poorly, their failure to seekfeedback and their avoidance of
negative feed-back from the supervisor are motivated by proac-tive
(and yet ill-fated) attempts to not only preservetheir self-images,
but also manage their impres-sions on others. As a result, both
managers andemployees contribute to the phenomenon that wehave
termed the feedback gap.
The feedback gap widens as a result of a spiral-ing reaction
where employee and supervisor rein-force and stimulate each other
to neither receivenor give feedback regarding performance.
Thisspiraling reaction perpetuates a corporate culturethat
precludes organizational learning. We arguethat a healthy feedback
exchange is key to thelearning organization. Indeed, even though
thecompetitive advantage of the learning organiza-tion is well
understood, the roadmap for creating itis still blurry. To be
useful, such a roadmap shoulddo more than sing the praises of
organizationallearning. It should describe the specific actionsthat
are likely to instigate a healthy feedback ex-change among managers
and employees. Uncov-ering those actions implies an understanding
ofthe process through which the feedback gap be-tween its two
primary actors, the employee and themanager, narrows or widens.
First, we will exam-ine why employees, who often regard their
man-agers as the single most important source of feed-back in the
workplace,6 will sometimes go to greatlengths to avoid receiving
managerial feedback.
Feedback-Avoiding Behavior (FAB): Dodging theFeedback Bullet
From time to time, employees miss deadlines, de-liver a
low-quality work product or service, or failto complete a task. In
an ideal scenario, we wouldexpect employees to seek feedback from
their man-agers following an episode of poor performance.The
manager would in turn provide helpful andconstructive feedback,
which the employee wouldaccept and use to get back on the right
path. How-ever, there are sometimes costs associated withseeking
feedback that outweigh the obvious ben-efits (see Table 1). A
compelling motivation not toseek feedback is that it potentially
exposes anemployee to various threats to her public reputa-tion and
private self-esteem. The employee mayfear appearing incompetent in
the eyes of her man-
ager. If she asks for information publicly (e.g., in ameeting),
she may be subject to ridicule or judg-ment from either her manager
or her coworkers.7 Inaddition, if she has been with the company for
awhile, she may be apprehensive about seekingfeedback, even when
she needs it, because she issupposed to know the ropes.8
In addition to the times when employees take apassive stance and
simply do not ask for feedback,there are also times when they
actively avoid feed-back. Feedback-avoiding behavior (FAB)
occurswhen employees use strategies that are designedto either
totally avoid their supervisors or divertthe supervisors attention
so that their poor perfor-mance is not detected and, in turn, they
do notreceive negative feedback. A recent study hasshown that
employees engage in FAB 24 per cent ofthe time following poor
performance.9 Some exam-ples of FAB tactics follow.
Employees may avoid eye contact with their su-pervisors in an
effort to avoid a more involvedinteraction. They might refrain from
talking withtheir supervisors to reduce the chances of being
TABLE 1Employee and Managerial Influences on the
Feedback Gap
Employee Influences Managerial Influences
Costs of FSB Zero-Tolerant Manager Threat to self-esteem Low
tolerance for failure Fear of appearing
incompetent to boss Fear of ridicule from
coworkers Fear of admitting
weakness
FAB temptations Desire to maintain
appearance ofconsistency
Desire to manageimpressions
Desire to buy time Desire to preserve the
ego
Personal factors whichencourage FAB Propensity to seek
positive feedback Fear of negative
evaluation High self-esteem High concern about
public image High need for approval
Propensity to make thefundamental-attributionerror
Tendency to reactemotionally to bad news
Psychologically orphysically distant fromemployees
Micromanager Too physically close to
employees Fails to delegate Obsessed with details Propensity to
make the
false-consensus error Takes over Expert in finding fault
Conflict Avoider Delays, distorts, and
avoids giving feedback Uncomfortable with
emotional reactions tofeedback
Gives employee thebenefit of the doubt
Nurturing style
2004 33Moss and Sanchez
-
asked about an unfinished project or a misseddeadline. The
employee may divert conversationswith the supervisor away from
issues relating topoor performance (i.e., change the subject).
Theemployee may filter the information provided tothe manager by
highlighting successfully com-pleted tasks while not discussing
unsuccessfullycompleted tasks. Employees may find ways tocover up
(i.e. hide, disguise, or otherwise conceal)evidence of poor
performance so that it goes unde-tected by the supervisor. They may
make them-selves scarce through interpersonal distancing(i.e.,
hiding, walking the other way, closing theiroffice door).
Ultimately, they may withdraw fromthe working environment through
absenteeism,tardiness, or finding excuses to be away from
theoffice. These are proactive avoidance behaviorsthat allow
subordinates to dodge the feedbackbullet by escaping from scenarios
in which theyare likely to receive negative feedback.
Why do employees engage in FAB? We arguehere that FAB can be
motivated by impressionmanagement needs, self-preservation needs,
or bypersonality characteristics. Table 1 outlines themotivations
for engaging in FAB that are dis-cussed next.
FAB is employed not to make oneself appearmore positive or
competent, like other impres-sion management tactics, but rather to
refrainfrom making known ones poor performance.Those who
infrequently perform poorly may en-gage in one of the FAB
strategies to maintain aconsistently positive image. In addition,
FABmay buy poor performers the time to correct theirmistakes in
order to (1) delay the immediatechances of receiving negative
feedback and (2)increase the probability of making a
positiveimpression in the future.
But feedback avoidance is not just an outward-directed
impression management tactic. It is also atactic for preserving
ones own self-concept. Mostcompetent individuals have relatively
positiveself-images.10 External threats, in the form of neg-ative
feedback from managers, can damage inter-nal impressions of
competence. Even though neg-ative feedback may be helpful in the
long run, itcan be initially ego-threatening. Indeed, what wedo at
work largely defines who we are.11 It is there-fore not surprising
that we tend to seek out infor-mation that is consistent with our
positive self-images and avoid information that threatens
ourself-images.12 In other words, we will seek feed-back when we
have performed well and avoidfeedback when we have performed
poorly.13
Does Personality Predict Feedback Avoidance?
