Feedback, Part one: Three possible dialogues

Performance appraisals are one of the most underutilized methods for shaping the personal and professional development of the individual and of your flight department. You meet with your direct reports to review goals, action items and performance yearly or more often. It is at this time that you offer feedback for a job well done or for unprofessional or unwanted behaviors.

It is critical to this development that you offer feedback more frequently throughout the year, especially when it is not associated with performance appraisals. Who can predict when a person will go beyond their ‘normal

duties’ – foregoing personal obligations to help a team member wrestle with a difficult problem, staying late to complete an unscheduled maintenance issue, or not settling for the easy way or the status quo? Feedback for a job well done is valued more than you know. Behavior that needs improvement can occur at the spur of the moment. Who can predict when a crisis, an emergency or a sudden change in the environment will occur? Stress, pressure and change can bring out the worst in all of us. How we handle it can show our level of confidence in tolerating and managing stress and change.

In both these instances, you would find it beneficial to offer feedback on their behaviors, and how these behaviors affect the actions and attitudes of others. Behaviors become reinforced or changed based on how you handle the after-it-happened conversation. In addition, you should look at the part you played in this event. Rarely is an event the result of one person, one action or one reason. The Swiss Cheese Model for accidents and incidents can also be applied to unwanted or unprofessional behaviors.

Conversation Responses

You are familiar with the basics of giving feedback: make it timely, show how those behaviors affect others and the flight department, and have the discussion in a non-threatening environment. Below are responses than can follow this primary discussion:

1. “It’s not my fault,” “I didn’t cause it,” “If Sam did his job I would not have had to …,” “Sally didn’t tell me that she ... and I can’t read minds!” and the “I hope you are also going to talk to everyone else involved.”

Of course, there is an element of truth in those statements. There is also, however, more rationalization than fact presented. I have heard people rationalize their actions that seemingly contradict their values, yet they state their case with confident logic. (A person who is a stickler for rules will speed and tell himself, “I am in a hurry. I know the road and there aren’t that many other cars on the road. I am a safe driver.”) We rationalize because we do not want to admit we made a mistake or acted inappropriately, we are angry with ourselves for our actions, or we have other excuses we might not want to admit aloud. (People will take a sick day because they are angry with their boss or don’t want to attend a certain meeting. They convince themselves that they are coming down with the flu.) We rationalize (or speculate) the reasons why others act the way they do. (“They never did like to take responsibility,” “They are having personal problems,” and other such statements.)

Rationalizations are another way of surrendering our accountability. If someone else were at fault, we should not be punished for their actions. When we spout off our excuses, our defense mechanism kicks into gear. It’s part of the fight/flight reaction. We will argue and become self-protective of our pride, our ego and our job. We do not want to lose our status or have our colleagues think less of us. This way of thinking and our subsequent behaviors deepen frustrations, fuel conflict, and skew our perspective of reality.

2. “No it didn’t happen that wy,” “I would not do that,” “I wasn’t angry, sarcastic, bullying them, stomping around,” “This is how it happened ... “ (They twist the facts to put themselves in a better position.)

These statements let you know one of two things: the other person is denying their actions while suppressing their true thoughts and feelings, or they consider their behavior appropriate and professional. Denial comes from the inability to accept difficult situations or distressing consequences that might affect us negatively. Denial is the flight part of the fight/flight reaction. When we deny our actions and present a mental substitution of the situation, we begin to believe our own stories. That can lead to a lack of situation awareness and becomes a safety concern. If you are not aware of what you are doing or saying (excluding the times you are mentally preoccupied), are you aware of what others are saying or doing?

A person can believe that their behavior was appropriate and professional. They might see nothing wrong with yelling or berating another person. Think of the bosses you have had. How many of them lead by intimidation and believed it was entirely appropriate to degrade another person publically? This reaction promotes secrecy. “Why should I tell you something that will cause me humiliation?”

Denial can occur at every level in an organization. Denial preserves a person’s pride and ego, quite possibly to the detriment to the organization. A&P executives denied the way consumers shopped for groceries and kept their decades-old business model. This caused their demise. In contrast, Johnson & Johnson’s CEO did not sidestep the seriousness of its crisis; he also addressed the visible human and emotional side. They were not satisfied until they uncovered the root cause and dealt with the public’s concerns.

3. “You’re right,” “I knew immediately afterward that I would regret my actions and words,” “I didn’t know what to say or do,” and all ending with “What do you suggest?” or “I’d like to talk this through.” They agree and subsequently ask you for help and remain open to suggestions, even if they do not agree with you immediately.

This is the best response. Your direct report feels comfortable enough with you to admit mistakes and reveal their vulnerabilities. They do so without fear of repercussion and believe no harm will come from this conversation. I will caution you to remain alert for any signs of distress or behavior changes from them. This could signal they are becoming uncomfortable with the conversation or with their own thoughts.

Your role

You, as the leader, play a significant role in how your team members respond or react to feedback. They take their cues from you — when you take an event seriously, they do, too. If you pass something off as unimportant or frivolous, they will mirror your attitude. Let’s look at feedback from two aspects: the task or actual behaviors (the facts), and the people involved and their behaviors (subjective and open to interpretation). You might recall seeing these two areas as they relate to communication styles in my October 2013 article. Remember, your communication style is linked to your thinking process. Here are some questions to ask yourself as you prepare to give feedback:

• Tasks:

• Do you promote, encourage or condone sloppy or lower-standard work?

• What exactly went wrong and why?

• People:

• Did the person feel comfortable asking you or someone else for help?

• How did the person react after the event — were they remorseful, worried, cavalier or arrogant?

Over the next month

Think back to how your feedback conversations progressed or unraveled. How did you approach the other person? What did you say? How did you say it? What words did you use? Did you notice their reaction? How did the conversation end — on a pleasant note with respect intact, or did someone leave feeling like a victim or criminal?

Next month I will address the five-step outline to offering feedback that can change behaviors, along with questions to ask yourself and them. I will provide a scenario (contact me if you would like me to use yours anonymously) and offer suggestions that work and those that do not work. You can compare my suggestions with what you would do.  

Dr. Shari Frisinger is president of CornerStone Strategies LLC. Her research centers on being smart about thoughts, emotions and actions. Her in-house human factors and TEM behavioral programs or one-on-one consulting raise awareness of potentially disruptive or unsafe behaviors. She provides her clients the tools to ease conflict, enhance safety and elevate service. She is a member of NBAA’s Safety Committee, an NBAA PDP provider, a member of Aviation Psychology Association and an adjunct faculty facilitating leadership courses. She has presented CRM/HF to numerous flight departments and aviation companies. For more information, visit www.ShariFrisinger.comor call 281.992.4136.