talk”; in any case, not productively. Thus, the purpose of the feedback is
completely lost; in some cases, just the opposite effect is generated. The
employee’s behavior will remain unchanged, and the personal relationships will
be further strained. To avoid this, feedback should be formulated as a suggestion
and not as an attack – and should also be understood as such. Basically, feedback is
a service – a friendly service. We should, therefore, be welcome it rather than
getting angry.
In order for feedback to be understood the interpersonal relationship between the
“sender” and the “receiver” must be in good shape. If this is not the case, obstacles
and disruptions will have to be addressed first. The sender must be accepted as a
person in his or her own right, and ideally should be recognized as an authority.
Without this condition feedback cannot succeed.
Moreover, it is essential to suitably formulate feedback. Above all, make sure
that you act sensitively. The “how” is just as important as the “what.” Feedback
should be expressed and presented clearly but benevolently, because the self-
esteem of the partner can be easily harmed and is difficult to restore. If the feedback
is perceived as unjustified criticism or as mere “venting,” it not only affects your
counterpart’s receptiveness to suggestions, but it also strains your interpersonal
relationship.
Feedback sounds less aggressive when it is formulated as an “I” message rather
than a “you” message. Using the first form, I express the impact the other party’s
behavior has on me. Here is an example: Imagine one of those people who listen
poorly and constantly interrupt others. It would be terribly clumsy if you said:
“Please stop constantly interrupting me!” The right “I” message, however, might
be: “I would like to finish. When you interrupt me, I can’t express my thoughts
clearly and I’m afraid that I’ll forget important points.”
Or take an employee who has not completed his assigned tasks. Usually, the
reaction is: “You (!) need to do your work more conscientiously.” The manager
reacts in this way because he or she feels angry and frustrated, and wants to express
that frustration. As a result, the employee submits (often only superficially) or
rebels in the form of ignorance or defiance. In contrast, the corresponding “I”
message would be something about how the employee’s behavior makes the
manager feel: “I find it exhausting to always have to remind you to do your work.”
However the feedback is formulated – in the end it is mainly about its being clear
and objective. If you speak impolitely, using an “I” message will not help anything.
It is not so much what you say, but how you say it. How much caution is needed
depends largely on the authority of the feedback giver and the sensitivity of the
feedback recipient. For example, younger people should be especially careful when
talking to older people.
However, beating around the bush out of sheer caution is just as wrong, and
only makes things worse. Trivializing is another mistake (“It’s not so bad, really.”).
For thick-skinned partners you may even need to be painfully clear. In any case,
however, it should be noted: the feedback needs to be spelled out clearly. Finding
the right tone for each individual is part of the practical art of leadership.
216 4 More Than Just Talking or: The Instruments of Systemic Leadership