Not all employees are equally likely to engage inFAB. A recent
study reveals that several individualcharacteristics can help us
predict which employ-ees are likely to avoid feedback from their
manag-ers (see Table 1).14 For example, some individualsare
particularly reliant on feedback from others forself-validation.
Similarly, some individuals have astrong need to gain the approval
of others. Theyderive positive feelings about themselves by ask-ing
for and receiving positive feedback and ap-proval from others, such
as their bosses.15 Theseindividuals are equally likely to avoid
negativefeedback. That is, those needing constant self-validation
are understandably discouraged whenthey find disapproval.
Similarly, individuals whoare apprehensive about negative
evaluations aremore likely than others to avoid negative
feedbackfrom their supervisors. In essence, those who aremost
concerned about the images they project toothers are likely to
engage in FAB.
The previous paragraph might give the impres-sion that employees
feedback avoiding and/ortheir lack of feedback seeking are driven
by psy-chological and personal factors that managerscannot change.
We argue that nothing could befurther from the truth. In fact, it
is the managersbehavior that often determines the cost of
feedbackseeking for the employee. In the next section, wedescribe
how managers inadvertently encouragetheir employees to avoid
feedback or at least not toactively seek it, thereby creating a
spiraling effectthat widens the feedback gap.
It is the managers behavior that oftendetermines the cost of
feedback seekingfor the employee.
Managerial Influences on the F-Gap
A review of the management literature revealedvarious managerial
behaviors that hinder the oc-currence of feedback between managers
and em-ployees. These individual behaviors, when sortedand
combined, led us to create caricatures of threestereotypical
managers who are more likely thanothers to widen the feedback gap.
We refer to theseas the Zero-Tolerant Manager, the Micromanager,and
the Conflict Avoidant Manager. While not allmanagers fall into one
of these three stereotypicalcategories, readers may recognize some
of thecharacteristics of each caricature in the actions ofmanagers
with whom they have worked.
34 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive
-
The Zero-Tolerant Manager
Managers who have zero tolerance for failure oftenreact
negatively to poor performance or to requestsfor feedback. The
negative emotions provoked byan abrupt managers reaction to poor
performanceor to the employees request for constructive feed-back
may create a mental record of what happensaround here when one
performs poorly and asksfor feedback. As a result, employees will
prefernot to engage in feedback seeking and will insteadchoose FAB.
A nursing administrator at a chil-drens hospital told us,
Unfortunately, I have aboss that is very unapproachable . . . I
avoid her asmuch as possible, and if I do something wrong, Ihope
that she does not find out about it. In supportof this
administrators concerns, a study found thatwhen employees receive
destructive criticismabout their performance, they experience
suchnegative emotional reactions (e.g., anger and ten-sion) that
they will avoid that source of feedback inthe future, and so their
performance will be un-likely to improve.16
When employees receive destructivecriticism about their
performance, theyexperience such negative emotionalreactions (e.g.,
anger and tension) thatthey will avoid that source of feedback
inthe future, and so their performance willbe unlikely to
improve.16
In addition to the destructive reactions of Zero-Tolerant
Managers to poor performance, theiranalysis of the events that led
to poor performanceis an important determinant of FAB.
Psychologi-cally and physically distant from his employees,the
Zero-Tolerant Manager is oblivious to the situ-ational factors that
contributed to their perfor-mance failures and instead attributes
poor perfor-mance to individual employee characteristics suchas
laziness, incompetence, or lack of effort. In fact,research has
widely documented the so-called fun-damental-attribution error,
whereby observers areprone to attribute others failures not to the
situa-tion but to flaws in their characteristics or behav-ior.17
Prior insensitivity by the manager toward thesituational factors
that might have contributed tothe employees performance problems is
likely tomotivate FAB in the future, because the employeenow
believes that the manager will directly blamehim/her while ignoring
all other factors possiblycontributing to the problem. This feeling
of beingblamed causes unpleasantness for the employeeand creates a
motivation to avoid feedback.18
In addition, their low tolerance for failure influ-ences
Zero-Tolerant Managers to react in an explo-sive manner when poor
performance is brought totheir attention. They may publicly berate
employ-ees in meetings, furthering employee distress fol-lowing
poor performance. A VP of marketing andsales told us, Discussing
mistakes with my boss isnever a pleasant task as my boss is the
scoldingtype who does not use psychology or diplomacywhen
addressing issues. When you make a mis-take, he will let you know
the old fashioned way,by shouting at you! The adaptive side of
humannature tries to restore a healthy equilibrium byminimizing
discomfort after a stressful event.Thus, the more unpleasant and
painful the typicalfeedback session is with their boss, the more
likelyemployees are to avoid feedback.19
The Micromanager
The Micromanager is also likely to precludehealthy feedback
exchanges.20 Consider the caseof an executive we will call Joe M.M.
(microman-ager), an academically brilliant chemistry Ph.D. ata
Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company. His su-perb technical skills
made him a star early in hiscareer. He fully invested himself in
detailed inves-tigations of production problems. His search for
thesource of problems was obsessive, always workinglate and
offering himself as a model of how toproblem-solve.
But when Joe M.M. was selected to head thetechnical services
area for the entire facility, histroubles began. Now responsible
for providingleadership, delegating responsibility, and helpingto
develop employees, Joe M.M. did not trust thathis subordinates were
as capable as he was. Hefailed to delegate power, became obsessed
withdetails instead of providing general guidance, andquickly took
over for others when they did not meethis expectations. In his
obsession with findingwhat people did wrong, Joe M.M. did not
botherexplaining the reasons that made such details im-portant.
Afraid of not being able to hold theirground in the face of his
intense scrutiny, employ-ees hid the real issues from him or took
perilousshort-cuts to give the false appearance that every-thing
was under control. Employee discontent andturnover did not take
long to mount up, and JoeM.M. was soon terminated.
