Hello Friends,
And happy Monday!
This HBR article illustrates a principle I have a very high conviction about: better be over-positive with feedback, than over-negative.
The Ideal Praise-to-Criticism Ratio 4min
The research examined the effectiveness of 60 strategic-business-unit leadership teams at a large information-processing company.
Effectiveness” was measured according to financial performance, customer satisfaction ratings, and 360-degree feedback ratings of the team members.
The factor that made the greatest difference between the most and least successful teams was the ratio of positive comments (“I agree with that,” for instance, or “That’s a terrific idea”) to negative comments (“I don’t agree with you” “We shouldn’t even consider doing that”) that the participants made to one another.
A little negative feedback remains an essential part of the mix, as it helps leaders overcome serious weaknesses.
Negative feedback is important when we’re heading over a cliff to warn us that we’d really better stop doing something horrible or start doing something we’re not doing right away.
We have observed among the 50,000 or so leaders we have in our database that those who’ve received the most negative comments were the ones who, in absolute terms, improved the most.
Specifically, our aggregate data show that three-fourths of those receiving the lowest leadership effectiveness scores who made an effort to improve, rose on average 33 percentile points in their rankings after a year.
That is, they were able to move from the 23rd percentile (the middle of the worst) to the 56th percentile (or square in the middle of the pack).
But clearly those benefits come with serious costs or the amount of negative feedback that leads to high performance would be higher.
Even the most well-intentioned criticism can rupture relationships and undermine self-confidence and initiative.
It can change behavior, certainly, but it doesn’t cause people to put forth their best efforts.
Only positive feedback can motivate people to continue doing what they’re doing well, and do it with more vigor, determination, and creativity.
As an interesting aside, we find it noteworthy that Heaply and Losada’s research is echoed in an uncanny way by John Gottman’s analysis of wedded couples’ likelihood of getting divorced or remaining married.
Once again, the single biggest determinant is the ratio of positive to negative comments the partners make to one another.
And the optimal ratio is amazingly similar—five positive comments for every negative one.
For those who ended up divorced, the ratio was 0.77 to 1—or something like three positive comments for every four negative ones.
There is also a second-order consequence that HBR is missing.
When positive feedback is generous, the rare negative feedback means a lot more: it is not diluted and is usually taken with a more receptive a priori.
To the doubters, I like to add Kahneman’s illustration (from Thinking Fast and Slow).
“On many occasions I have praised flight cadets for clean execution of some aerobatic manoeuvre. The next time they try the same manoeuvre they usually do worse. On the other hand, I have often screamed into a cadet’s earphone for bad execution, and in general he does better on his next try. So please don’t tell us that reward works and punishment does not, because the opposite is the case.”
His answer to this apparently relevant counter-argument is very straightforward: reversion to the mean.
In statistics, regression toward the mean (also called regression to the mean, reversion to the mean, and reversion to mediocrity) is the phenomenon that arises if a sample point of a random variable is extreme (nearly an outlier), in which case a future point is likely to be closer to the mean or average.
TLDR; apparent improvement after negative feedback is usually a statistical artefact uncorrelated with the feedback itself.
I also find the analogy with romantic relationships very relevant.
If overly negative interactions usually leads to divorce, isn’t it reasonable to assume that it would lead well-intentioned employees to leave their managers?
The Magic Relationship Ratio, According to Science 6min
Whether it’s about not having enough sex, the dirty laundry, or spending too much money, conflict is inevitable in every marriage.
The difference between happy and unhappy couples is the balance between positive and negative interactions during conflict.
Negative interactions during conflict include being emotionally dismissive or critical, or becoming defensive.
There is a very specific ratio that makes love last. That “magic ratio” is 5 to 1.
This means that for every negative interaction during conflict, a stable and happy marriage has five (or more) positive interactions.
Couples who flourish engage in conflict differently than those who eventually break up.
Below is a list of interactions that stable couples regularly use to maintain positivity and closeness.
Be Interested
Express Affection
Demonstrate They Matter
Intentional Appreciation
Find Opportunities for Agreement
Empathize and Apologize
Accept Your Partner’s Perspective
Make Jokes
Here again, some of the recommendations - not all! - apply to the workplace.
In conclusion, don’t be shy, and go tell your team they are doing amazing when every time they deserve it. It is not being soft- it is good management.
Thanks for reading, and have an empathetic week ahead,
V