Ombud's corner: Sincere feedback favours efficiency

In this series, the Bulletin aims to explain the role of the Ombuds at CERN by presenting practical examples of misunderstandings that could have been resolved by the Ombuds if he had been contacted earlier. Please note that, in all the situations we present, the names are fictitious and used only to improve clarity.

Everyone can certainly agree that good communication is very important. Leaders should try to give feedback to their supervisees on their work and career so they can benefit from this information. Giving feedback provides personnel with an opportunity to understand what can they can improve or correct should there be some weaknesses in their technical or behavioural skills. It is also a chance to be congratulated for their efforts and dedication. Feedback should be given in a sincere and honest way, so that the person can accept the comments. The keys to giving feedback are:

  • Speak the truth – even if it is difficult, have the courage to do it;
  • Keep in close contact with the person;
  • Give examples based on reality;
  • Speak in a positive way about possible improvements without being critical.

All this would seem obvious in the interest of promoting efficiency, good working relations and a respectful workplace environment. However there are still cases of conflicts resulting from little or no feedback being given, or from the correct feedback being incorrectly communicated. Leaders are responsible for giving sincere feedback.

Let’s look at three variations of the same situation. After some group reorganization, Al* was named the leader of a section which had members taken from different teams. His supervisor, Pat*, had been the group leader for many years and she had decided on the new organization just over a year ago. During this time, Al has been working to unify his team, convincing his supervisees to collaborate with each other in order to face the technical challenges for which he is accountable, while still handling his day-to-day work. Of course, Al is now wondering how he is doing.

Example 1: No feedback
Having received no information about his performance, Al is rather disappointed as he believes he has been performing as required. In such an absence of feedback, Al has a deep feeling of unease, so he decides to ask Pat about it. Pat answers with only a few vague statements, conveying that the situation is more or less ok. Al then decides to wait for his official assessment, hoping to get the truth on this occasion. As soon as the MARS starts, Pat tells Al that this year she does not see the possibility of granting him more than the minimal number of steps due to a reduced quota in their group. Al is shocked and does not have the courage to ask Pat if her decision is based on his performance. To his great surprise, her subsequent assessment describes his work as being just satisfactory. Al is at a loss, as he cannot understand the reason for such a decision; what has he missed? What could he have done to improve things? The situation really gets to him, and influences the whole section. Efficiency will obviously go down.

Example 2: Bad communication while giving feedback
When Al asks to see Pat she answers, not in an encouraging tone of voice at all, that it would in fact be good to meet because she has several comments to make to him. They make an appointment for the following week. Pat starts the meeting by telling Al that from what she has heard, he is not making the best use of his manpower as he does not delegate enough, and that people are complaining about the restrictions he puts on their work. Pat continues, in an irritated voice and wagging a finger, that this behaviour is not compatible with the career that Al thinks he deserves. If the situation continues it is obvious - says Pat - that his career will stagnate. In fact everything she has said is true: Al is not delegating enough, he does not have the perspective to hold a more senior position, and people are indeed complaining that he takes over their work as if he feels that he should do everything himself. But hearing this flood of criticism, Al despairs and feels abandoned in a situation where he does not see any possible way out.

In both previous cases, Al should make use of a good confidential discussion with the Ombuds in order to investigate the various means and methods which could be used to improve the present mess he is in, or better: the mess he has been thrown into by the lack of useful feedback from his supervisor.

Example 3: Sincere feedback
Pat realises that Al’s new task could be difficult for him, due to the inhomogeneity of the new section and also due to some limitations in Al’s leadership skills. As difficult as it is going to be to tell him frankly about the situation, Pat still decides to do it. When Al comes in she says, in a neutral voice and looking directly at him, that now he has had time to settle down in the section, it is a good time to get together to evaluate his performance. She starts the discussion by asking Al how he sees his work and performance, and then points out some weaknesses that he should correct in the interest of his career and of the Institution. Pat ends the discussion by telling Al that she is quite prepared to give him some coaching, with his agreement. Al is then reassured that his work will be followed up by his supervisor and that he can consult with her if he needs to.

Conclusion:
Leaders must have the courage to give feedback to their collaborators, and it must be authentic and sincere feedback in order to help them see their situation clearly. As usual the Ombuds is available to help everyone, leaders and supervisees alike, by discussing such issues in a neutral, informal and confidential manner. Sometimes just a little push at the right time can have marvelous effects!

* Names and stories are purely imaginary.

by Vincent Vuillemin