This type of Micromanager should be compli-mented on his concern
for detecting and correct-ing errors, which is a basic tenet of the
learningorganization. However, he goes about this goal inall the
wrong ways. First, he chooses to be physi-cally close to his
employees, and yet he remains
2004 35Moss and Sanchez
-
psychologically distant from them. That is, he tellsthem what to
do, how to do it, and what they aredoing wrong, but he gives them
neither the oppor-tunity to develop their own ways of completing
thetask nor support during the process. He does notconsult with
them or get their input. He does notdevelop them because he does
not trust that theycan do the job as well as he can. He engages in
thefalse-consensus bias, which means that he be-lieves that his own
way of doing things is correctand then uses this as the standard by
which tojudge the performance of his employees. If they donot
approach the task using his methodology, heattributes their failure
to internal characteristics.Instead of giving them developmental
feedback,he jumps in and takes over for them. The Micro-manager
struggles to create an environment ofperfectionism that nobody can
live up to. Besiegedby the Micromanager, employees focus their
ener-gies on concealing mistakes rather than on doingtheir
jobs.
The Conflict Avoider
Still another type of manager who contributes tothe feedback gap
is the Conflict Avoider. Uncom-fortable with giving bad news to
others, thesemanagers simply avoid giving negative
feedbackaltogether.21 In a recent survey of 2,600 Americanworkers,
Mercer Human Resource Consultingfound that 58 per cent of
respondents claim thattheir supervisors do not give them regular
feed-back on their performance.22 If avoidance is not anoption, the
Conflict Avoider may delay giving feed-back.23 This means that when
feedback is eventu-ally given, there may be little connection in
theemployees mind between the poor performanceand the feedback. In
the cases of delay and avoid-ance, the payoff for the manager is
that she eithertotally or temporarily avoids the
uncomfortablediscussion. The organization, however, pays ahigh
price because the poor performance remainsuncorrected for an
unnecessarily long time. Fi-nally, Conflict Avoiders may distort
feedback sothat the poor performance seems less severe thanit
really is.24 That is, they water down the nega-tive feedback, which
results in the employeegetting a mixed message that fails to convey
theseriousness of the performance problem. As amanager at a major
public utility shared with us, Ihave found that managers tend to be
hesitantabout giving negative feedback. Managers tend tobe polite
to a fault. There have been several in-stances [in my company] when
the employees per-ception of their performance is nowhere near
theperception of the manager.
One explanation for the Conflict Avoiders reti-cence to give
negative feedback involves the kindsof attributions that this type
of manager is likely tomake. If the manager is convinced that the
em-ployee has little control over the situation, he islikely to be
more forgiving of the employees poorperformance. Managers are
especially likely tofeel this way when they perceive that the
situationis temporary (The problem will go away soon, sowhy bother
confronting the employee?).25 More-over, the Conflict Avoider may
be more inclinedthan other managers to accept the employees
ex-ternal attributions (i.e., excuses) for failure as away to avoid
the discomfort of providing negativefeedback.
It can be said that emotional reactions to feed-back always play
an important part in the manag-ers decision to provide feedback,
but such emo-tional reactions seem to be pivotal for the
ConflictAvoider. For instance, managers who perceive thatthe
employees self-concept is likely to be threat-ened by the feedback,
probably because there is awide gap between the employees
self-perceptionof competence and the employees results, may beless
inclined to provide it. Those employees whoreact defensively to
negative feedback are difficultfor conflict-avoiding managers to
handle becausethey refuse to acknowledge culpability for
poorresults. In addition, those employees who becomeemotionally
upset when they receive negativefeedback make Conflict Avoiders
especially un-comfortable. The easiest way out, in both of
thesecases, is for the manager to avoid giving negativefeedback to
these employees.
Those employees who react defensivelyto negative feedback are
difficult forconflict-avoiding managers to handlebecause they
refuse to acknowledgeculpability for poor results.
Still another explanation for the reluctance toprovide feedback
is that some conflict-avoidingmanagers have a nurturing style and
like to besupportive, no matter what. These managers maybe so
psychologically close with their employeesthat they focus on
providing support, consolation,and reaffirmation of the employees
competence.This style may be driven by the fact that somemanagers
have a strong need for approval andwant to be held in high esteem
by their employees.Some evidence suggests that female managers
aremore likely to delay giving feedback and to posi-tively distort
feedback than male managers.26
36 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive
-
Many managers, regardless of gender, may feelmore comfortable in
a nurturing role, and thismindset may push them to provide
unconditionallypositive feedback, even if it means ignoring
seri-ous signs of poor performance.
In sum, different types of managers engagein zero tolerance,
micromanagement, or conflictavoidance which, in combination with
various em-ployee motivations to avoid feedback, spirals intoa
mutually reinforcing set of behaviors that widenthe feedback gap.
The following section describesseveral specific strategies that
managers can useto begin closing the feedback gap.
Managerial Strategies for Closing theFeedback Gap
Through their individual behavior, managers arein the unique
position to stimulate individual em-ployees to seek feedback. Here
we offer a set ofbehavioral prescriptions that will help
managerssurmount the spiraling effects of the feedback gap.The
tactics fall into five main categories: (1) inves-tigating
potential causes of poor performance, (2)managing physical and
psychological distance, (3)engaging in active listening, (4) giving
effective,non-threatening feedback, and (5) developing alearning
mindset for failure. Table 2 outlines thetactics described below,
and Table 3 describeshow the tactics will specifically help each of
thethree manager types.
Be Open-Minded About All Potential Causes ofPoor Performance
When analyzing poor employee performance, eachmanager type seems
predisposed to a particularattribution bias. The Zero-Tolerant
Manager com-mits the fundamental-attribution error by attribut-ing
failure to internal employee characteristicssuch as lack of effort
or lack of ability. The Micro-manager believes that things should
be done hisway and that there is something wrong with em-ployees
who tackle tasks their own way. The Con-flict Avoider is overly
accepting of employees ex-ternal excuses for their poor performance
becauseof her own need to be accepted. While it is normalfor most
managers, not just the three extremesdepicted here, to let their
biases taint their feed-back behavior, the better manager will take
thetime to investigate all of the potential causes ofpoor
performance before deciding whether, when,and how to deliver
feedback.
While it is normal for most managers, notjust the three extremes
depicted here, tolet their biases taint their feedbackbehavior, the
better manager will takethe time to investigate all of thepotential
causes of poor performancebefore deciding whether, when, and howto
deliver feedback.
