Forums

I am wondering something ...

Isn't the feed back model as described with its 4 steps too fast for a "C" ?

What I mean is that I ask my direct to :
1) agree on having a feedback
2) accept a feedback on his behaviour
3) hear and undestand the consequences of this behaviour
4) tell me how he will change his behaviour
All of that in a very quick time.

I am not sure it is natural for a "C".

I have had different results with different people.

"D" profiles will be able to tell me how they can change their behaviour. So they could go from step 1 to 4 in a row. They are quick to accept and try to find a way to change that. Easy.

Some people (C) seem to need more time to accept my analysis of the consequences of their behaviour. I feel it is sometime better to stop at step 3, and say ; "can you think about what I said and we continue this discussion next time ?"

Often, I even found some people correct their behaviour themselves ...

And the only thing I then had to do was to give them positive feedback about the change they had done !

I am not sure it is very clear and I wonder if any of you have had the same experience ?

Cédric.

terrih's picture

Heaven forfend I should put words in Mark's mouth... but I think he would say, if they changed the behavior, the objective has been met!

The point of the feedback model is not for them to get the right answer to your question. The point is for their future behavior to change.

IANAE but if they can't come up with an answer and I don't want to supply it for them, I might say, "No big deal, just food for thought."

Mark, correct me if I'm wrong! :wink:

ccleveland's picture
cwatine's picture

Terry (3-1-6-[b][size=18]7[/size])[/b],

Isn't it very unnatural for a high C to go through the 4 step in a row ? What would be your prefered way ?

Thanks,

Cédric.

bflynn's picture

I believe what Cédric is suggesting is that different people will see feedback in different ways. A high-C doesn't like change. They need time to adjust and get used to the new thing.

The key points for me are
1) you are talking to the high-C in language they care about.
2) you are not requiring on the spot acceptance. A high-C might require time to evaluate the change and believe in the "truth" of it.
3) all you're requiring is instant change in behavior. That is something everyone can do right away.

There may be some difference in the experience for different types. But that difference should not matter to the manager.

Brian

WillDuke's picture

I would certainly agree that results are what matter. But I don't agree that it's too fast for a C. Ced, can you post an example? I'm wondering if you're just giving a LOT of examples instead of just one.

One example, one result, one changed behavior. Not sure how that could be too fast.

cwatine's picture

That is right, I think high C don't like [u]quick[/u] change.

I feel they cannot easily make "external" (behaviour) changes if it is not in conformity with what they think (internal). To accept change they need to understand and to integrate it. It may take time.

I am not sure it is only language. I feel a C change his behaviour in a long term way if he agrees "deep inside" that he has to change it.

Of course, like anyone, a "C" will agree in front of you if you say he has to change.

But will he do it if he does not really understand why you imposed it ?

drinkcoffee's picture

Although high-Cs dislike sudden change, they also:

1. Want clear expectations
2. Value high standards
3. Want to be right

Couch your "here's what happens" in their language and you are guiding them to make the change. For example,

"When you do blah blah blah, here's what happens: you aren't adhering to the standards this organization has set for employees. You're not meeting my expectations for high performance. You're behavior is not correct behavior for a resource of your caliber. What can you do differently next time?"

I'm a high C. If I hear something like that, I'm a-gonna CHANGE and right quick!

- Bill

cwatine's picture

I don't have tons of examples to propose, I must admit. This is why I am just wondering.

In fact, I started by wondering why I was getting superb results with some people and very average people with others.

One of my "C" directs one day told me that she was feeling a lots of pressure from me when I was giving her feed back. She was still struggling with the three first steps when I was already asking her how she could change her behaviour. We agreed that she would come back to me one week after because she needed time to think about it.
It worked just well : she thanked me to have trusted that she could overcome this situation alone.

I never had to go through that process with my high D directs.

My site manager was also having difficulties with some of his directs. He also reported much better result when he allowed some time between the "here is what happens" and the "what can you do to change this" part of the model. Most of them came back to him asking for more explanations about how their behaviour was affecting the company. They wanted to understand better his point of view before they could accept to change.
They also wanted to know what were his own goals. They wanted to check if there was any hidden reasons behind what he was asking.
When I asked them why they were not acting the way he wanted them to, they said : "because he did not take the time to explain why. We did not have enough time to understand and discuss it."

skwanch's picture

[quote]IANAE?[/quote]

"I am not an expert"

WillDuke's picture

Ced, looking at your signature you're a high D right? And your directs who are Ds respond well? How about the other guy delivering feedback? Are his directs of matching DiSC rating responding the best?

See the pattern yet?

I think you need to adjust step 3 based on the direct's DiSC rating. As Bill pointed out above, he's a C who would change darned fast if the impact is correctly targeted.

