By Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
Listen to this episode:
Abstract: This article discusses strategies for productively interpreting mixed or conflicting performance feedback. It acknowledges that while performance reviews aim to provide career development guidance, communicating feedback effectively is challenging and inconsistencies can occur due to factors like insufficient manager training, biases, lack of objective metrics, and differing priorities between management levels. The article recommends keeping an open yet analytical mindset when receiving mixed signals and seeking to understand potential causes through lenses from organizational behavior research like social influence biases, competing agendas, performance dimension overloads, and rater errors. It suggests tactics for constructively addressing inconsistencies with leadership like requesting a joint discussion, focusing on mutual goals, acknowledging multiple perspectives, problem-solving over blaming, and following up with agreed upon action items. Real-world industry examples demonstrate how clarifying expectations, strengthening review practices, and emphasizing shared priorities can turn mixed feedback into a learning opportunity rather than a roadblock.
Receiving conflicting performance feedback can be unsettling and confusing for any employee. However, taking a step back and thoughtfully analyzing the situation is key to understanding the mixed signals and determining the best path forward.
Today we will explore strategies for interpreting mixed feedback through a research-informed lens and provide practical guidance for constructively addressing inconsistencies with leadership.
Performance Feedback: Purpose, Challenges and Context
Performance reviews are intended to acknowledge accomplishments, identify areas for growth, and guide career development. However, effectively communicating feedback is challenging and inconsistent messages do occur for various reasons. Research into performance evaluation challenges finds common causes include insufficient manager training, discretionary bias, lack of objective metrics, and conflicting priorities between different levels of management (Cheng, 2014; DeNisi & Murphy, 2017). The organization, team dynamics, individual personality factors and current workload pressures also provide necessary context for mixed signals.
Rather than assume malicious intent, it is wise to approach inconsistent feedback with an open yet discerning mindset. Seeking first to understand potential explanations will foster more clarity than reacting defensively. Core questions to reflect on include: Are different perspectives simply a difference in vantage point rather than a contradiction? Do certain feedback providers lack proper context or direct experience with my work? Might competing priorities among leadership lead to some mixed priorities in messaging at times? Answers may reveal this is less a matter of being unfairly criticized than a normal reality of large systems with many moving parts.
Interpreting Mixed Messages Through Research Lenses
Gaining insight into potential motivations behind inconsistencies supports constructive next steps. Relevant organizational behavior research offers lenses for thoughtful analysis:
Social influence and bias. Unconscious biases shape perspectives and priorities, influencing how different managers view similar performance (Prentice & Miller, 1992). Seeking input from diverse raters mitigates this.
Competing agendas. Managers further up the chain have broader concerns which may eclipse individual contributions at times, valuing team/department success over any one person (Ferris & Judge, 1991).
Performance dimension overload. Reviews addressing too wide an array of duties make consistent evaluation difficult, especially between raters with varying remits (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Focusing on key result areas brings needed specificity.
Rater errors. All people are fallible observers. Halo/horn effects, inadequate observation opportunities and personal liking/disliking unintentionally color some assessments (Murphy, 2008). Independent verification offers protection.
Keeping an open yet analytical mind when interpreting feedback acknowledges such realities and maintains focus on one’s own growth, not personal attacks or vendettas. Presuming good faith until shown otherwise creates space for productive conversation.
Navigating the Conversation
Once any patterns in feedback are understood, the path forward involves humbly yet proactively addressing inconsistencies respectfully with leadership. Practically, this involves:
Requesting a joint discussion. Propose sitting down together to discuss perceptions in an interest-based manner. Come prepared to outline both positive and developmental feedback received to ensure a balanced understanding.
Listening without reacting. Remain composed as others explain their perspectives, avoiding defensiveness. Take thorough notes to refer back to later for reflection and clarification of any points needing follow up.
Acknowledging multiple truths. Affirm differing viewpoints can co-exist, then focus conversation on collaborating around shared goals and priorities rather than who is "right" (Stone & Heen, 2014).
Problem-solving, not blaming. Suggest seeking consensus on expectations and measurements, then commit as a team to enhanced goal-setting, mentorship and consistent feedback practices going forward.
Following up in writing. Send a summary of the discussion, action items and goals agreed upon to relevant managers and HR for documentation and accountability. Treat this as an opportunity for growth, not a grievance.
Research confirms the most constructive approach involves assuming shared motivation to succeed, not conflict (Avey et al., 2008). Leading with empathy, honesty and solutions orientation models the type of leadership valued within high-performing organizations.
Applying Feedback Lessons in the Workplace
To apply this approach practically, consider the following industry examples:
Education - A teacher received conflicting feedback on classroom management skills from the principal versus department head. In a joint meeting, she acknowledged their varying observation opportunities and priorities, then suggested weekly mini-observations and weekly debriefs to develop shared expectations around discipline techniques. Both managers agreed to the plan.
Healthcare - A nurse was confused by inconsistent ratings on empathy and coordination from different nurse managers. In a private discussion, she respectfully noted the discrepancies and asked for concrete examples of where perceptions diverged. This led to a productive dialog where misunderstandings were resolved and specific goals for improvement were set.
Technology - A software engineer felt undervalued after a glowing peer review but lukewarm manager review. He scheduled time with both individually to understand their priorities, then brought them together to align expectations around productivity metrics and documentation standards to provide clear performance indicators going forward.
In each case, addressing inconsistencies respectfully through open communication, acknowledgement of multiple perspectives, commitment to shared goals and action planning led to stronger performance management practices benefiting all parties.
Conclusion
Navigating mixed performance signals takes an analytical yet humble approach focused on growth rather than grievance. By understanding feedback in its full context through research lenses, then respectfully engaging leadership jointly to clarify perceptions, realign expectations and strengthen future review practices, inconsistencies can present an opportunity rather than a roadblock. With patience and commitment to solutions, any employee can work through contrasting feedback messages productively to enhance their skills and ongoing career development within an organization. Ultimately, the most constructive path involves assuming good faith, emphasizing shared goals and modeling the type of collaborative spirit valued within successful, high-performing workplaces.
References
Avey, J. B., Palanski, M. E., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2008). When leadership counts: The relative impact of supervisor and peer leadership on employee self-reported safety violations and psychological distress following conflict with coworkers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(2), 188-204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308322600
Cheng, G. H. (2014). The mediating role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Perspectives from expectancy and value theory. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017). Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 421. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000085
Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447-488.
Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship between job performance and ratings of job performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(2), 148-160.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Sage Publications.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 160.
Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well. Penguin.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2024). Navigating Performance Feedback: Making Sense of Mixed Messages. Human Capital Leadership Review, 13(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.13.2.11
Comments