The Importance Of Upward Feedback

3 crucial areas of upward feedback, why these are so often withheld, and what can be done about it

Building a culture supportive of upward feedback is crucial for organizational success. It is also a necessary component of member development. We are defining this process as important information held by those further down that is not held by those above. Often top management wonders “what is being kept from us?” This article will explore three crucial areas of upward feedback, why these are so often withheld, and what can be done about it.

Task Issues

The first area deals with task issues. Lower-level employees, being closer to the customer, frequently are the first to see problems with products or services. Recently, I had to return an item and grew annoyed at, what seemed to me, unnecessary hoops I had to jump through. When I complained to the company rep, she gave a resigned sigh saying she had heard that before. She then inquired why I didn’t want this product. I laid out its deficiencies and she admitted that she knew of those. As I hung up, I was sure that my complaints and suggestions would go no further. Was this because of her reluctance to send bad news upward for fear it might annoy her boss? Or was it the company’s failure to seek this information?
 

Top Management, as part of their strategic planning process, may have a sense of what should be done in terms of what new products or services are needed. But they often are unaware of the difficulties in how these are implemented. Will the new program require different procedures that will conflict with other practices? Will it demand new competencies not held by those who enact the programs? But those below might be more aware of the challenges in putting plans into practice.

If top management needs this information, why is it so often withheld or not heard? Will those below fear that they won’t be seen as “good team players” if they raise questions? Is top management so personally identified with their new ideas that they have little tolerance for being questioned?

Culture

Building a culture that is strongly aligned with the organization’s vision and strategy is a powerful management approach. Widely held norms and common expectations man fewer rules and regulations thus leading to a less bureaucratic and more nimble organization.

All organizations have a culture even though some cultures might be weak. The specific culture might be the result of conscious design by senior leadership or may have developed from their actions and what was rewarded. In either case, these elements derive from leaders’ beliefs about what they want the organization to stand for. However, sometimes a disconnect occurs between words and behavior. I consulted with a major energy company where the key executives stressed “quick response” and “keeping it simple.” But it took four levels in the hierarchy to approve hiring technicians who installed the meters!  When that gap occurs, employees give greater credence to behavior – after all “words are cheap.” Cynicism develops and the culture weakens. 

It is those further down the organization who are often the most aware of discrepancies between the espoused values and what leaders reward. This knowledge is rarely shared with those on the top. Are employees afraid that their feedback will be heard as labeling the leaders as inauthentic? Thus they stay silent 7 but judge their leaders as hypocritical. What is, especially, unfortunate are the situations where there are legitimate reasons for this apparent gap. But when subordinates don’t raise their concerns, top management doesn’t have the opportunity to explain. They were tried-and-convicted with no opportunity for their defense.

Leader and Member Development

Organizations spend billions of dollars yearly for internal and external training. But it turns out that the information that members need to develop themselves is already held within the organization. After all, isn’t it those being led who best know what their manager does well and not so well? Isn’t it our peers that have a good sense of what we do that is effective as well as ways we act that is detrimental?  However, this information is rarely shared in useful ways.

Sometimes, a good friend out of kindness will tell a colleague what they are doing that is dysfunctional. More often that information is given in anger which makes it hard to take in. The power discrepancy between employee and employer leads the former to keep quiet or only express their frustration to other employees. Doing so damages the boss’s reputation while increasing the distance between employees and the manager. A rare exception occurred recently when a woman we know went to the department head to tell him that something he was doing was causing problems. “Thank you,” he responded and then added, “I appreciate this because it must have been hard for you to say this.” “Oh, no, it wasn’t” she replied smiling. “I’m used to giving feedback.” But there are few employees who have that self-confidence and such feedback skills.

Bosses may say they want feedback, but there aren’t many who are as receptive as this one was. Too often, they act similarly to the comment that Sam Goldwyn, the famous 1930s movie mogul, made: “I want everyone to tell me the truth even if it costs them his job.” Managers may not actually act on that statement, but that is what employees fear. Few believe that telling the truth might actually strengthen the relationship with their boss. 

When considering feedback, too often, the emphasis is only on what is being done wrong. But frequently, people do not know the full positive impact of something they do well. But employees may be hesitant to make affirming statements for fear they will be seen as disingenuous and “buttering up” management. 

Building a Feedback Positive Organization

How can one tap into this crucial information?  Organizations may try with 360 Degree feedback, but this process is flawed. A comment like, “Doesn’t take account of other’s needs” is too ambiguous to be useful. What are the exact behaviors that led to this conclusion? How often does this occur? How many people feel this way? Is it on all issues or in a specific area? Furthermore, since such feedback is usually anonymous, the recipient spends time trying to figure out “who said it” rather than seriously considering the validity of the comment. Such secrecy undermines building trust and stronger relationships.

Given the inhibitory barriers of the hierarchy, it is not easy to set up a feedback positive organization to realize the benefits of various forms of feedback. Attaining this goal demands working simultaneously in several areas.

1. Acquiring Feedback Competencies – Most people do not know how to give behaviorally specific feedback. Rather than sticking with the observable behavior and its effect, they make attributions of the other’s motives and character. But it takes two to tango; there are also skills in receiving feedback. There is the temptation to explain one’s self, especially when the message is critical, rather than trying to fully understand the other’s concerns.¹ It’s crucial that all members, including senior leadership, know how to give and receive behaviorally specific feedback.

2. Commitment to Learning – A core organizational value has to be a commitment to learning. This can’t just be an espoused value but one that is consistently demonstrated starting at the top through how the executive team operates and how senior managers use and solicit feedback on a regular basis. Is this value embedded in the organization so that commitment to learning is in the performance appraisal process?

3. Structural Support – Because of the inherent barriers in giving upward feedback, these first two areas may not be sufficient. Instead, there can be a variety of structural approaches that supports the giving of upward feedback. 
 
Not all five of these approaches are necessary; different organizations will find some more useful than others. However, we have found that when organizations are serious about promoting upward feedback, positive results occur. Building a positive feedback organization not only increases upward feedback, but peer and downward feedback as well. Task performance increases because interpersonal issues have been reduced. Turnover decreases because the organization’s commitment to member development makes this a desirable place to work. 

Organizations don’t have to pay a premium to recruit the best applicants because of the “pay” in personal and professional growth. Such a transformation takes courage and persistence – but the benefits are more than worth it. 

David Bradford, Ph.D. is a Senior Lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Connect David Bradford