Given the tendency to let attribution biases af-fect whether and
how we give feedback, managersmay attend training sessions that
describe biasesin causal reasoning processes, so that they
canimprove their ability to detect causes of poor per-formance.27
This kind of training should makemanagers aware of the need to
think multi-dimen-sionally about the causes of poor performance.28
Itcan also teach managers to distinguish betweenreliable patterns
of poor employee performance
TABLE 2Management Tactics for Closing the F-Gap
Understand All PotentialCauses of PoorPerformance Receive
attribution
training Explore attribution
biases Ask for employee
accountsManage Physical andPsychological Distance Reduce
physical distance
to understand externalcauses of poorperformance
Increase physicaldistance to give decisionlatitude
Reduce psychologicaldistance to gain empathyand trust
Increase psychologicaldistance to gainobjectivity
Engage in Active Listening Be fully attentive to
employees when theyseek feedback
Express interest inemployee needs
Verbally summarizeemployee concerns toensure understanding
Verbally acknowledgeemployee statements
Give Effective, Non-ThreateningFeedback Give task-level and
motivational feedback Describe poor performance in
behavioral terms Focus on specific, controllable
behavior Ask employee for
improvement suggestions Give negative feedback in
private Use effective timing Compare employee
performance to a standard,not to other employees
Use a feedback script (e.g.,DASR)
Develop a Learning Mindset Consider failure an
opportunity to learn Dissect failure from a
learning perspective Capture the learning Realize that failure
is a by-
product of risk-taking andinnovation
Do not tolerate scapegoating
2004 37Moss and Sanchez
-
and isolated incidents. For instance, rather thantaking for
granted the employees seemingly validexcuses for an incident of
poor performance, themanager should consider the base rate or
fre-quency with which the employee engages in thiskind of
perhaps-not-so-unusual occurrence.29 Attri-bution training can help
managers feel more com-fortable discussing episodes of poor
performancewith their employees (see Table 3).
Another tactic for identifying the root causes ofpoor
performance is to seek employee accounts.Zero-Tolerant Managers,
instead of relying on theirnatural tendency to blame employees for
poor re-sults, should seek the employees explanation forthe poor
results. The Micromanager should takeinto consideration the
possibility that the employ-ees approach may have merit. By
acknowledgingand considering the employees views, the man-ager
creates a perception of fairness.30 While it isnatural for the
employee to provide self-servingexcuses (external attributions) for
poor perfor-mance, showing consideration gives the manager
a better chance to instill a similarly considerateattitude in
the employee throughout the feedbackexchange. Supervisors who have
had long andclose working relationships with employees aremore
likely to allow employee accounts to influ-ence their perceptions
of the causes of poor perfor-mance.31 In seeking the employees
account of thereasons for poor performance, the manager
haspotentially learned that there are resources thatshe can bring
to bear in order to reduce the barri-ers to success.32
Distance Management
We have said that the Zero-Tolerant Managertends to make faulty
attributions partly due to thelack of time spent with an employee
and/or thelack of empathy for the employees feelings. Toreduce the
physical distance between themselvesand employees, managers can
occasionally visitemployees in their own work spaces or join them
inthe field, thereby gaining a better understanding
TABLE 3Effects of Gap-Closing Strategies on Each Managerial
Type
Management Strategy Zero-Tolerant Manager Micromanager Conflict
Avoider
Open mind aboutcauses of poorperformance Attribution training
Understand fundamental-
attribution errorUnderstand false-consensus
effectUnderstand employees use of
self-serving bias Seek accounts Understand possible external
reasons for failureUnderstand employees
rationale for task strategyOpen up dialogue more
comfortably (for manager)
Distance Management Reduce physical distance tounderstand
employeesenvironment
Increase physical distance togive discretion
Increase psychological distanceto gain objectivity
Reduce psychologicaldistance to gain empathy
Reduce psychological distanceto gain empathy
Active Listening Gives manager tools to avoidhasty emotional
responses
Allows manager to consideralternative ways to completetasks
Reduces managers discomfortby having employee
controldialogue
Give Effective Feedback Task or motivational
levelManager avoids attacking
the employeeManager avoids making
employee feel inadequateManager realizes that negative
feedback can be non-threatening
Private Reduces employee discomfort Reduces employee discomfort
Reduces managers discomfort Well-timed Wait: Allows manager to
check emotionsWait: Allows employees task
strategy to play outGive immediately: Maximize
impact and reduce chance oflosing contingency
throughdelay/avoidance
DASR Allows manager to expressemotions in a non-threatening
way
Forces manager to assesswhether feedback focuses ontask process
or task outcome
Manager feels more in controland less uncomfortable witha
rehearsed script
Develop a LearningMindset
Organization will advance ifwe embrace failure ratherthan find
scapegoats
Employee will develop more ifgiven discretion to experimentand
possibly fail
If we dont directly addressfailure, we will never improve
38 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive
-
of the external barriers and difficulties that em-ployees
encounter in performing their duties. Theywill then be capable of
making a more accuratediagnosis of performance failures, thereby
becom-ing better equipped to help the employee over-come
barriers.
Contrary to the Zero-Tolerant Manager, the Mi-cromanager is too
physically close to the em-ployee. Spending too much time hovering
over theemployee and making sure that every detail ishandled in a
certain way smothers the employeeand impedes his development. Our
advice for Mi-cromanagers is to increase physical distance andallow
employees more discretion. The Microman-ager may still maintain
control by resorting to out-come as opposed to behavior-oriented
controls;that is, focusing on the employees results insteadof being
consumed with every tiny employee stepin the process.33
While the Zero-Tolerant Manager and the Micro-manager differ in
the amount of physical distancethey leave between themselves and
their employ-ees, they are both guilty of lacking empathy
orpsychological closeness with their employees.Research shows that
decreasing psychologicaldistance not only improves manager-employee
re-lations, but also reduces attribution biases.34 Re-ducing
psychological distance involves develop-ing and demonstrating an
understanding of theemployees point of view. It is a
communicationstyle that involves open discussion, patience,
un-derstanding, and support without dominating theemployee.35 It
also involves the use of active lis-tening (see next section).
Finally, although seemingly counterintuitive, werecommend that
the Conflict-Avoidant Managerconsider increasing psychological
distance be-tween himself and his employees. Take the case ofthe
new and inexperienced manager of the MathHelp lab at a local
university. He began havingproblems when his employees, formerly
his co-workers/friends, began missing their scheduledshifts.
