iving feedback to your em-

ployees, particularly when their

performances fall short of ex-
pectations, is one of the most critical
roles you play as a manager. For most
people, its also one of the most dreaded.
Such conversations can be very un-
pleasant emotions can run high, tem-
pers can are. And so, fearing that an
employee will become defensive and
that the conversation will only strain
the relationship, the boss all too often
inadvertently sabotages the meeting
by preparing for it in a way that sties
honest discussion. This is an uninten-
tional indeed, unconscious habit
thats a byproduct of stress and that
makes it difcult to deliver corrective
feedback effectively.
The good news is that these conver-
sations dont have to be so hard. By
changing the mind-set with which you
develop and deliver negative feedback,
you can greatly increase the odds that
the process will be a success that you
will have productive conversations, that
you wont damage relationships, and
that your employees will make real
improvements in performance. In the
pages that follow, Ill describe what goes
wrong during these meetings and why.
Ill look in detail at how real-life con-
versations have unfolded and what the
managers could have done differently
to reach more satisfying outcomes. As
a rst step, lets look at the way bosses
prepare feedbackthat is, the way they
frame issues in their own minds in ad-
vance of a discussion.
Framing Feedback
In an ideal world, a subordinate would
accept corrective feedback with an open
mind. He or she would ask a few clari-
fying questions, promise to work on the
issues discussed, and show signs of im-
provement over time. But things dont
always turn out this way.
Lets consider the following example.
Liam, a vice president at a consumer
products company, had heard some
complaints about a product manager,
Jeremy. (Names and other identifying
information for the subjects mentioned
in this article have been altered.) Jer-
emy consistently delivered high-quality
Tool Ki t
Critiquing weak performance is a job
nobody likes. But by taking a more open
approach, you can be a better boss
and get a lot more from your team.
A Better Way to Deliver
by Jean-Franois Manzoni
BadNews
G
work on time, but several of his subor-
dinates had grumbled about his appar-
ent unwillingness to delegate. They felt
their contributions werent valued and
that they didnt have an opportunity
to learn and grow. Whats more, Liam
worried that Jeremys own career pros-
pects would be limited if his focus on
the day-to-day details of his subordi-
nates work kept him from taking on
more strategic projects. As his boss, Liam
felt a responsibility to let Jeremy know
about his concerns. Heres how the con-
versation unfolded:
Liam: Id like to discuss your work
with you. Youre doing a great job, and
we really value your contributions. But
I think you do too much. You have some
great people working for you; why not
delegate a little more?
Jeremy: I dont understand. I dele-
gate when I think its appropriate. But
a lot of people in this company rely on
quality work coming out of my depart-
ment, so I need to stay involved.
Liam: Yes, and we all appreciate your
attention to detail. But your job as a man-
ager is to help your employees grow into
4 Copyright 2002 by Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved.
september 2002 5
the conversation escalates until a rela-
tively minor difference becomes much
more dramatic. (For a visual represen-
tation of a deteriorating discussion, see
the exhibit Scripted Escalation.) Often,
as Liam did in the preceding conversa-
tion, one person or the other uninten-
tionally says something overly critical.
Of course, it may not get to that point
one or both parties may choose to give
in rather than ght. But either way,
escalate or fold, the subordinate proba-
bly hasnt accepted the news the boss
set out to deliver. Managers tend to
attribute such nonacceptance to em-
ployees pride or defensiveness. Indeed,
its not unusual for people to feel de-
fensive about their work or, for that
matter, to hold inated views of their
new roles and take on more responsibil-
ity. Meanwhile, youre so focused on the
details that you dont have time to think
about the bigger picture, about the di-
rection youre taking this product.
Jeremy: Thats not true. Im always
thinking about the future.
Liam: Im just saying, youd have
more time for strategic thinking if you
werent so mired in the day-to-day stuff.
Jeremy: Are you saying Im not a
strategic thinker?
