Leadership, Feedback and the Open Communication Gap

Leanne E. Atwater, David A. Waldman

• Editorial: Psychology Press
• Año: 2007
• ISBN:
  9781136679773
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Psychology
• Categoría: History & Theory in Psychology

The topic of leadership has grown in importance, and how and when managers communicate is critical to their effectiveness. This bookprovides insight for managers to understand the feedback and open communication processes. Itsuggests guidelines for how and when managers should engage in negative feedback and open organizational-level co

Chapter

1

What is Open Communication, and Why is it a Dilemma?

Leadership is often heralded as essential for the ongoing revitalization of organizations. To be sure, revitalization is often critical. A myriad of factors have come together in recent times to threaten motivation, employee commitment and loyalty, and performance. These include downsizing, offshore outsourcing, acquisitions, and corporate scandals, to name just a few. Leadership is necessary to motivate and guide individuals, to transform groups of individuals into teams, and to provide a vision for the greater strategic direction of the organization. If leadership is a key basis for organizational performance, one can safely say communication is the key to effective leadership.

Communication permeates all aspects of leadership behavior. We see communication when a manager engages in one-on-one coaching with a subordinate. We see it in team meetings, when a manager attempts to get members to go beyond their differences and coalesce around a common goal. Furthermore, we see the importance of communication when a strategic manager meets with groups of individuals across an organization to garner ideas and build support for a new vision.

Much of what a manager communicates is positive and nonthreatening in nature. This is the relatively easy part of communication. Positively reinforcing work well done brings satisfaction to both the manager and the employee. Engaging in team problem solving can be intellectually stimulating to both manager and employees alike. Attempting to communicate and sell a vision can be challenging to the strategic manager, but at the same time, it can also be exhilarating, as more and more followers buy into the vision, thus making it shared.

However, there is another side to leadership communication that is much more troubling to managers and employees alike. It involves the presentation of information that is negative, threatening, or uncertain. As such, this information can cause hard feelings if communicated, or paradoxically, even if it is not communicated. The context can be one on one between a manager and an employee, or it can pertain to communication spread across hierarchical and functional levels. Either way, there is often a tendency to either consciously or unconsciously avoid the communication of negative information. Unfortunately, avoiding difficult issues rarely, if ever, makes them go away.

This is a book about open communication. We define open communication in terms of the difficult information potentially communicated by people in leadership positions, rather than the more positive or mundane information. When a manager spreads such information or perceptions to one or more individuals, he or she is communicating openly. As such, our focus is on the challenges or dilemmas these people face in being open communicators. The choices made will help determine whether they are ultimately seen as actual leaders, as opposed to people who are not fulfilling the leadership role. And as we will see, often the choices are not easy to make.

One theme of this book is that leadership communication is often paradoxical in nature. On the one hand, managers are barraged with advice to engage in frequent, open communication with followers. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to suggest caution in heeding this advice. Our goal is to use the findings from many studies in the research literature, as well as our personal experiences as feedback providers and recipients, consultants and professors, to help managers understand the complexities of the open communication paradox in order to be more effective in their roles.

The One-on-One Dilemma: Behavioral and Performance Feedback

In the first part of this book, we focus on the primary dilemmas managers face with regard to open, one-to-one communication or feedback. Society encourages us to give feedback to those around us. We tip servers at restaurants for good service, provide comments to hotel staff via customer surveys, speak with customer service representatives on the phone, and talk with mechanics at the auto garage about service issues. College students are encouraged to provide anonymous feedback to professors, and managers are encouraged to give honest performance appraisals to subordinates. At least in Western culture, we are encouraged to “tell it like it is,” and “give it to them straight,” thus being frank and honest in our dealings with others.

In a work context, the focus of feedback has traditionally been in the downward direction from bosses to subordinates. This feedback could be formal appraisal feedback with salary or other outcomes associated with it, or more informal feedback suggesting how the subordinate is doing in his or her job. In many cases, the feedback is positive, and the subordinate perceives the feedback as positive recognition or rewarding. Positive feedback tends to motivate the recipient, and in general, it has positive outcomes (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991; Korsgaard, 1996).

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for negative feedback. Yet, much of the feedback an individual (including a manager) needs to deliver to others, in a variety of contexts, is not positive, such as when absenteeism, performance problems, attitude problems, and the like arise. Often delivery of negative feedback is delayed, handled inappropriately, or avoided altogether. Managers often report transmitting negative feedback to subordinates as one of their most unpleasant and difficult tasks (Larson, 1984, 1986; Veiga, 1988). They also report that they avoid giving negative feedback until annoyance is very high, and then it is often harsh and punishing (Larson, 1989).