Because of the psychological closeness hehad developed with them
when they were his co-workers, he felt uncomfortable in addressing
theabsenteeism problem. When employees told himthat they were
skipping their shifts because theyhad to study for their own exams,
he empathizedwith them because he too was a graduate student.The
lab manager felt that giving them negativefeedback would cause a
loss of friendship. As aresult, the Math Help lab had angry
customers,particularly at mid-term and final exam time, be-cause of
the lack of availability of math tutors.
This manager should have discussed with hissubordinates the
problems he was facing as a re-
sult of their absenteeism. This conversation wouldhave been from
the perspective of a manager try-ing to solve a business problem
and would havesolicited their input but would also have been
firmabout not sacrificing the professionalism of the laband the
necessity of committing to ones scheduledhours. The conversation
would have been lessbuddy-buddy and more here are my needs asthe
manager of this lab. Our recommendation toincrease psychological
distance does not implythat managers should lose their ability to
showempathy. It does mean that they should let theiremployees know
that, as managers, they muststrike a balance between their concern
for the em-ployee and their concern for results.
Engage in Active Listening
When soliciting employee accounts for poor re-sults, managers
must engage in empathetic andactive listening, which increases
psychologicalcloseness.36 Being an active listener does not
meansimply spending time with employees. If manag-ers do not listen
effectively, their employees willnot feel comfortable discussing
barriers to perfor-mance and may in fact resort to FAB. Managerscan
encourage employees to share any issuesopenly by setting the
appropriate tone for commu-nication. To do so, the manager must be
attentive,express interest in the employees needs, expressconcern
for the employee, reflect the sentiments ofthe employee by
restating or summarizing the em-ployees concerns, and verbally
acknowledge theemployees statements.37 These actions can makethe
employee feel that the manager is really lis-tening. He will
therefore feel more comfortable dis-cussing disappointing results
and can request theresources or direction necessary for
improvement.
Consider for instance the frustration of theWorldCom employee
who had built a spreadsheetmodel predicting Internet growth. He
tried to sendmessages up the chain of command questioningthe
validity of the Internet growth numbers thatwere taken for granted,
but nobody wanted to hearthem. Ignoring this employees warnings,
World-Com was laying fiber optic cable at a frantic paceto keep up
with the false expectations of Internetgrowth. Had his bosses taken
the time to activelylisten to him and carefully examine his data,
theywould have acted differently.38
Debby Hopkins, formerly chief financial officerof Lucent until
forced out in April 2001, says, Thekey thing Ive learned is that
the most powerfulthing you can do is listen. You dont need to
havethe last word . . . I hold back what I think. I say tomyself,
Not now, not now! Wait, wait!39 Hopkins
2004 39Moss and Sanchez
-
insights may be particularly good advice for theMicromanager,
whose instincts tell her to inter-vene with task instructions
before her employeeshave the chance to start the job. Waiting is
alsogood advice for the Zero Tolerant Manager, whomight benefit
from withholding substantive com-ment or emotional reactions until
an employee hashad the opportunity to provide a full account of
anassignment gone awry.
The key thing Ive learned is that themost powerful thing you can
do is listen.You dont need to have the last word.
Give Effective, Non-Threatening Feedback
Feedback can be given at three primary levels:task,
motivational, and self. Failure to providefeedback at the adequate
level is one of the rea-sons why feedback is effective in only one
out ofthree instances.40 Task-level feedback focuses onhow to
perform the job, and it might include guide-lines and suggestions.
Motivational feedback fo-cuses on stimulating and directing effort
to per-form the job, and it might include setting goals
anddeadlines. Self-level feedback deals with generalemployee
attributes, such as telling an employeethat he or she is not
friendly or sensitive enough.Research suggests that task and
motivationalfeedback are more effective than self-level feed-back,
which in turn tends to threaten employeeself-esteem.41 Rather than
accepting such negativeinformation, the employee is more likely to
dis-count the feedback and subsequently engagein FAB.
When giving feedback, managers should con-sider the relative
merits of comparing the employ-ees poor performance to an objective
standard (i.e.the goal) versus comparing performance to co-worker
performance, including the employees rel-ative strengths and
weaknesses.42 Contrast thedifferent effects on the employees
self-esteem pro-voked by comparative statements like You hadthe
lowest sales in the department. You rankednumber 12 out of the 12
salespeople and goal-oriented statements like Your goal was $500k
insales but you only produced $375k this quarter.One of your
strengths is your ability to create anetwork of loyal customers;
lets talk about howyou may leverage this strength to generate
newsales in your territory. Simply comparing an em-ployees
performance to coworkers performanceinvites the employee to focus
on his seeminglyinsurmountable inadequacies, rather than on the
inadequate task-level strategy or lack of motiva-tion that led
to the sub-par results.
To avoid falling into the feedback-gap trap,managers are
generally better off providing taskand motivational feedback which
not only is spe-cific and descriptive but also focuses on
control-lable behavior, not on hard-to-change
personalcharacteristics. The manager must describe theproblematic
behavior and how this behavior af-fects the results or the
organization. The managermay say, for example, When most of your
atten-tion is focused on maintaining current accountsand not enough
time is spent developing new busi-ness, the company is not able to
improve marketshare in your territory. This is quite different
fromsaying, You are lazy and dont want to work eventhough the
manager may have these thoughts.
The feedback from the manager may also spec-ify guidelines
regarding possible replacement be-haviors such as I would like to
see you spend 50per cent of your time on old accounts and 50
percent of your time developing new accounts. Themanager could show
consideration and say, Canyou think of some strategies which you
could useto add new clients? or Are there any resourcesthat I can
provide to help you build your clientbase? These comments may lead
to a discussionduring which tactics to improve performance
areidentified.
