Feedback: Praise or Criticize, Just Don’t Stay Silent

According to research by the consulting firm McKinsey, 56 percent of corporate leaders only partially know what is happening in their companies, while 14 percent are completely unaware. Their employees do not have the opportunity to point out problems nor do they receive feedback on their work.

Written by: Renato Đurđević

Frigidaire, now a former unit of General Motors’ white goods production, has successfully ranked for decades in the demanding American market as one of the best in its industry. Since white goods production is not exactly GM’s core business, the automobile manufacturer’s management neglected feedback from its organizational orphan – white goods. When things started to go poorly and the ‘orphan’ began to call for help, GM leaders, responsible for key missions, did not respond and even ignored the calls. Thus, Frigidaire never received the people and resources it requested from GM, but languished neglected on the margins far from the company’s core mission. By the time GM eventually sold it to White Consolidate Industries, it had already lost the majority of its market share and was significantly weakened for further market competition.

The failure of Frigidaire is just one example that shows where neglecting feedback can lead. A large number of examples from corporate crisis practices indicate that collapses could be prevented or crises mitigated if internal feedback mechanisms were functional. Crises often escalate because management does not heed employee warnings. A completely opposite example is JP Morgan, a bank that managed to avoid collapse this autumn because its chief was smart enough to listen to warnings from a subordinate in the field who alerted to problematic mortgage loans as early as last year.

Managerial Arrogance

Research by the American Institute for Crisis Management (ICM) shows that in 2006, as many as 52 percent of corporate crises worldwide were caused by managers. This data is complemented by research from the consulting firm McKinsey, which states that 56 percent of organizational leaders only partially know what is happening in their companies, while 14 percent are completely unaware. This not only means that management does not pay enough attention to feedback from its employees but also that it can have serious consequences. On the other hand, employees at lower levels often hear nothing about the results of their work nor do they know what is happening with the company’s business, nor do they receive feedback from their bosses.

– Unfortunately, such practices stem from a kind of managerial arrogance. It is not uncommon for certain directors to work hard to present their business strategies and showcase business results in the media while completely ignoring the fact that their collaborators also need such information. The development of internal relationships, which can greatly depend on the success of the organization, especially during times of significant changes within the organization or in its market environment, is still often neglected in corporate practice today. If such a manager is accustomed to an organization where it is the rule not to provide employees with the necessary information about the success of their work or about business strategy, it is difficult to change those habits later. A company where management does not know enough about the thoughts of its employees is rightly condemned to its ‘unhappy marriage of convenience.’ However, we cannot always automatically blame the bosses for the lack or misunderstanding of feedback, because if something remains unclear or misunderstood, the employee should ask for clarification themselves, explains Daria Mateljak Bartulin, director for Croatia and partner at the consulting firm Hauska&Partner.

Silence Only Harms

By exchanging not only information but also opinions and ideas, a stronger connection is achieved between those who decide and those who execute decisions. Communication is the lifeblood of every organization, and people usually assume that successful communication is the rule, while disruptions in communication are the exception. In reality, the opposite happens, despite comprehensive advances in communication and information technology, as communication among people does not depend on technology but on psychological motives and the situation in which the individual finds themselves. If an employee does not receive feedback on their work for an extended period, they will become frustrated because they are unsure if they are doing well. A grain of doubt creeps in, and they begin to wonder whether to continue working this way or if something needs to change. This can diminish their confidence and demotivate them for work.

– If a person makes mistakes that no one warns them about, they could one day do something very wrong for the company and thereby harm others and themselves. By remaining silent about mistakes at work, we do no one a service. It would be better for them to find out in time what they are doing wrong so they can correct it or, in the worst case, change jobs. If we are unsure how we performed, it is better to seek feedback than to guess. Misunderstandings in

Misunderstandings in communication are common even when we communicate directly, let alone when we guess. And this will also show the boss that we care about doing our job well, advises Majda Rijavec, a professor at the Zagreb Teacher’s Faculty and an educator in management psychology. She adds that every employee should receive both positive and negative feedback about their work from their supervisor, that is, praise and criticism. Praise boosts confidence and shows that the supervisor values both the person and their work, while constructive criticism indicates that they care about the job being done well and want to help in that. Additionally, very simple mechanisms for exchanging information and mutual evaluation of teams, such as annual employee satisfaction surveys or the ‘360-degree’ system in which all team members evaluate each other, will also be beneficial.