Learning theories suggest we can shape behavior depending on the type of reinforcement we provide to others. Positive reinforcement in the form of positive feedback should encourage more behavior; punishment in the form of negative feedback should encourage less behavior. However, punishment does not always result in less unwanted behavior, and it is often accompanied by unwanted side effects (Atwater, Waldman, Carey, & Cartier, 2001). Similarly, negative feedback does not always result in positive behavior change and may be accompanied by a variety of negative side effects. Indeed, in many cases, there is evidence that feedback does not result in positive outcomes. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) conducted a meta-analysis analyzing hundreds of feedback studies. They concluded that feedback decreased performance in one third of the cases, had no effect on performance in one third of the cases, and improved performance in one third of the cases. Their analysis included both positive and negative feedback interventions. Based on the results of studies that compared positive and negative feedback (e.g., Jaworski & Kohli, 1991), we can speculate that if only negative feedback had been provided, the cases of improvement would have been reduced still further.

In the first part of this book the focus is on the dilemmas associated with negative feedback. We discuss reactions managers can expect to different types of feedback and different methods of delivery. We also discuss how individual characteristics of both the feedback provider and recipient can influence the interaction and its outcomes. In addition, the manager as feedback recipient is also addressed.

For a person in a leadership role, giving feedback is essential but receiving feedback, whether positive or negative, also is considered essential to developing a sense of self-awareness and realistic self-perceptions. Pity goes to the manager who lacks self-awareness of his or her own strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, self-awareness is an important aspect of emotional intelligence (the ability of people to understand and manage their personal feelings and emotions toward others) and is the key to self-regulation, both of which are crucial to effective leadership (Ashford & Tsui, 1991; Daft, 2002). Thus, feedback should be considered a primary source of leadership development. Although our primary focus in this book is on the manager as feedback provider, the manager as feedback recipient is also addressed.

Case Example

Kathy worked in a job setting where she was one of the least qualified, in terms of experience and credentials, among her peers. Her manager hired Kathy primarily because she was a good friend of another manager in the organization. Her performance was generally mediocre, although not unsatisfactory.

To help Kathy develop her skills, the manager asked a task group working on a special project to include her as one of their members. The task group generally liked Kathy as a person and agreed to do so. Over the next few months, the task group came to believe that Kathy lacked both the ability and motivation to be a productive group member. The contributions she tried to make to the group’s task were rarely helpful. Furthermore, she arrived late to meetings or missed them entirely, and her attitude toward the group members was rather negative. Kathy also had a rather low sense of self-confidence and had a reputation for being confrontational at times.

The task group decided that they could not be productive with Kathy as a member. Her poor contributions, poor attitude, and apparent lack of motivation were disrupting the dynamics and productivity of the group. The task group contemplated how to deal with the situation. Ultimately, they decided they would meet with her as a group, provide feedback to her about their perceptions of her contributions (which might have been due to a lack of effort or interest), and her apparent negative attitude toward group members. They would then ask Kathy whether she wanted to try to modify her behavior and put more effort into the group, or whether she thought it best to leave the group. They were acting with the best of intentions, attempting to be honest with Kathy. After all, isn’t feedback always a good thing?

Analysis

Maybe feedback is not always a good thing. In this situation, the feedback meeting turned out to be a disaster. The short-term outcome was shouting, name calling, and tears among some group members, especially Kathy. The long-term outcomes included ruined relationships among Kathy, the task group members, and the manager who asked the group to include her. As an example, Kathy would simply not speak to certain members for weeks following the meeting.

So what went wrong in this case? Clearly there were a number of factors that contributed to the negative outcomes. These included Kathy’s personal characteristics, relationships among the players (including the manager), status differences, the manner in which the feedback was delivered, the content of the feedback, and so forth. Could the feedback have been delivered in a more productive way, or should feedback have been avoided entirely? We revisit this case in a later chapter.

If feedback is supposed to be sought by employees, provided by managers, and heeded by employees in making improvements, we are in need of a much better understanding of when, how, and to whom feedback should be given. Providing advice to managers and employees about how to deal with these types of decisions regarding feedback (whether, how, what, and when) constitutes much of the focus of this book.

The Organizational Dilemma: Information Sharing Across Levels

The second dilemma we address in the second part of the book deals with the issue of sharing information across hierarchical levels and functional areas of an organization. As such, this dilemma is much broader than the first one, which is more focused on one-on-one feedback. The second dilemma deals with communication across an entire organization. Despite this difference there are important similarities—and problems—both types of leadership communication share.

Managerial role taxonomies generally include aspects of open communication across hierarchical levels and functional areas. Early work by Mintzberg (1973) included the disseminator role. Mintzberg stressed that relevant information must be passed along by managers to employees, either in its unadulterated, original form or after interpretation and editing by the manager. Similarly, Yukl (2002) stressed the importance of the informing role, especially under crisis or uncertain situations. The following quote from Daft (2002) is representative of the common thinking in the literature regarding the open sharing of information across levels: “Open communication improves the operations of a company, builds trust, spreads knowledge, and provides a foundation for communicating vision, values, and other vital big-picture information” (p. 322).

