ANALYSES of KEY THEMES
Trust
Schein (1992) proposes that doubt, resistance and cultural assumptions stand in the way of accelerated learning. For employees to share areas of weakness, they must be in an environment that offers psychological safety, one where there is no fear of retribution or embarrassment. For many organizations, this requires a normative shift to embrace learning through practice which is tolerant of error, provides constructive feedback and where effort is rewarded. Psychological safety is established by Edmondson (1999) as a key factor within team learning which impacts organizational development. She maintains that employees lacking trust are more likely to keep knowledge private and hide mistakes or weaknesses that affect team efficacy. Willingness to admit when help is needed alerts one's teammates of a problem before it gets out of control, while developing the team’s knowledge. Argyris, (1991, p5) maintains that the move towards ‘knowledge work’ has greatly increased the reliance on knowledge sharing and mutual support through reflection and feedback. Ferrazzi (2012) notes that while instilling trust sounds intuitive, it rust runs counter to a very common deceitful practice of coworkers unwilling to provide direct feedback to people’s faces, but doing so behind their backs. Green, Gino and Staats (2017) recommend removing both physical and psychological barriers to help foster interoffice relationships. Boudrais et al, (2014) propose that a culture where employees are open to honest reflection and feedback requires strengthened human connection to build trust. This is consistent with the practice of companies sending employees on retreats and expensive outward bound types of team building adventures. Chandler and Grealish (2019) assert that not only is trust in one’s team necessary for individuals to feel comfortable requesting feedback, but it also affects the level of acceptance, as advice received from untrusted sources is less highly regarded.
Feedback
Humans face difficulty assessing themselves accurately, so we look to friends, family or trusted contacts to access the outside perspective we lack (Harford, 2011). Feedback’s primary purpose to enhance performance, and can come as either supportive or corrective (Sadler, 1989). The expression feedback is a gift implies that it would be welcome and appreciated, but such is often not the case. Despite the potential for personal development, evolutionary psychology misidentifies feedback as a threat (Chandler and Grealish, 2019). Few like being told how to improve, resulting in defensiveness that reduces the odds that suggestions will be followed (Rogers, 2012). On top of that, many people will have had bad prior experiences, further reducing the likelihood of acceptance. Those hyper resistant to feedback may resort to wrong spotting, looking for any reason to dismiss otherwise positive feedback (Stone and Heen, 2014). Not all feedback is likely to be positive, and for many people who are poorly equipped to handle this, it can cause anxiety and depression (Green, Gino and Staats, 2017). As gifts go, feedback is a funny one, both difficult to give, and not well received.
Stone and Heen (2014) delineate between feedback varieties. Looking backwards, conventional feedback is an evaluation of past performance to clarify expectation and standing. Concurrent feedback is more motivational, consisting of appreciation and encouragement as opposed to critique. Future facing support is a form of coaching referred to as feedforward, which looks to enhance future performance.
Within the workplace, a feedback culture is one of the largest drivers of performance (Ledford and Schneider’s, 2018). Feedback achieves several purposes, and is instrumental in enhancing performance, advancing careers, uncovering issues and learning the customer's level of satisfaction. And yet, Pink (2011) describes most companies as 'feedback deserts' where feedback is limited to a once-annual performance review, which loses meaning given the shortness of memory. Similarly, Chandler and Grealish (2019) assert that hoarding feedback for a once annual unload is ineffective due to it being neither timely nor event specific. And yet, simply being called for feedback with one’s manager can set off panic, implying that something is wrong (Chandler and Grealish, 2019). Jackman and Strober (2003) find that the majority of executives seldom request feedback, preferring not to know, where they stand.
Not all feedback is equally effective, as the outcome is highly dependent on the context and manner in which it is provided. Thomas and Arnold (2011) note that the majority of research focuses on improving delivery, on account of the challenges supervisors' experience in giving feedback owing to lack of skill or sensitivity. Alternatively, Stone and Heen (2014) focus on the receiver’s vantage point, because they are the gatekeepers who determine if feedback will be heeded or ignored. While they acknowledge that positive feedback is responded to better, they reject sugarcoating as diluting the intended message. Within the field, exhortation of this practice is evidenced by use of the term 'shit sandwich' (I Done This Blog, 2020). Nevertheless, school children are taught to buffer criticism with encouragement by awarding 2 stars and a wish (Dyer, 2012). Gottman, Gottman and Silver’s (1995) 5:1 ratio for positive to negative feedback is what they determine to be optimal to maintain a relationship.
Critique acts as the quintessential assessment criteria for designers (Jen, 2019) whose portfolio is reviewed rather than CV. Feedback informs design by means of an iterative process which identifies what works, what requires a tweak and what needs a complete revise (Stickdorn et al, 2018). Edmondson (1999) asserts that feedback is more beneficial for open tasks, such as design, where review is part of developing a concept than for routine, or closed tasks. Inasmuch as repetitive tasks require consistency, assessment is essentially built in and additional evaluation will not improve performance. Green, Gino and Staats (2017) adopt a contrarian view, rejecting the notion that learning one’s shortcomings motivates improvement. He establishes that feedback threatens the positive view people hold of themselves, resulting not in improvement, but by finding a more supportive group. Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach (2019) see negative feedback as a threat to the ego which works against learning. Morse’s (2009) finds that too much feedback results in heightened stress and lowered productivity due to feedback overload.
In recent years, the value of feedback, and methods employed has been reexamined within industry. Cappelli and Tavis, (2016) found that organizations which develop feedback culture raise employee's level of engagement and job satisfaction, translating to lower turnover and improved company performance. Accenture, General Electric, Adobe and the Gap, have moved away from the once-annual review to a more ongoing approach (Nisen, 2015). New models such as 360-Degree Feedback widens the performance assessment to include all stakeholders (Tornow, 1993). Hazucha, Hezlett and Schneider (1993) establish that employees see feedback from multiple colleagues as more credible, but Stone and Heen (2014) argue that expanding feedback to a wider circle is likely to add even more awkwardness around all of one’s coworkers. Companies have also begun to recognize the value of developmental feedback, which looks to future performance, and is is essentially a kind of feedforward (Boudrias, Bernaud and Plunier, 2014).
Summary
Although I came across both trust and feedback in my original literature review on failure, I did not realize their significance until they resurfaced in conversations with industry experts. The advantage of design thinking as a methodology is that it is flexible, and welcoming to new learning uncovered within the process. This is an example of where the orderly appearance of the 4 stage double diamond model I follow is somewhat deceptive, as uncovering new information requires me to loop back afterwards to conduct more research.
I was trying to let my users input direct my design effort, and so I had to resist developing a complete solution before conducting my case study. That said, it was sensible that I might select a direction professionals indicated is relevant to business. The literature confirmed that both creating trust in a psychologically safe environment, and maintaining an ongoing information loop through giving and getting feedback are both methods to advance institutional learning. The two are also interrelated, as it takes trust to deliver honest feedback, and at the same time, trust is built through honest exchange. I suppose if you had to choose just one, trust is perhaps the more valuable, as greater trust may lead to a natural exchange of feedback experienced by several of the small business I interviewed. Largely due to my prior experience working at IKEA, I however I was drawn more to feedback, as I identified this as one of their weaknesses .