Liam: Youre so busy dotting every
i and crossing every t that I just dont
know what kind of thinking youre ca-
pable of!
This type of exchange is surprisingly
common. Each side pushes his point of
view more and more aggressively, and
performance and capabilities. But more
often than not, the boss is also to blame.
Lets examine why.
Whenever we face a decision or situ-
ation, we frame it, consciously or not.
At its simplest, a frame is the decision
makers image of a situation that is,
the way he or she pictures the circum-
stances and elements surrounding the
decision. The frame denes the bound-
aries and dimensions of the decision
or situation for instance, which issues
will be looked at, which components are
in and which are out, how various bits
of information will be weighed, how
the problem might be solved or a suc-
cessful outcome determined, and so
on. Managers tend to frame difcult sit-
uations and decisions in a way that is
Take a look at how quickly a minor point of difference
during a feedback discussion can turn into a major
disagreement. Jerry starts the conversation by noting
that hed done a good job on his project. Beth, his boss,
is not in violent disagreement with his assessment and
acknowledges that it wasnt bad. Jerry could reafrm
his opening bid but instead tries to pull Beths view
closer to his own by overstating his initial point. Beth
disagrees with Jerrys inated statement, and instead of
reiterating her rst comment, she yields to the tempta-
tion to pull Jerry closer to her point of view. Both present
stronger and stronger positions, trying to convince the
other, and a minor difference quickly becomes a major
point of contention.
Scripted Escalation
I did OK.
What do you mean,
it wasnt bad? It was
pretty damn good!
Come on,
it was great!
It wasnt bad.
But there were
problems.
And the problems
were pretty severe.
Come to think of it,
it really wasnt very
good.
Listen, I did
amazingly well!
Gap at the end of the conversation
J4 J3 J2 J1 B1 B2 B3 B4
Initial gap
Jerry (Subordinate) Beth (Boss)
narrow (alternatives arent included or
even considered) and binary (there are
only two possible outcomes win or
lose). Then, during the feedback discus-
sion, their framing remains frozen un-
changed, regardless of the direction the
conversation takes.
In anticipation of the conversation
with Jeremy, for example, Liam framed
the problem in his mind as Jeremys
too controlling. This is a narrow fram-
ing because it excludes many alterna-
tive explanationsfor instance,Jeremy
would really like to hand off some re-
sponsibility but doesnt know how and
is embarrassed to acknowledge that.
Or Jeremy is actually delegating as
much as he can given his subordinates
current skill levels; they are frustrated
but really cannot handle more than they
do. Or maybe Jeremy is delegating
quite a lot, but Frank and Joan have
some other ax to grind. Liam may be
making matters worse without realiz-
ing it by sending Jeremy mixed signals:
Empower your subordinates, but make
no mistakes. We dont know for sure;
nor does Liam.
Operating from this narrow view,
Liam also approached the discussion
with a binary framing that leaves both
parties with very little room to maneu-
ver: Jeremy must learn to delegate or
well lose Frank and Joan and mean-
while, hell burn himself out. Last but
not least, Liams framing remained
frozen throughout the exchange despite
clear signals that Jeremy was not buying
the feedback. At no point was Liam pro-
cessing, let alone addressing, Jeremys
objections. Its no surprise that the meet-
ing ended badly.
The Dangers of Easing In
After theyve had a few bad experiences
delivering narrowly framed feedback,
managers tend to fall back on the con-
ventional wisdom that its better to
soften bad news with some good.
They try to avoid uncomfortable con-
frontations by using an indirect approach:
They make up their minds about an
issue and then try to help their employ-
ees reach the same conclusions by ask-
ing a carefully designed set of questions.
At rst glance, this type of easing in
seems more open and fair than the
forthright approach that Liam took,
since the manager is involving the sub-
ordinate in a conversation, however
scripted. But like the forthright ap-
proach, easing in reects a narrow and
binary framing that typically remains
frozen throughout the process. Indeed,
there would be no need to ease in if the
manager were approaching the conver-
sation with a truly open mind. And eas-
ing in carries an additional risk: The em-
ployee may not give you the answers
youre looking for.