Again, if you can throw out an example, maybe Bill could help us all identify what would work best on a C.

skwanch's picture

The answer is already there . . . 'he did not explain why'. More attention and detail in the 'impact' piece is necessary for a high C. More data, more data, more data.

As a practical technique, try reminding yourself to give at least 3 (or 4, or 5) 'impacts' for a given behavior. The more you give, the more likely that at least one is going to resonate as a 'valid' data point and generate buy-in from the direct.

terrih's picture

[quote="cedwat"]Terry (3-1-6-[b][size=18]7[/size])[/b],

Isn't it very unnatural for a high C to go through the 4 step in a row ? What would be your prefered way ?[/quote]

Now that you mention it, it's hard for me to DELIVER, and Mark nailed the reason when I asked a question about feedback at the Chicago M-T Meetup that he visited.

Someone advised me not to worry about hurting the direct's feelings. Mark said, "She's not worried about hurting their feelings, she's worried about DOING IT WRONG."

(it's one thing to be able to tell someone is a high C... it's downright [i]spooky[/i] to be able to tell my complete profile adds up to Perfectionist!)

Anyway, I think what I struggle with in delivery is coming up with the ideal points for step 3.

If I were to be given feedback... hmmm... I think I would panic a bit at the final question. I want to make sure I get it RIGHT. Therefore I might want time to think about it. If the answer were totally obvious, I might blurt it out, but inside I would be worried that it was a trick question and they were looking for something more complicated.

Although, I'm thinking, if there were enough instances of feedback to truly make it feel like just another "potato chip," because my boss treats each like just another "potato chip," and I have learned to trust him not to blow any particular instance out of proportion despite the big red neon sign on his forehead... then, I might be able to calm down about it somewhat. 8)

Is that any help?

WillDuke's picture

And, if it's someone you trust to get it on their own, go with the feedback modification M&M suggest for long-term high-performers. How does it go, can you do that differently next time? Great, thanks.

cwatine's picture

Skanch,

I agree on the "more data" idea. Definitely.
The problem is when you begin to give 3, 4 or 5 different impacts for a single behaviour : people begin to think ("he is just trying to be right and he is exagerating the situation. I will fight back and try to prove he is wrong".)
They also need time to think about the fact each one is valid. If they think one of them is not. It invalidate all the other. Especially if you gave all of them in a short time.

--------------------------

Duke ....

It is not easy but I will try to give you 2 real examples :

Not successful
D : "C, I heard you talk to X on the phone. you were using "very direct" words. When you are talking like that to her, it is against my policy, it doesn't help collaboration and it is inefficient because X gets defensive. What can you do about that ?"
C : "What ? What are you talking about ? I have always done like this and it has never been a problem... And ... How do you know X got mad about me doing this ?"
D : "I did not say X did say anything ... I said I heard you talking on the phone and it you said XXXX, XXXX and XXXX. This is not the kind of language that helps collaboration"
C : "how do you know that ? What makes you think saying XXXX does not help collaboration ?"
D :"this is common sense"
C : "Well if X did not complain, I don't understand why you want me to change that"
D :"Listen, I want this relation to improve. So I ask you yo tell me what you can do about i"
C : "I dont understand, if X did not complain ..."
D : "Well, now, tell me what you can do about that, please"
C : "Well. Easy. I will not talk to her anymore. I will send Emails ... you are right, Emails are better ..."
D : "Well ... I am not sure Emails help communication"
C : "You asked me what I could do. This is what I can do."
So on ...

Successful (sames persons)
Week 1
D : "I have seen you were chasing suppliers via Email. When you send Emails to suppliers, it is not efficient. I have seen they answer quicker when customers call them. Can you think about it and we discuss it next time"
C : "Well ... You know, emails are quicker. And this is how I have always done. I don't know ... I don't have time to ..."
D : "I don't think we can solve this today. Think about it. I want to improve the supplier response. And we talk again next week"
Week 2
C : "How do you know it is more efficient to call instead of Emailing ?"
D : "When I went to YY, they told me they were delivering the Dutch faster because they were calling every single day"
C : "But ... YY told me they prefer to receive mails, not phone calls. How can they say that now ?"
D : "Yes this is what they prefer ... But we want to improve our performance, not please them ... No ?"
C :"Yes"
Week 3
C : "In fact I do not feel at ease on the phone ... And I have no time"
D : "I understand. What can you do to solve that ?"
C : "Well, I have begun to do it, in fact. And ... I thought I could just chase by phone the very urgent orders and continue Emailing the others ?"
D : "Great ! You will improve overtime. It is very nice to see that you found a solution. Go on"

cwatine's picture

[quote="terrih"]

If I were to be given feedback... hmmm... I think I would panic a bit at the final question. I want to make sure I get it RIGHT. Therefore I might want time to think about it. If the answer were totally obvious, I might blurt it out, but inside I would be worried that it was a trick question and they were looking for something more complicated.

