employees avoiding feedback

Are your employees avoidingyou? Managerial strategies for

closing the feedback gap

Sherry E. Moss and Juan I. Sanchez

Executive OverviewWhen employees perform poorly, they should seek feedback from managers. In return,

managers should give constructive feedback to employees, so that they can improve theirperformance. However, this kind of meaningful exchange about employee performance isoften precluded by managers themselves. Some managers have an overly supportivestyle and feel uncomfortable giving negative feedback. Other managers are intolerant offailure and react harshly to feedback-seeking from poor performers. This causesemployees to stop asking for feedback or even to avoid discussing performance with theirmanagers entirely. Some employees, such as those who generally fear negative feedback,will be more likely than others to avoid feedback from their managers, even though itmight be helpful. Others will be reluctant to seek feedback because of the potential costof being perceived as incompetent. These actions of employees and managers canmutually instigate and reinforce one another, creating a vacuum of meaningfulexchanges about poor performance. We refer to this phenomenon as the feedback gap.We propose a get-well plan that offers concrete guidelines so that managers can narrowthe feedback gap. Our prescription stimulates managers to view feedback about poorperformance as a learning opportunity, rather than as a chance to blame others.

........................................................................................................................................................................

One day before the shuttle Columbia broke up overthe skies of Texas on February 1, 2003, NASA engi-neers were engaged in an intense debate by phoneand e-mail over potential wing damage from ex-treme heat, a scenario much like the one investi-gators believe happened.1 For some still unclearreasons, the engineers never took the matter to topNASA managers. Similarly, the direct subordinatesof authoritarian leader Saddam Hussein were ap-parently so afraid of bringing him bad news thathe did not receive accurate reports of the coalitionforces rapid approach toward Baghdad in the 2003Iraq War. In the Chinese province of Guangdong,sources have speculated that government officialsinterfered with information concerning the rapidspread of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome(SARS), apparently because they might havefeared their superiors reaction.2

In each of the above scenarios, evidence sug-gests that employees consciously decided to avoiddiscussing problems with their superiors. Such de-cisions not to communicate performance concerns

to ones superiors are unlikely to help the organi-zation learn from its mistakes.3 The most basicpremise of learning, in an organizational sense,is the detection and correction of error;4 thus,when employees identify a problem or have a con-cern about performance, they should engage infeedback-seeking behavior and ask their managerfor information or guidance. In that same ideallearning organization, managers provide helpful,constructive feedback when employees performpoorly. Employees, in turn, use such feedback toimprove their performance.

As the examples of the shuttle Columbia, IraqWar, and SARS somberly illustrate, employees arenot always the active seekers of feedback por-trayed in the ideal learning organization.5 Partic-ularly in the case of poor employee performance,both managers and employees often neglect toengage in the kind of meaningful and constructiveexchanges that lead to improved performance. Inthe case of managers, this communication failurestems from one or both of the following: a strong

Academy of Management Executive, 2004, Vol. 18, No. 1

........................................................................................................................................................................

32

sense of discomfort when giving negative feed-back or a lack of tolerance for poor performanceand the accompanying emotionally charged reac-tions. The result is that either no feedback is givenor feedback is delivered in a manner which hin-ders performance improvement. In the case of em-ployees who perform poorly, their failure to seekfeedback and their avoidance of negative feed-back from the supervisor are motivated by proac-tive (and yet ill-fated) attempts to not only preservetheir self-images, but also manage their impres-sions on others. As a result, both managers andemployees contribute to the phenomenon that wehave termed the feedback gap.

The feedback gap widens as a result of a spiral-ing reaction where employee and supervisor rein-force and stimulate each other to neither receivenor give feedback regarding performance. Thisspiraling reaction perpetuates a corporate culturethat precludes organizational learning. We arguethat a healthy feedback exchange is key to thelearning organization. Indeed, even though thecompetitive advantage of the learning organiza-tion is well understood, the roadmap for creating itis still blurry. To be useful, such a roadmap shoulddo more than sing the praises of organizationallearning. It should describe the specific actionsthat are likely to instigate a healthy feedback ex-change among managers and employees. Uncov-ering those actions implies an understanding ofthe process through which the feedback gap be-tween its two primary actors, the employee and themanager, narrows or widens. First, we will exam-ine why employees, who often regard their man-agers as the single most important source of feed-back in the workplace,6 will sometimes go to greatlengths to avoid receiving managerial feedback.