For example, Alex, an executive at a
pharmaceuticals company, had some
difcult news to communicate to one of
his subordinates, Erin. She was a middle
manager at the company and did an
excellent job handling her department
but was not contributing satisfactorily
to a companywide task force chaired by
Alex. Erin was remarkably silent during
the meetings, which led Alex to con-
clude that she was too busy to partici-
pate fully and had little to offer the
group. Alexs solution? Take her off
the task force so she could focus on her
primary responsibilities. But because
he suspected Erin would be hurt or in-
sulted if he suggested she step down,
Alex hoped to prompt her to resign
from the committee by asking her a se-
ries of questions that would make her
see she was too busy to continue. Lets
look at what happened.
Alex: Do you sometimes feel as
though youre wasting your time in the
task force meetings?
Erin: No, I learn a lot from the meet-
ings and from watching the way you
run them.
Alex: But do you nd that your mind
is on your daily job when youre at com-
mittee meetings?
Erin: Not really. I hope I havent
given you the impression that Im not
fully committed. I think this is impor-
tant work, and Im excited to be a part
of it, and I think I have some good ideas
to offer.
Alex: What if you could participate
more informally? You could take your-
self off the team as a permanent mem-
ber, but you could continue to receive
the agenda and minutes and contribute
when your particular area of expertise is
required.
Erin: It sounds like you want me off
the committee. Why? I dont think the
committee work has undermined my
commitment to my real work. Im mak-
ing my numbers. Plus, its a learning
opportunity.
Alex: No, no, I just want to make sure
its something you really want to do.
Erin: It is.
As you can see, Erin didnt play along.
Alex was not ready for a confrontation,
so he foldedand lost. He didnt get Erin
off the committee, nor did he commu-
nicate his view that her committee work
was subpar, so he has no way to help
her improve her performance. Whats
more, he introduced a source of stress
into their relationship: Erin is likely to
have been unsettled by the interaction,
as Alex implied some level of dissatis-
faction with her performance without
telling her what it is.
As in our previous example, Alexs
framing of the issue was narrow: Erin
doesnt talk at the meetings, probably
because shes overloaded, so the com-
mittee is a waste of her time. His fram-
ing was also binary; the interaction
could be a success only if Erin agreed to
get off the committee without losing
her motivation for her regular work.
And this framing remained frozen be-
cause Alex was concentrating on asking
the right questions and couldnt pro-
cess anything but the right answers.
Meanwhile, Erin may actually benet
from being on the committee, even if
she doesnt say much. She learns a lot,
and it gives her visibility. And if she can
6 harvard business review
TOOL KI T A Bett er Way t o Del i ver Bad News
Jean-Franois Manzoni is an associate professor of management at Insead in
Fontainebleau, France, and the director of the InseadPricewaterhouseCoopers Re-
search Initiative on High-Performance Organizations. He is a coauthor, along with
Jean-Louis Barsoux, of The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome: How Good Managers Cause
Great People to Fail (Harvard Business School Press, 2002).
nd a way to contribute more, the com-
mittee may well benet from her mem-
bership. But by framing the issue the
way he did, Alex excluded other possible
solutions, any of which may have been
more productive for all concerned:
Maybe Erin would talk more in the
meetings if Alex probed the reasons for
her silence and helped her nd a way to
contribute what may be very valuable
insights. And if overwork is indeed an
issue, perhaps there are duties Erin
might give up to gain more time and
energy.
Easing in is a gamble. You might get
lucky, but you have only half the cards.
The subordinate may not give you the
answers youre looking for, as we saw
with Erin, either because she genuinely
doesnt agree or because she sees that
the game is rigged and refuses to play
along. Or the subordinate may decide to
stop resisting and pretend to go along
but still fail to believe the feedback. And
theres another risk, regardless of how
the conversation ends: The employee
may forever lose condence in his or her
boss. Erin may always wonder what Alex
has up his sleeve, having caught him
being disingenuous once.