Although, I'm thinking, if there were enough instances of feedback to truly make it feel like just another "potato chip," because my boss treats each like just another "potato chip," and I have learned to trust him not to blow any particular instance out of proportion despite the big red neon sign on his forehead... then, I might be able to calm down about it somewhat. 8)

Is that any help?[/quote]

Yes Terri, this is of great help to me. Make things clearer. Thanks.

Something I have a hard time understanding is why some people think there always a question behind the question ... Or a hidden reason. I falsely felt it was a lack of trust.

If I tried to rush the process by saying "okay, now, what can you do different", I forced the answer. So the message in their head was nomore "What can I do differently ?" or "Is it really this impact ?" but "Ooops ... What am I supposed to say now ?"

The result was : I got answers. But the behavior did not change. So I thought : "he says he will change, but he doesn't ... Does he think he can kid me like that and not act accordingly to his own language ? I am going to give him some FEEDBACK about that!"

- Why do you continue when you said you would change?
- Well I did not understand what you were really expecting and I felt you were asking me to change just for changing?
- But, then, why did you say you would change?
- you wanted me to change so ... But ... Why do you want me to change? You think, I am not the right person, no?
Etc ...

So, with some people, I found it was better not to rush the last part. I felt it was better to just give the description and impact several time before to ask for a change. Even to the point, I did not have to ask for a change.

They DID change.

WillDuke's picture

What does "very direct" mean? Are you trying to be nice here and soft-pedaling your message? More specifically, what are they saying or doing?

I think the impact portion of the message is a little muddled.
[quote]it is against my policy, it doesn't help collaboration and it is inefficient because X gets defensive[/quote]
Does the person have a copy of your policy stating this? How is being direct inefficient?

My feeling here is that your message isn't clear. So, what's going on?

terrih's picture

[quote]If I tried to rush the process by saying "okay, now, what can you do different", I forced the answer. So the message in their head was nomore "What can I do differently ?" or "Is it really this impact ?" but "Ooops ... What am I supposed to say now ?"[/quote]

That's it, you're right! That's what my ramblings boil down to. :D

andrewmullens's picture

I couldn't agree more with will. I know this was an example, so perhaps you simplified it a little, but this didn't sounds like the feedback model to me.

What is being direct on the phone, is it rushing the customer/contact to an answer, is it butting in, it is skipping the idle chit chat before getting down to business, it is leaving out the neccesities like, how has your week been, how did that last shipment go or thanks for your help on this. Maybe it phrasing the laungage so that instead of asking an open ended question you ask a yes/no question, eg. when can you get that shipment, versus cna you get that shipment to me by friday.

I think it could be this aspect that is creating the push back from the C's not, their C profile. Because for them they need to be precise, what is it they are doing wrong, once they know, and once you paint a picture of what is wrong about it and its effects, they will change it.

As a relatively high C who often gets feedback from high I' and high D's (including outside work) I can say I don't respond well if I don't really understand in precise terms what I've done wrong.

Having said that, I do understand where you're coming from. E.g, the problem of the high C still processing the concept of what was wrong, and still not getting there head around the change required.

One thing to remember is that one peice of correcting feedback is not meant to be last word on the problem. So, for the high C, maybe you give them four or five seperate events of feedback and they start make the changes. They start to think about each seperate peice, tie it together and use those high C skills to analyse the issue.

cwatine's picture

[quote="WillDuke"]What does "very direct" mean? Are you trying to be nice here and soft-pedaling your message? More specifically, what are they saying or doing?

I think the impact portion of the message is a little muddled.
[quote]it is against my policy, it doesn't help collaboration and it is inefficient because X gets defensive[/quote]
Does the person have a copy of your policy stating this? How is being direct inefficient?

My feeling here is that your message isn't clear. So, what's going on?[/quote]

I am sorry I cannot be very specific because it is not a recent example. "very direct" meant "rude" (translation issue). And you are right, "Policy" was used instead of "my principles about working together".

cwatine's picture

Andrew,

It was not with a customer, but with a person of another department. And by "direct", I meant "rude". The terms XXXX, XXXX and XXXX were for very rude words, that I will not repear here. :?

And : you are exactly right. The "C" was still trying to understand what was wrong in his behaviour when the "D" was already asking for an answer. The "C" felt it was like an aggression with no reason because she had not even the feeling she did something wrong.

Cédric.

andrewmullens's picture

Cedric
Sorry for misunderstanding your post. I was really jumping to conclusions, while you were trying to be polite and discreet. That sound like a very unpleasant situation to be in with your direct.

cwatine's picture

Don't worry. It is much better now!

Thank you for your input.

