Conventional wisdom has it that you should sandwich negative feedback between two pieces of positive feedback. You can read about “the hamburger method” here.
Shelle Rose Charvet points out that most people already know the method. Now, when they hear positive feedback, they simply bypass it and wait fo the shoe to drop (then they ignore the final piece of positive feedback, which is obviously just there to soften the negative feedback). She advocates giving feedback in a way that avoids direct negative statements yet still accomplishes the goal, to stimulate behavior change. You can read Shelle Rose Charvet’s “The Feedback Sandwich is Out to Lunch.”
What do you think? If I were to include a “giving feedback” method in the Get-it-Done Guy book, which do you think would be best to include?
Although the Hamburger method is nicely balanced, it is a bit too formulaic. When I am being critiqued, I like it when suggestions are made, and I also like it if the reviewer asks questions to get a feel for why I am doing things the way I am to begin with.
This technique was used successfully in an episode of Family Guy
I think Shelle’s point is very valid. When I first read it, it sort of rocked my world since I had been an advocate of the technique.
I’ve gotten in the habit of asking people if they want the negative feedback first or not. Although most of the time, my negative feedback consists of suggestions for improvement.
Another approach was advocated by… Ken Blanchard? Is he the one who advocated in “The One Minute Manager” to start with the bad right off the bat and finish with something positive? A kind of open-faced sandwich, if you will.
L
I prefer the sandwich on the receiving end. Hell, I’ll even take an open-faced sandwich. Unfortunately, all I ever seem to get at work is criticism on a plate.
Leading with criticism, especially if it’s not constructive, is not good.
Personally, I usually re-use the bread on either side:
Hey! This looks great! Just a couple little things: I think the heading would look better flush left, though, and you could tighten up the kerning here. But over all, it looks fabulous! You’re doing really great work.
I was taught the sandwich technique early in my career and never felt comfortable with it. I always believed that using this method conditions people very quickly.
What’s that… a compliment? Oh boy, I better prepare to get smacked in the head… wait for it… wait for it…. smack!
A few years ago I discovered Manager Tools (http://manager-tools.com) and quickly adopted their model for giving feedback. Suffice it to say that feedback is merely about encouraging effective behavior – so there should be little difference in offering someone affirming or adjusting feedback. (http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/giving-effective-feedback/)
In my experience as a manager, not giving feedback is one of the primary reasons manager fail in their job. I have used the M-T feedback model for some time now and have seen incredible results in my organization.
I mentioned this on twitter, but in more depth:
In a UK call centre operation I worked in this was the most common method of giving feedback. It was trained to managers and advised by HR.
The problem was that the formulaic nature of it soon became obvious and it lost it’s effectiveness. Receivers would just ignore the positive part of the feedback and wait for the negative. It got so badly thought of that users referred to it as a ‘shit sandwich’.
I think it can work well, if used sparingly and when the positive part of the feedback is sincere and meaningful. It is not enough to simply try to soften the blow with a meaningless platitude – it has to be valid positive feedback combined with negative.
I highly recommend that you listen to this:
http://www.manager-tools.com/2005/07/giving-effective-feedback/
The only problem with the sandwich technique is that it’s too formulaic. People get used to it, and then adjust accordingly.
One of the big principles of reinforcement is to achieve the proper balance of predictability versus randomness. Feedback needs to be timely and appropriate, but not TOO predictable. After all, one of the reasons why humans respond to stimuli is that it’s UNusual. If something becomes usual, you stop responding to it – either good or bad.
A more general approach, and less formulaic, is to be honest and useful, but sensitive. If that means using a sandwichy technique, great. But overall be honest, useful, and sensitive.
I find that anything to predictable feels canned. It lacks that crucial feeling of emotional reality and precise thinking that superior minds have.
A brilliant metaphor often works better to turn the tide. Often we’re trying to get someone to grasp the essence of a problem, and they’re having a hard time sensing that essence. They would like to understand. The central organizing image isn’t there. People are secretly asking WHY ? You have to give them the whys, why policy is like this, why the project is structured like that, why one corporation’s business model doesn’t mesh with our operation, why Bill’s e-mail may have sounded angry but shouldn’t be taken so seriously. So the manager is like a mapmaker who is explaining a hundred differing and competing maps to different constituencies all day long…
The sandwich appraoch has all of the negative connotations outlined above.
If managers can learn to give praise when it’s due & show when they are not happy, then this leaves feedback as an opportunity to do things differently.
The approach I use is:
1. Ask if they’d like some feedback
2. Tell them what I observed
3. Tell them what impact it had
4. Suggest a different way of doing it
5. Tell them what impact doing it that way mihgt have
6. Tell them what would be avoided by doing it that way
7. Ask for commitment (so, what will you do next time?)
All too often manager confuse praise, telling off and feedback IMHO