The reader may notice that in the descriptionof the feedback
exchange above, the managerfollowed a specific script often
referred to asDASRDescribe, Acknowledge, Specify, andReaffirm.43
This feedback strategy has been usedin family counseling as well as
in manager train-ing programs. It gives participants an
easy-to-follow script that eases the pain of giving
negativefeedback. The idea is to first describe the
specificbehavior the employee performed (e.g. You havebeen late to
5 of the last 6 weekly staff meetings.).Next, the feedback giver
acknowledges how thebehavior affects him or how it affects the
team/organization (e.g., When you arrive late to ourweekly staff
meetings, I have to repeat the infor-mation you missed, and this is
not a good use of mytime or the time of the other members of our
team).Then, the manager specifies the general parame-ters of a
replacement behavior (e.g., I would reallyappreciate it if you
would make a concerted effortto make it to our meetings on time. We
startpromptly at 8:00 a.m.). Finally, the manager reaf-firms the
value of the employee and his/her contri-bution (e.g. You are a
valued member of this team,and we need your input when we meet
togethereach week.).
For the Zero-Tolerant Manager, the feedback
40 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive
-
script provides a vehicle for the manager to focuson the
behavior, rather than on the person. Takinga few minutes to
rehearse the script gives the man-ager the opportunity to diffuse
his emotions, thinkabout the message he really wants to send tothe
employee, and increase his self-confidence.44While rehearsing the
script, the Micromanagershould evaluate whether or not she is
giving feed-back at the appropriate time in the task cycle.
Inthinking about how she will describe the problembehavior to the
employee, the Micromanagershould determine whether her feedback is
aboutthe outcome of the employees behavior or aboutthe process. For
the Conflict-Avoidant Manager,the rehearsed script provides a
stronger sense ofcontrol over the feedback interaction. One
execu-tive who recently employed the technique for thefirst time
told us, As I prepared for the discussion,I felt somewhat awkward
rehearsing what I wasgoing to say. However, once we started
talking, Iknew exactly where I was going, and that allowedme to
maintain a level and assured tone. Manag-ers will realize that
feedback delivered in thismanner provokes a more open and accepting
reac-tion from the recipient, rather than a defensivereaction.
Another factor that managers should consider ingiving effective
feedback is privacy. First, the merepresence of others tends to
increase evaluationapprehension,45 and therefore negative
feedbackis best given in private. A physical therapy man-ager told
us, If my boss were more understandingand involved, I am sure my
behavior would bedifferent. I would share my failures and feel
com-fortable asking for advice. This is not the situation.If a
failure is recognized, it is brought up at almostevery meeting. Its
a very demeaning situation.This scenario demonstrates that when
managerspublicly scold employees in the presence of
others,employees will engage in their best FAB to preventthe
manager from finding out about poor perfor-mance. The manager
should consider taking thetime to pull employees to the side and
give themfeedback in private. Employees wish to preservetheir
dignity and self-esteem by having negativefeedback delivered
privately, as evidenced by oneof the managers we interviewed who
told us, Asfor sub-par performance, I am grateful when mysuperiors
take the time to point out these instanc-es; they are a learning
opportunity. Of course, Iprefer to be told privately . . . because
the respectof my peers is important to me. Even if the
Zero-Tolerant Manager and the Micromanager used noother tactic
mentioned here, this one would savethem and their employees the
embarrassment ofgiving and receiving harshly delivered feedback
in public. For the Conflict-Avoidant Manager, giv-ing feedback
in private will not only reduce em-ployee discomfort but his own
discomfort as well.However, when discussing extreme cases of
poorperformance leading to termination, legal advan-tages may be
derived from having a witnesspresent. Legal concerns should be
balanced withmanagerial ones, because the presence of a wit-ness
may be perceived as a veiled threat, therebyraising the barrier to
open communication.
Negative feedback is best given inprivate.
Still another way to avoid the feedback gap is tomake sure
negative feedback is well timed. Gen-erally, this means providing
feedback immedi-ately after the behavior occurs. This way, there is
aconnection between the behavior and the conse-quence, and
therefore a greater probability thatthe employee will change the
behavior. The timeconnection is important for the Conflict
Avoider,who runs the risk of losing impact by providingfeedback
after a long delay, if at all. One exceptionto this rule pertains
to the Zero-Tolerant Managers,whose inability to hold their tempers
in check maylead them to discharge prompt yet
unproductivefeedback.46 In these cases, managers should waituntil
they are calm, collected, and able to provideconstructive feedback.
The Micromanager wouldbe well advised to resist the temptation to
jump inwhen he sees that the employee is performing atask in a
manner different from the one he wouldhave used. Unless the
employees approach devi-ates from an approved standard operating
proce-dure, is too risky, or is too costly, the managershould wait
to give feedback until he observes theemployees end result. At that
point, if the resultsare poor, the manager can provide task-level
feed-back, explaining how a different strategy wouldwork better. In
any case, the feedback should notbe so far removed from the
behavior that the con-nection is lost and the learning opportunity
fore-gone.
Develop a Learning Mindset
Failure is a normal outcome when one takes risksand attempts to
innovate. Failure allows for theexamination of processes and
practices that mayotherwise go unchallenged, thereby
facilitatingcontinuous improvement. Failure provides the
op-portunity to do an autopsy of key decisions, re-source
allocations, strategies, and processes,
2004 41Moss and Sanchez
-
which may ultimately lead to better results. Unfor-tunately,
failure too often leads members of organ-izations to direct their
energy toward identifyingscapegoats or avoiding confrontation
rather thanexamining the causes and learning from the expe-rience.
It is the latter that prevents the widening ofthe feedback gap.
This learning mindset must bevisible at every managerial level in
the organiza-tion.
Top management first needs to open the doors tofailure analysis
by reinforcing a learning-orientedreaction to failure through
clear, consistent mes-sages and reward systems. Consider, for
instance,the manner in which top management at GeneralElectric
handled the commercial failure of theHalarc, a new light bulb that
lasted ten timeslonger than the typical product at a fraction of
theenergy.47 The problem was that in the late 1970snobody was eager
to pay $10.95 for a single lightbulb! So, the product was a flop.