Cédric. :wink:

WillDuke's picture

Ced - Well, rude is an interpretation. It might be one we all (you'd think) agree on, but it's an interpretation. They can attempt to open discussion with whether or not it was rude, but either they did or did not use

So, adjust the feedback to say something like: "When you use words like xxxx and yyyy you're going against our corporate policy. What could you do differently next time?"

Now, let's see them argue their way out of that. :)

cwatine's picture

Will-

Ok. I understand what you mean in that case.

Except, it was not a "corporate policy" issue (I am sorry it is a translation issue).

It was more like saying :
1) I heard you using words like XXX, XXXXX, XXXXXX
2) I think using those words goes against collaboration between people.
3) I think bad collaboration between people means less efficiency for the company
4) you ask you to change this behavior
5) What can you do ?

The person was not breaking a written rule. She was going against a "common sense principle" which is : "it works better between people when they have good relations".
So the first thing was to let her understand that having this kind of language was going against the company performance.

Going too fast from the description of the behavior to the request of a change in behavior, seemed to put her in a defensive position and not allow her to really find an answer. She was in fact still struggling with the reasons why she was asked to change her behavior.

So instead of going fast on this really minor change, we had to go through many other processes with her to let her understand that the behavior was really counterproductive. She needed to "digest" the information. Then, she could work on her behavior.

Céd.

WillDuke's picture

I posted the "corporate policy" to tailor the impact to a C. They're all about doing things the right way right? So adjust the message accordingly. I don't think your company would be against having a policy about not using vulgarity, maybe this is an opportunity to institute such a policy. Forgoing that, can you think of a way to tailor the message to a high C personality?

I'm not comfortable with letting feedback like this take a couple of weeks to process. Feedback is supposed to be a quick minor adjustment. It shouldn't take someone two weeks to realize they can't swear at other people.

cwatine's picture

[quote]I posted the "corporate policy" to tailor the impact to a C. They're all about doing things the right way right? So adjust the message accordingly. I don't think your company would be against having a policy about not using vulgarity, maybe this is an opportunity to institute such a policy. Forgoing that, can you think of a way to tailor the message to a high C personality?[/quote]

Mmmm, maybe it is just my way of managing, but I don't want to put a written policy in place because only one person sometimes gets nasty with another one. I prefer to act on that person.

[quote]I'm not comfortable with letting feedback like this take a couple of weeks to process. Feedback is supposed to be a quick minor adjustment. It shouldn't take someone two weeks to realize they can't swear at other people.[/quote]

I am not too. As I "D", I would even be very impatient. But I have found that some people need more time.

I have often found differences between the ideal process I have in mind and the cruel reality ... :wink:
So I try to re-ajust everyday my ideal to adapt it to the real world.

When I can't reach my ideal, I try to feel happy about the fact tere has been an improvement.

WillDuke's picture

I hear what you're saying. Slow improvement is definitely better than no improvement. Perhaps taking "I think" out of your response would make your message stronger.[quote]1) I heard you using words like XXX, XXXXX, XXXXXX
2) I think using those words goes against collaboration between people.
3) I think bad collaboration between people means less efficiency for the company
4) you ask you to change this behavior
5) What can you do ? [/quote]
How does this sound?

"John, when you say xxxx and yyyy to Sam, it's vulgar. Vulgarity is not the professional behavior I expect of you. That kind of vulgarity interferes with collaboration and makes our company less efficient. What do you think you can do differently next time?"

How does that sound? (I repeated the vulgarity to really drive home that point.)

juliahhavener's picture

I'll pop in to agree with Will on the verbage being very important. I suspect there is some stuff that gets lost in translation, so you may already be there.

The big key is to speak to what's important to them - the job, the correctness, the task - you, me, and their team? Not so much.

cwatine's picture

There are definitly some translation issues, you are right.

But is helps a lot to have a feedback about it from people like you who are "outside of the story".

Thanks for that!

Cédric

US41's picture

Feedback "what happens is" tips based on DiSC:

D: "makes me want to micromanage you", "you won't get promoted", "lose power", "people won't do what you want", "makes things go slower"

i: "makes you look bad", "hurts your reputation", "gives the wrong impression", "people might not like you as much"

S: "hurts all of us", "is not supportive", "makes us wonder if you really care", "hurts my feelings"

C: "is inaccurate", "incomplete", "could make you look incompetent", "hurts our numbers", "is sloppy", "damages credibility"

Use the wrong consequences with the wrong person, and you could could end up with some humorous responses.

Tell a D that your feelings are hurt and they will burst into laughter. Tell a C that it will slow things down and they will say, "Thank, God. Maybe quality will go up." Tell an S that they won't be promoted and they'll think you are a heartless jerk. Tell an I that they will lose power and they will stick their chin out as if you have challenged them to a fight.

misstenacity's picture

Wow, what a fantastic breakdown of tailored responses for the DiSC types!

Thank you.