Feedback is a critical component of workplace interactions, yet effective methods for exchanging feedback are not well understood. The present research compares the process of receiving feedback that was asked for versus unasked for among newly-acquainted employees in the Sydney, Australia branch of KPMG. Pairs of employees first completed a negotiation exercise with one another, and then took turns giving each other feedback on their negotiation performance. Participants were instructed to give feedback to their partner about their performance—this feedback was either actively solicited by the partner (the asked condition) or not (the unasked condition).
We measured the amount of positive behaviors that people exhibited (nodding and smiling), physiological arousal via heart rate, and self-reported anxiety. Although people appeared more positive while giving feedback that was unasked for vs. asked for, they also experienced greater anxiety while giving this feedback. While receiving feedback, those who asked for it experienced smaller increases in heart rate than those who did not, particularly if their partner had been the first to receive feedback. The importance of having leaders “break the ice” and ask for feedback first is discussed.
Click here to listen to the afternoon sessions.
About the Insight Lab:
Take the guesswork out of transforming performance management. Learn from the pioneers shaping the future.
The number of organizations making significant changes continues to grow. Immerse yourself in the latest industry research and learn directly from leading minds who are revolutionizing the field.
Develop a fresh perspective and a research-driven strategy for your organization.
About the Sessions:
Kickoff – State of Performance Management – Josh Davis & David Rock (NLI)
What’s new, what’s next?
Next Generation Goal Setting – Heidi Grant (NLI), Jeff Jacobs (Juniper), Meagan Gregorczyk (GE), Kris Duggan (BetterWorks)
At today’s pace of change, annual goals are completely forgotten by year-end, and cascading goals are distinctly non-agile. Discover new research in this space and new, agile goal setting approaches from the field.
Continuous Feedback: How to Create a Culture of Feedback – Tessa V. West (NYU), David Rock (NLI), Roxanne Bisby Davis (Cisco), Tracey Underwood (IBM), Liz Friedman (Microsoft), Rajeev Behera (Reflektive)
Traditional approaches to providing feedback fail to deliver the performance improvement people need, at the time they need it. Explore the science and practice of how to create a culture of continuous feedback in your organization.
Getting to Better Conversations – David Rock (NLI), Heidi Grant (NLI), Angela Szymusiak (Adobe), Kathryn Guggenheim (CA Tech), Tracy Russell (Cigna), Marianne Jackson (eBay), Andee Harris (HighGround)
Talent executives disagree on a lot. One thing they all agree on is that managers need to be better at having quality conversations with their direct reports. Explore the many different ways organizations are experimenting with lifting manager capability and accountability for having better conversations.
Audio recording from NeuroLeadership’s 2017 Performance Management Insight Lab in Santa Clara, California, June 2017.
Become a member to access this content or log in now.Employee engagement, enabled by digital technology, is expanding its reach. How do we also make it personal, more accurate and more useful? Explore the science of engagement in the brain and how to think about assessing and nudging a culture in new ways.
Become a member to access this content or log in now.
Performance is continuing to shift from a focus on compliance and ratings, to a more nuanced effort to enable better conversations. After three years of closely tracking this trend, we will share our results and insights. We will also take a closer look at the topic of feedback: what science tells us we might have wrong and how to get it right. Join us to hear about exciting new research on feedback as well as case studies of firms working to create a culture of feedback.
There is a substantial gap in how much useful feedback people need, and how much they actually receive. In order to close that gap, conventional wisdom says that organizations should encourage managers to give more feedback. But science suggests that the solution may actually lie in the opposite direction—that instead, they should encourage everyone to ask for more feedback. By asking for feedback instead of waiting for it to be given, we can increase both the quality and the quantity of feedback. The experience becomes better for the asker, better for the giver, and therefore results in more feedback shared across the organization.
Become a member to access this paper or log in now.
Why are many companies struggling to create diverse workforces, despite spending millions on diversity training and recruitment?
Implicit bias may be partly to blame. Even people with the best intentions harbor attitudes or beliefs outside their conscious awareness. These blind spots can have a negative impact on hiring and people decisions. To make matters worse, research shows that conventional bias training as we’ve been doing it up until now has not been delivering big results.
Join Dr. Jay Van Bavel and Dr. Tessa West (NYU) to explore a research-based action plan for mitigating bias in hiring. This presentation will expand upon their latest article in the Wall Street Journal, providing a comprehensive overview of the research and seven specific steps HR leaders can take to remove bias from the selection process.
If you work in HR, you do not want to miss this chance to gain actionable insights and hear directly from the researchers.
Diverse teams perform better, and ultimately improve an organization’s bottom line. But there’s still a diversity gap in the workforce, despite attempts to make hiring managers less biased.First of all, many of these biases are unconscious. Neuroscience says we can’t take bias out of the person. Instead, we have to take bias out of the hiring process.Second, bias in hiring isn’t just one problem to solve. Selection involves three unique stages—Resume review, Interviewing, and Choosing a candidate—that each involve different kinds of decisions. What’s key is that different decisions involve different biases, and different biases require different mitigation strategies.This paper details which biases are most active at each stage of selection, and how to use The SEEDS Model® to mitigate them.
Why is it that many of the world’s most advanced companies struggle to create diversified workforces, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on diversity training and recruitment? Implicit bias may be partly to blame…
Read the article here.
Become a member to access this content or log in now.
Accelerate Inclusion from the 2016 NeuroLeadership Summit: Rethink the Organization
Many companies have begun to prioritize inclusion in their people strategy. New research suggests that despite good intentions, we may be going about this all wrong and even making matters worse. Join some of today’s leading diversity and inclusion researchers as we explore a whole new way of thinking about inclusion.