The absolute gains are not as great as they are for the most-at-risk leaders, since they started so much further ahead.
#NEGATIVE NANCY POSITIVE POLLY MIDDLE FULL#
Focusing on their strengths enabled 62% of this group to improve a full 24 percentage points (to move from the 55th to the 79th percentile). In fact, for those in our database who started above average already (but are still below the 80th percentile), positive feedback works like negative feedback did for the bottom group. Perhaps that’s why we have found with the vast majority of the leaders in our database, who have no outstanding weaknesses, that positive feedback is what motivates them to continue improvement. Only positive feedback can motivate people to continue doing what they’re doing well, and do it with more vigor, determination, and creativity. It can change behavior, certainly, but it doesn’t cause people to put forth their best efforts.
But even the most well-intentioned criticism can rupture relationships and undermine self-confidence and initiative. Negative feedback is important when we’re heading over a cliff to warn us that we’d really better stop doing something horrible or start doing something we’re not doing right away. It’s far harder for someone at the 90th percentile already to improve so much.īut clearly those benefits come with serious costs or the amount of negative feedback that leads to high performance would be higher. How do we reconcile these seemingly contrary perspectives? Simple: the people who get the most negative feedback have the most room to grow. That is, they were able to move from the 23rd percentile (the middle of the worst) to the 56th percentile (or square in the middle of the pack).Ī few colleagues have raised their eyebrows when we’ve noted this because we’re strongly in the camp that proposes that leaders work on their strengths. Specifically, our aggregate data show that three-fourths of those receiving the lowest leadership effectiveness scores who made an effort to improve, rose on average 33 percentile points in their rankings after a year. We have observed among the 50,000 or so leaders we have in our database that those who’ve received the most negative comments were the ones who, in absolute terms, improved the most. Our firm provides 360-degree feedback to leaders. Second, certainly, negative feedback guards against complacency and groupthink.Īnd third, our own research shows, it helps leaders overcome serious weaknesses. Think of it as a whack on the side of the head. Why is that? First, because of its ability to grab someone’s attention. So, while a little negative feedback apparently goes a long way, it is an essential part of the mix. The medium-performance teams averaged 1.9 (almost twice as many positive comments than negative ones.) But the average for the low-performing teams, at 0.36 to 1, was almost three negative comments for every positive one. (Negative comments, we should point out, could go as far as sarcastic or disparaging remarks.) The average ratio for the highest-performing teams was 5.6 (that is, nearly six positive comments for every negative one). The factor that made the greatest difference between the most and least successful teams, Heaphy and Losada found, was the ratio of positive comments (“I agree with that,” for instance, or “That’s a terrific idea”) to negative comments (“I don’t agree with you” “We shouldn’t even consider doing that”) that the participants made to one another. “Effectiveness” was measured according to financial performance, customer satisfaction ratings, and 360-degree feedback ratings of the team members. The research, conducted by academic Emily Heaphy and consultant Marcial Losada*, examined the effectiveness of 60 strategic-business-unit leadership teams at a large information-processing company.
0 kommentar(er)