The feeling, which is certainly quite intuitive, is that one cannot have too much communication in an organization. Those espousing unfettered, open communication believe management knowledge and information should, in essence, constitute an open book (Dalton, 1999; Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999). If it is good enough for upper management to know, then it is also good enough for those at the lower levels to know, especially if the information is in some way relevant to those individuals. Peters (1987) is perhaps the most ardent supporter of open-book communication. He went so far as to say “information distortion” and secrecy constitute “management enemy number one” (p. 513).

The proponents of open communication would point to logical outcomes. If upper management shares information with employees at lower levels, trust should permeate the organization, thus inspiring collaboration and commitment to common goals (Martin, 1998; McCune, 1998). Second, open communication should foster a feeling of employee ownership regarding organizational goals and challenges. Third, if upper level managers serve as role models for open communication, we should expect those at lower levels to reciprocate. That is, when managers openly communicate, lower level employees will be more inclined to share information in an upward manner, allowing executives to better understand their organizations and make more informed decisions.

Unfortunately, it is not so simple. To better understand the leadership dilemma of information sharing across levels, it is necessary to delineate the types of information shared, but that is also potentially difficult, negative, threatening, or uncertain. Although numerous examples could be imagined, we identify some common ones here. First, there is the issue of sharing information about a planned or potential organizational restructuring (e.g., downsizing). Second, there is the issue of relaying information to lower levels regarding potential merger or acquisition developments. Third, there is the question of whether or not policy or procedural changes should be communicated to people at lower levels that might interest them, but might not be directly relevant to their work. For example, should changes in executive compensation practices be communicated to lower level employees?

Case Example

Harmony, Inc. (fictitious name) is a producer and distributor of a growing product line of naturally processed foods. The company prides itself in making foods with all-natural ingredients and a minimum of processing in their production. Their foods are sold primarily in natural food stores and groceries.

The company employs approximately 2,000 individuals and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. It was founded 25 years ago by a small group of partners and is still a private firm, resisting opportunities in the past to go public. The original partners were strong believers in corporate social responsibility values, including respect for the natural environment, helping to feed the homeless, and maintaining a healthy work environment for its employees. Part of the latter includes the maintenance of open communication with employees on a wide range of issues facing management and the organization.

Recently, officials of Dynamic Foods, Inc. (fictitious name) approached the founding partners of Harmony, Inc. with a takeover proposition. Dynamic Foods is a large, publicly traded food processing company based out of Chicago. It has noticed trends in the marketplace toward naturally processed foods and would like to gain a foothold into this market. Accordingly, the acquisition of Harmony, Inc. seemed attractive. In addition, Dynamic Foods would be able to gain technical knowledge about the processing of natural foods, which could be beneficial for their main operations.

The initial proposition seemed interesting to the partners of Harmony, Inc. The majority of them had been recently considering retirement, and the initial offer from Dynamic Foods appeared to be quite promising. It appeared with some work, a deal might be negotiated. However, a number of issues would need to be worked out. For example, there was some desire on the part of a few of the Harmony, Inc. partners to be placed on the board of directors of Dynamic Foods for the purpose of ensuring the continuation of corporate social responsibility for the Harmony, Inc. portion of the new entity in particular, and the greater firm in general.

In line with their open communication culture, the partners gave the green light to the upper management of Harmony, Inc. to communicate down the hierarchy about the takeover negotiations. Employees were told Dynamic Foods was interested in Harmony, Inc. purely for synergistic reasons (e.g., to be able to quickly get into the natural foods market). Employees were assured that the negotiations would include a consideration of the company’s corporate social responsibility values, as well as employee relations and needs. Employees were also asked not to “make a big deal” out of the negotiations (e.g., go to the media) because they were only tentative and exploratory.

Unfortunately, a number of lower level managers and employees did make a big deal out of the situation. Soon after the announcement of the negotiations, the organizational grapevine heated up. Employees lamented among each other about how Dynamic Foods was just another large corporate producer of processed foods. To many, it was a company that cared little about its customers or its employees. Information was spread around about how Dynamic Foods had taken over another company several years ago, and the result was massive layoffs at the acquired firm. Moreover, Dynamic Foods cared little about corporate social responsibility and would just use the resources at Harmony to improve their bottom line. Further, despite the claims of Dynamic Foods about pursuing synergies with Harmony as the basis for the acquisition, a rumor was spread about the executives of Dynamic Foods really just wanting to have an excuse to visit Phoenix in the winter for the purpose of lavish, golf-playing junkets.

Several employees of Harmony, Inc. even decided to go to the local media in Phoenix to talk about their fears and the potential negative impact on the community (e.g., likely layoffs at the firm). The result was a not-so-flattering ar...