Jack Welchs man-agement team decided to reward and promotesome
members of the Halarc team to send a loudmessage that risk-taking,
even if things did not goas planned, was welcomed. In a similar
account, atop executive at Intel, an organization known
forinnovation, threw big failure of the month din-ners for those
groups that took the biggest risks butsuffered the biggest
failures.48
Many organizations have adopted this approachto confronting
failure and have diffused it through-out the organization. One of
the most visible ex-amples is Microsoft. Though Microsoft is
wellknown for having a demanding culture in whichemployees are
given assignments which stretchthem far beyond their experience,
the company isalso known for promoting people who have man-aged
failed projects. According to a popular Har-vard Business School
case which is used in manyMBA classrooms, the thinking behind this
practiceis, If you fire the person who failed, youre throw-ing away
the learning.49 According to one Mi-crosoft manager we interviewed,
It is not difficultfor me to discuss mistakes. I believe this
happensbecause I am very self-critical, and one of our com-pany
values is being self-critical. We are promptedto ask why or why
not, we view each experience asan opportunity for learning, and we
are encour-aged to provide direct, thoughtful feedback onstrengths
and weaknesses. Since my values are sosimilar to Microsoft values,
I feel very committedand safe as an employee in sharing my
failuresand successes. When managers adopt this mind-set, feedback
emerges as a critical resource forcontinuous organizational
learning available toemployees and managers.
The results of a recent study support the idea
that organizational learning occurs in the trenches.It appears
that there is wide variability among workgroups within the same
organization regarding theirshared beliefs about how to address
failure. Specif-ically, work teams that believed in
encouragingmembers to discuss mistakes openly, evaluate waysto
prevent them, address differences of opinion, andcommunicate errors
to the appropriate peopleachieved greater results than those teams
that cov-ered up mistakes, did not openly discuss mistakes asa
group, and avoided discussing differences of opin-ion. Further, the
study found that teams with leaderswho deliberately refocused
employees traditionalview of failure (as something shameful and to
beavoided) to the contemporary view (failure is essen-tial to
innovation and success) were more likely toshare the
learning-oriented beliefs about failure thatled to better
performance.50 Through their frequentrepetition, these beliefs and
behaviors will belearned by and taught to new members as
theaccepted way to think about, feel, and handle per-formance
feedback, thereby giving birth to the or-ganizational routines and
shared meaning that char-acterize the culture of a learning
organization.51
Organizational learning occurs in thetrenches.
Avoiding the NASA Syndrome
On one occasion during his tenure with NASA dur-ing the 1960s
and 1970s, famous chief scientistWernher von Braun sent a bottle of
champagne toan engineer who admitted that he might have
in-advertently short-circuited the Redstone missilewhich went out
of control during pre-launch test-ing. A subsequent investigation
revealed that theengineer was right. As a result of the
engineersvoluntary disclosure, an expensive missile rede-sign was
avoided.52
Let us imagine that this engineer, instead ofreporting to von
Braun, worked for a stereotypicalZero-Tolerant Manager, a
Micromanager, or a Con-flict Avoider. Being afraid of the abrupt
reaction ofthe Zero-Tolerant Manager, the engineer wouldprobably
have hidden his mistake. If working for aMicromanager, the engineer
would probably havebeen busy erasing all traces of his mistake
fromhis superior, so that he would not have to suffereven closer
supervision in the future. The engineermight have abused his
personal relationship withhis Conflict-Avoiding Manager by arguing
thatfriends do not blow the whistle on each other, orthat the
short-circuit problem was due to factorsbeyond the engineers
control.
42 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive
-
We would have applied some of our prescrip-tions and advised the
Zero-Tolerant Manager toinvest his energy in working closer with
the em-ployee, listen to his account of the events, andremain
open-minded about external factors be-yond the employees control.
Our recommenda-tions to the Micromanager would have includedgetting
to know her engineers a bit better, trustingthem more, and leaving
them some room to dotheir job. We would have advised the
ConflictAvoider to be more assertive, to learn to respect hisjob as
much as he respects his engineers feelings,and to become more
comfortable with the processof delivering feedback.
Unfortunately, it appears that the legacy of vonBrauns
management style has not survived thepassage of time. The final,
official report on thespace shuttle Columbia accident stated that
anumber of organizational cultural traits contrib-uted to the loss,
including organizational barriersthat prevented effective
communication of criticalsafety information and stifled
professional differ-ences of opinion.53
While most of us do not work in organizationsfor which product
failures produce such dire re-sults, it is indeed still difficult
to overcome thefear and personal cost of acknowledging onesown
mistakes. Career trajectories hang in thebalance in todays rapidly
changing workplace.Consequently, managers fear losing
credibilityfor admitting mistakes, and employees fear ap-pearing
incompetent following an episode ofpoor performance. While there is
much more tothe learning organization than effective
feed-back-seeking and feedback-giving, we believethat the
suggestions provided here will go a longway toward helping managers
embrace feed-back as a precious opportunity to correct per-formance
problems while they can still becorrected.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Robert G. Jones, Mark Martinko, andthe
two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlierdrafts of this
manuscript. We would also like to thank thevarious executives we
interviewed for this work.
Endnotes1 Associated Press. Engineers feared shuttle wing
burning.
CNN.com, 26 February 2003.2 Flor Cruz, J. Pressure on China over
SARS bug. CNN.com, 2
April 2003.3 Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline. The art
and practice of
the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.4 Crossan, M.
2003. Alternating theories of learning and ac-
tion: An interview with Chris Argyris. The Academy of
Manage-ment Executive, 17(2): 4046.
5 Ashford, S. J. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations:
Aliterature review and integrative model. In L. L. Cummings &B.
M. Staw (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol.
11:133174. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Ashford, S. J., &
Cummings,L. L. 1983. Feedback as an individual resource: Personal
strate-gies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and
Hu-man Performance, 32: 370398.
6 Ashford, S. J. 1993. The feedback environment: An explor-atory
study of cue use. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
14:201224.
7 Northcraft, G. B., & Ashford, S. J. 1990. The preservation
ofself in everyday life: The effects of performance expectationsand
feedback context on feedback inquiry. Organizational Be-havior and
Human Decision Processes, 47: 4264; Levy, P. E., etal. 1995.
Situational and individual determinants of feedbackseeking: A
closer look at the process. Organizational Behaviorand Human
Decision Processes, 62(1): 2337.
8 Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual
adapta-tion: A resource perspective. Academy of Management
Journal,29(3): 465487.
9 Moss, S. E., Valenzi, E. R., & Taggart, W. 2003. Are you
hidingfrom your boss? The development of a taxonomy and instru-ment
to assess the feedback management behaviors of goodand bad
performers. Journal of Management, 29(4): 487510.