Indeed, thats what happened to
Mark, a marketing director at a large
consulting rm. His boss, Rene, had
called him into a meeting to discuss his
role, and Mark left the meeting having
relinquished control of his pet project,
developing and implementing the com-
panys rst advertising campaign. Rene
had asked him a series of seemingly in-
nocuous questions, such as Do you nd
endless meetings with different agen-
cies to be a waste of your time? and
Do you feel like your time would be
better spent developing new communi-
cations materials? Mark eventually ac-
cepted what was clearly the rightcon-
clusion from his bosss perspective to
surrender the project even though he
wanted to continue. Worse, he didnt
know why Rene wanted him off the
project, so as a learning opportunity, it
was wasted. His relationship with his
boss is now tainted; Mark can no longer
take Renes comments at face value.
Why Is It So Hard?
Its very clear from a distance what went
wrong for Liam and Alex. Most man-
agers today are well trained and well
meaning; why cant they see what
theyre doing wrong? The tendency to
frame threatening situations in narrow
terms can be traced to the combination
of several phenomena.
First, research shows that when ana-
lyzing others behavior, most people
tend to overestimate the effect of a per-
sons stable characteristicsthe individ-
uals disposition and capabilities and
underestimate the impact of the spe-
cic conditions under which that person
is operating. So, for instance, a manager
will attribute a subordinates perfor-
mance problems to his or her disposi-
tion rather than to circumstances in
the workplace, leading to a rather sim-
plistic interpretation. This phenome-
non is known as the fundamental attri-
bution error.
Second, people are more prone to
committing the fundamental attribu-
tion error when they operate under de-
manding conditions. We can better dis-
tinguish the impact of situational forces
when we have time and energy to spare
than when we face multiple demands
on our attention. Unfortunately, man-
agers tend to be busy. Facing huge work-
loads and tight deadlines, they have lim-
ited time and attention to engage in
exhaustive analyses of all the potential
causes of the situations they observe or
of the many possible solutions to a
given problem. So they settle on the rst
acceptable explanation. Jeremys too
controlling explained all the symp-
toms, so Liam did not go further.
Research can also give us some in-
sight into why bosses tend to frame
things in a binary way. In particular,
Harvard Business School professor
september 2002 7
A Bett er Way t o Del i ver Bad News TOOL KI T
Research shows that people tend to be more willing to accept
feedback when they have the feeling that:
I
The person offering the feedback is reliable and has
good intentions toward them.
I
The feedback development process is fair that is, the
person giving the feedback collects all relevant infor-
mation; allows the subordinate to clarify and explain
matters; considers the subordinates opinions; and
applies consistent standards when delivering criticism.
I
The feedback communication process is fair that is,
the person offering the feedback pays careful attention
to the subordinates ideas; shows respect for the sub-
ordinate; and supports the subordinate despite their
disagreements.
This short list makes clear the negative impact of approaching
a feedback discussion with restrictive framing: Narrow framing
tells the employee that the feedback wasnt developed fairly.
And a boss constrained by a binary and frozen frame comes
across as biased, closed minded, and unsupportive ensuring
that the subordinate will feel as though the feedback hasnt been
communicated fairly.
Making Feedback More Acceptable
Chris Argyriss work over nearly ve
decades has established that under
stressful circumstances, people behave
in predictable ways. They design their
behaviors, often unconsciously, to gain
control of a situation and to winwhich
means, unfortunately, that the other
side usually has to lose. Thats binary
framing.
And why is it so hard for bosses to
revise their restrictive framing mid-
stream? For several powerful reasons.
First, bosses dont set out to frame situ-
ations in restrictive ways; they do so un-
consciously, most of the time, and its
hard to question a constraint that we
dont know were imposing on our-
selves. Second, humans tend to assume
that other reasonable people will see
the situation as they see it. Thats called
the false consensus effect. Our framing of
an issue represents our view of reality,
the facts as we see them. We are reason-
able and competent people; why would
others see the situation differently?
