Feedback is ostensibly based on the perception of an objective reality that does not actually exist.

The idiosyncratic rater effect demonstrates that more than 60% of feedback is attributable to the provider.

Feedback is more palatable and actionable when framed as reflecting the needs of others, rather than judgment.

All feedback should begin and end with, "For me," making it more accurate, constructive, and persuasive.

Co-authored with Laura Martin

We humans have a strange tendency to ignore hard science in our day-to-day thinking. We can consciously acknowledge the placebo effect while simultaneously scoffing at the suggestion that mere positive thinking can cure illness.

And when it comes to providing feedback (or testimony of any kind, for that matter), there is an even bigger scientific elephant in the room that we choose to ignore: physics. Because we have to pretend that an objective reality actually exists.

The observer effect describes how the mere existence of observation affects the reality that is being observed. In some cases, it’s pretty straightforward. If we want to measure the air pressure in our tires, we let out a little air as we attach the gauge. Checking tire pressure affects the tire pressure being checked.

But when we get to quantum physics, it reveals something our brains are not able to process so easily. Mere observation, without physical interaction, or even presence, affects the outcome. And we’re not talking about psychological human behavior, here. We’re talking about the laws of the physical universe, like the presence of light.

It’s easy to conceptualize someone’s performance as being affected by an awareness that someone is watching them. It’s a lot harder to wrap our minds around the idea that each person may be witnessing a fundamentally different reality watching the exact same event, live.

What does any of this have to do with providing feedback? Before we even begin to consider the infinite complexities of cognitive function, human psychology, and the effect of emotions on perception, we have an even more fundamental challenge to address. The data suggests1 that reality itself may not be constant from person to person.

How is this relevant for us? The next time someone asks us for feedback, we must remember there’s no guarantee we’re even talking about the same thing.

Fortunately, there’s a much less abstract way to make an important point about feedback. But any time that physics and psychology align so perfectly, social scientist nerds like us feel compelled to revel in the quantitative legitimacy.

Want an Easier Explanation? Psych!

The idiosyncratic rater effect demonstrates that feedback reveals far more about the feedback provider than the feedback recipient: more than 60 percent2. That’s right. Every single time you receive feedback, and in every single context, the feedback has more to do with the person providing it than it has to do with you.

Does that make feedback useless? Quite the opposite. It makes the feedback even more useful because it teaches us about the greatest needs of the people providing it. If their feedback matters to us, then so too must influencing them, and there can be no more valuable information on how to accomplish exactly that.

Our work on ADP’s Compass showed that reframing leadership feedback as signaling team need rather than leader performance had a huge impact on subsequent behavioral change3. This insight turned natural defensiveness into intrinsic motivation, to the tune of double-digit score improvements (from the teams themselves).

Of course, we all love this perspective as we recollect the feedback we’ve received over the years. It’s wonderfully affirming. But there is always something, and the record scratch happens here when we realize the same has always been true for the feedback we’ve given, as well. It was all about us, the whole time.

“Telling It Like It Is,” Exclusively Available to Idiots

Scientifically speaking, we all call it like we see it. And how we see it is determined primarily by context. Metaphorically speaking, context is the ocean, and everything else is a boat.

Imagine you and I witness the same event and yet remember what happened quite differently. What might account for that? Personality? Expectation? Taste? Mood? Values? Beliefs? Upbringing? Vision? Height? Time since last meal? Last night’s sleep? The list is infinite. Context is an ocean.

Imagine two teammates diametrically opposed in terms of neuroticism: one wound extremely tight, the other seemingly comfortable in every situation. If the two of them were providing you with feedback, would you expect it to be the same? No, you would likely expect the feedback to reflect their personal takes on your approach.

But the biases driving our feedback are just as extreme as the caricatures of high vs. low neuroticism. They may appear moderate because unpacking a few examples reveals “middle of the road” viewpoints, but that’s sampling error. Our feedback to anyone is a reflection of our own needs in our own context. Otherwise it wouldn’t be about us, and 60 percent doesn’t leave any room for misunderstanding.

So, What Are We Going to Do About It?

All this context may be interesting, but it doesn’t make for an effective feedback opener. Thankfully, there is a wonderfully simple and practical way to capture all of this complexity in two simple words. “For me.”

All feedback needs to begin and end with, “For me.” And in between come sentences like, “For this to hit me most powerfully, it needs more of this or less of this,” or, “It’s not landing for me the way I believe you’re hoping it will,” or “For my needs, it couldn’t be any better.”

There are built-in reasons why this works so well. Acknowledging your own subjectivity is inherently respectful to the feedback recipient, ironically making them more inclined to embrace it. And it’s also a very helpful reminder to feedback providers to stay humble. But maybe the biggest reason it is so effective? It’s the truth, psychologically, and even physically. (Or as we like to call it, "physics-ly.")

So, the next time you’re providing feedback, remember: It represents a sample size of one. If you keep that top of mind, and keep reiterating it in your feedback, you won’t just be telling something closer to the actual truth. You’ll be influencing people with your feedback to a much greater extent. Which is, after all, kind of the point of providing it, no?

Laura Martin is co-founder and CEO of The Glinda Group, helping organizations thrive through the application of social science. She was previously a senior leader at Target, ADP, Razr, and BMS.

1 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016003236910475

2 - https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2000-16508-012

3 - https://www.adp.com/-/media/adp/redesign2018/pdf/compass/compass_white_paper.pdf

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today