10 Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
NewYork: W. H. Freeman, 1997.
11 Miller, D. T. 1976. Ego involvement and attributions
forsuccess and failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychol-ogy, 34: 901906.
12 Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13 Moss, Valenzi, & Taggart.14 Ibid.15 Fedor, D. B.,
Rensvold, R. B., & Adams, S. M. 1992. An
investigation of factors expected to affect feedback seeking:
Alongitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology, 45: 779805.
16 Baron, R. A. 1988. Negative effects of destructive
criticism:Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance.
Journalof Applied Psychology, 73(2): 199207.
17 Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal
relations.New York: Wiley.
18 Moss, S. E., & Martinko, M. J. 1998. The effects of
perfor-mance attributions and outcome dependence on leader
feed-back behavior following poor subordinate performance.
Journalof Organizational Behavior, 19: 259274.
19 Langley, L. L. 1965. Homeostasis. New York: Reinhold.20
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal leader-
ship. Boston: HBS Press: 72.21 Larson, J. R. 1986. Supervisors
performance feedback to
subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valenceand
outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision
Processes, 37: 391408; Larson, J. R. 1989. The dynamicinterplay
between employees feedback-seeking strategies andsupervisors
delivery of performance feedback. Academy ofManagement Review,
14(3): 408422.
22 Bates, S. 2003. Performance appraisals: Some
improvementneeded. HR Magazine, 48: 4.
23 Bond, C. F., & Anderson, E. L. 1987. The reluctance to
trans-mit bad news: Private discomfort or public display? Journal
ofExperimental Social Psychology, 73(2): 199207.
24 Lee, F. 1993. Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad newsis
communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Ap-plied
Social Psychology, 23(14): 11241149.
25 Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. 1987.
Behind
2004 43Moss and Sanchez
-
the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy
ofManagement Executive, 1(3): 183193.
26 Benedict, M. E., & Levine, E. L. 1988. Delay and
distortion:Tacit influences on performance appraisal effectiveness.
Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 73(3): 507514.
27 Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. 1982. Learned
helpless-ness: An alternative explanation for performance
deficits.Academy of Management Review, 7(2): 195204; Martinko, M.
J.2002. Thinking like a winner: A guide to high
performanceleadership. Tallahassee: Gulf Coast Publishing.
28 Bernardin, H. J., et al. 1998. Effective performance
man-agement. A focus on precision, customers, and
situationalconstraints. In J. S. Smither (ed.), Performance
appraisal:State of the art in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass:
3 48.
29 Nisbett, R. E., et al. 1983. The use of statistical
heuristics ineveryday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review,
90: 339363.
30 Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1992. A
dueprocess metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw
&L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior,
14:Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 129177.
31 Fedor, D. B. 1989. Investigating supervisor attributions of
sub-ordinate performance. Journal of Management, 15(3): 405416.
32 Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. 1987. The
leader/memberattribution process. Academy of Management Review,
12(2):235249.
33 Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment
andreview. Academy of Management Review, 14: 5774.
34 Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. 1972. The actor and the
observer:Divergent causes of perceptions of behavior. In E. Jones,
et al.,(eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior.
Morris-town, NJ: General Learning Press: 7994.
35 Wiswell, A. K., & Lawrence, H. V. 1994. Intercepting
man-agers attributional bias through feedback-skills training.
Hu-man Resource Development Quarterly, 5(1): 4153.
36 Ibid.37 Burley-Allen, M. 2001 Listen up. HR Magazine.
November:
115120.38 Faber, D. 2003. The rise and fraud of WorldCom. CNBC,
12:12
p.m. EST, 8 September. Can also be found at:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P60225.asp.
39 Sellers, P. 2003. Power: Do women really want it?
Fortune,October: 88.
40 DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. 2000. Feedback
effectiveness:Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? The Academy of
Man-agement Executive, 14(1): 129139.
41 Ibid.42 Sanchez, J. I., & De La Torre, P. 1996. A second
look at the
relationship between behavioral and rating accuracy in
perfor-mance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1):
310.
43 Skillsoft 2002. Giving feedback to colleagues. SkillsoftThe
E-Learning Solutions Company, www.skillsoft.com.
44 Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. 1977. Cognitive
pro-cesses mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality
&Social Psychology, 35(3): 125139.
45 Guerin, B. 1989. Reducing evaluation effects in mere
pres-ence. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(2): 183190.
46 Baron.47 Welch, J., & Byrne, J. A. 2001. Jack. Straight
from the gut.
New York: Warner Business Books: 3132.48 Leavitt, H. J. 2003.
Why hierarchies thrive. Harvard Business
Review, March: 96102.49 Bartlett, C. A. 2001. Microsoft:
Competing on Talent (A).
Harvard Business School Press, p. 6.50 Cannon, M. D., &
Edmondson, A. C. 2001. Confronting fail-
ure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs aboutfailure
in organizational work groups. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior,
22: 161177.
51 E. Schein, 1988. How culture forms, develops, and changes.In
R. Kilmann, et al., Gaining control of the corporate culture.San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 1743.
52 Coutu, D. L. 2003. Sense and reliability: A conversation
withcelebrated psychologist Karl E. Weick. Harvard Business
Re-view, April: 8490.
53 Concerns raised that changes in NASA wont
last.CNN.com/Science & Space, 26 August 2003.
Sherry Moss is academic di-rector of the executive MBAprogram
and an associate pro-fessor of management at Flor-ida International
University.She earned a Ph.D. in organi-zational behavior at
FloridaState University. She has pub-lished articles on leader
emer-gence, attributions, feedback,and feedback seeking andavoiding
in leading journalsincluding AMJ, Journal of Man-agement, and
Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior. Contact:mosss@fiu. edu.
Juan I. Sanchez is academicdirector of the M.S. in HRmanagement
and an associateprofessor of management andinternational business
at Flor-ida International University.He serves on the editorial
boardsof the Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, Personnel Psychology,
andthe International Journal of Se-lection and Assessment. He
haspublished in AMJ, AME, andmany other journals.
Contact:sanchezj@fiu. edu.
44 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive