A better way to deliver bad news

In an ideal world, a subordinate would accept critical feedback from a manager with an open mind. He or she would ask a few clarifying questions, promise to work on certain performance areas, and show signs of improvement over time. But things don't always turn out that way. Such conversations can be unpleasant. Emotions can run high; tempers can flare. Fearing that the employee will become angry and defensive, the boss all too often inadvertently sabotages the meeting by preparing for it in a way that stifles honest discussion. This unintentional--indeed, unconscious--stress-induced habit makes it difficult to deliver corrective feedback effectively. Insead professor Jean-François Manzoni says that by changing the mind-set with which they develop and deliver negative feedback, managers can increase their odds of having productive conversations without damaging relationships. Manzoni describes two behavioral phenomena that color the feedback process--the fundamental attribution error and the false consensus effect--and uses real-world examples to demonstrate how bosses' critiques can go astray. Managers tend to frame difficult situations and decisions in a way that is narrow (alternatives aren't considered) and binary (there are only two possible outcomes--win or lose). And during the feedback discussion, managers' framing of the issues often remains frozen, regardless of the direction the conversation takes. Manzoni advises managers not to just settle on the first acceptable explanation for a behavior or situation they've witnessed. Bosses also need to consider an employee's circumstances rather than just attributing weak performance to a person's disposition. In short, delivering more effective feedback requires an open-minded approach, one that will convince employees that the process is fair and that the boss is ready for an honest conversation.