Bosses can get past these hurdles by
recognizing them and becoming more
conscious and careful when framing
decisions. But then they have to beat
another cause of frozen framing: a busy
processor. For instance, Liam becomes
increasingly stressed as Jeremy contin-
ues to push back against his version of
the facts, and both devote so much en-
ergy to trying to control their growing
irritation that they have few resources
left to listen, process, and respond con-
structively.
Reframing Feedback
Lets be clear: Im not suggesting that
bosses systematically misdiagnose the
causes of their subordinates perfor-
mance problems. Liams and Alexs early
diagnoses may well have been right.
And even if their feedback discussions
had been more productive, their subor-
dinates may not have been able to suf-
ciently improve their performances to
meet their bosses expectations. But Jer-
emy and Erin will almost certainly fail
to improve if they dont understand and
accept the feedback. Restrictive fram-
ing not only makes feedback conversa-
tions more stressful than they need to
be, it also increases the likelihood that
subordinates wont believe what their
bosses say. Indeed, subordinates are
more likely to accept and act on their
bosses feedback if they feel it is de-
veloped and communicated fairly. (See
the sidebar Making Feedback More
Acceptable.)
So, for instance, imagine how differ-
ently Liam and Jeremys conversation
might have gone had the manager
framed his concerns more broadly: Ive
heard complaints that Jeremy isnt del-
egating and some of his employees
are feeling sufciently frustrated that
Im afraid well start losing them. Id
like to nd out if Jeremy knows about
the complaints and get his take on the
situation.
This frame isnt narrow. Liam hasnt
reached a conclusion about why Jeremy
doesnt delegate or whether, indeed,
Jeremy is refusing to delegate at all. Nor
is the frame binary. Liam hasnt xed
on a win-or-lose outcome. And because
Liam hasnt entered the conversation
with a preconceived outcome in mind,
he has nothing on which to freeze. Now,
Liam can open the conversation in a
much more open way. He might say, for
instance,Jeremy, I dont know if youre
aware of this or if its true or not but
Ive heard that Frank and Joan are anx-
ious to take on a bit more responsibility.
What do you think? This can lead to
a discussion of Franks and Joans capa-
bilities, as well as Jeremys own role and
aspirations, without locking Jeremy
and Liam into a test of wills.
As for Alex, instead of approaching
the meeting with the goal of getting
Erin off the committee with minimal
damage, he could have framed the in-
teraction more broadly: I have a great
subordinate who doesnt say much on
the committee. Lets sit down and talk
about her work, the committee, her ca-
reer plans, and how committee mem-
bership ts in with those plans.Because
this framing doesnt x on a win-or-lose
outcome, Alex would have felt less need
to control the discussion and hence less
compelled to ease in.

While most managers can easily see
what theyre doing wrong when shown
how theyve developed and presented
their feedback, restrictive framing re-
mains a surprisingly persistent problem,
even for seasoned managers who excel
at other aspects of leadership. But giv-
ing feedback doesnt have to be stressful
for you, demoralizing for your employ-
ees, or damaging to your professional
relationships.
Offering more effective critiques re-
quires that you learn to recognize the bi-
ases that color the development of feed-
back. It requires that you take the time
to consider alternative explanations for
behaviors youve witnessed rather than
leaping to hasty conclusions that only
serve to paint you and your subordi-
nates into a corner. And it requires that
you take into account the circum-
stances an employee is working under
rather than attributing weak perfor-
mance to the persons disposition.
In short, it requires a broad and ex-
ible approach, one that will convince
your employees that the process is fair
and that youre ready for an honest
conversation.
Reprint r0209j
To place an order, call 1-800-988-0886.
TOOL KI T A Bett er Way t o Del i ver Bad News
8 harvard business review