Feedback-Avoiding Behavior (FAB): Dodging theFeedback Bullet

From time to time, employees miss deadlines, de-liver a low-quality work product or service, or failto complete a task. In an ideal scenario, we wouldexpect employees to seek feedback from their man-agers following an episode of poor performance.The manager would in turn provide helpful andconstructive feedback, which the employee wouldaccept and use to get back on the right path. How-ever, there are sometimes costs associated withseeking feedback that outweigh the obvious ben-efits (see Table 1). A compelling motivation not toseek feedback is that it potentially exposes anemployee to various threats to her public reputa-tion and private self-esteem. The employee mayfear appearing incompetent in the eyes of her man-

ager. If she asks for information publicly (e.g., in ameeting), she may be subject to ridicule or judg-ment from either her manager or her coworkers.7 Inaddition, if she has been with the company for awhile, she may be apprehensive about seekingfeedback, even when she needs it, because she issupposed to know the ropes.8

In addition to the times when employees take apassive stance and simply do not ask for feedback,there are also times when they actively avoid feed-back. Feedback-avoiding behavior (FAB) occurswhen employees use strategies that are designedto either totally avoid their supervisors or divertthe supervisors attention so that their poor perfor-mance is not detected and, in turn, they do notreceive negative feedback. A recent study hasshown that employees engage in FAB 24 per cent ofthe time following poor performance.9 Some exam-ples of FAB tactics follow.

Employees may avoid eye contact with their su-pervisors in an effort to avoid a more involvedinteraction. They might refrain from talking withtheir supervisors to reduce the chances of being

TABLE 1Employee and Managerial Influences on the

Feedback Gap

Employee Influences Managerial Influences

Costs of FSB Zero-Tolerant Manager Threat to self-esteem Low tolerance for failure Fear of appearing

incompetent to boss Fear of ridicule from

coworkers Fear of admitting

weakness

FAB temptations Desire to maintain

appearance ofconsistency

Desire to manageimpressions

Desire to buy time Desire to preserve the

ego

Personal factors whichencourage FAB Propensity to seek

positive feedback Fear of negative

evaluation High self-esteem High concern about

public image High need for approval

Propensity to make thefundamental-attributionerror

Tendency to reactemotionally to bad news

Psychologically orphysically distant fromemployees

Micromanager Too physically close to

employees Fails to delegate Obsessed with details Propensity to make the

false-consensus error Takes over Expert in finding fault

Conflict Avoider Delays, distorts, and

avoids giving feedback Uncomfortable with

emotional reactions tofeedback

Gives employee thebenefit of the doubt

Nurturing style

2004 33Moss and Sanchez

asked about an unfinished project or a misseddeadline. The employee may divert conversationswith the supervisor away from issues relating topoor performance (i.e., change the subject). Theemployee may filter the information provided tothe manager by highlighting successfully com-pleted tasks while not discussing unsuccessfullycompleted tasks. Employees may find ways tocover up (i.e. hide, disguise, or otherwise conceal)evidence of poor performance so that it goes unde-tected by the supervisor. They may make them-selves scarce through interpersonal distancing(i.e., hiding, walking the other way, closing theiroffice door). Ultimately, they may withdraw fromthe working environment through absenteeism,tardiness, or finding excuses to be away from theoffice. These are proactive avoidance behaviorsthat allow subordinates to dodge the feedbackbullet by escaping from scenarios in which theyare likely to receive negative feedback.

Why do employees engage in FAB? We arguehere that FAB can be motivated by impressionmanagement needs, self-preservation needs, or bypersonality characteristics. Table 1 outlines themotivations for engaging in FAB that are dis-cussed next.

FAB is employed not to make oneself appearmore positive or competent, like other impres-sion management tactics, but rather to refrainfrom making known ones poor performance.Those who infrequently perform poorly may en-gage in one of the FAB strategies to maintain aconsistently positive image. In addition, FABmay buy poor performers the time to correct theirmistakes in order to (1) delay the immediatechances of receiving negative feedback and (2)increase the probability of making a positiveimpression in the future.

But feedback avoidance is not just an outward-directed impression management tactic. It is also atactic for preserving ones own self-concept. Mostcompetent individuals have relatively positiveself-images.10 External threats, in the form of neg-ative feedback from managers, can damage inter-nal impressions of competence. Even though neg-ative feedback may be helpful in the long run, itcan be initially ego-threatening. Indeed, what wedo at work largely defines who we are.11 It is there-fore not surprising that we tend to seek out infor-mation that is consistent with our positive self-images and avoid information that threatens ourself-images.12 In other words, we will seek feed-back when we have performed well and avoidfeedback when we have performed poorly.13

Does Personality Predict Feedback Avoidance?

Not all employees are equally likely to engage inFAB. A recent study reveals that several individualcharacteristics can help us predict which employ-ees are likely to avoid feedback from their manag-ers (see Table 1).14 For example, some individualsare particularly reliant on feedback from others forself-validation. Similarly, some individuals have astrong need to gain the approval of others. Theyderive positive feelings about themselves by ask-ing for and receiving positive feedback and ap-proval from others, such as their bosses.15 Theseindividuals are equally likely to avoid negativefeedback. That is, those needing constant self-validation are understandably discouraged whenthey find disapproval. Similarly, individuals whoare apprehensive about negative evaluations aremore likely than others to avoid negative feedbackfrom their supervisors. In essence, those who aremost concerned about the images they project toothers are likely to engage in FAB.

The previous paragraph might give the impres-sion that employees feedback avoiding and/ortheir lack of feedback seeking are driven by psy-chological and personal factors that managerscannot change. We argue that nothing could befurther from the truth. In fact, it is the managersbehavior that often determines the cost of feedbackseeking for the employee. In the next section, wedescribe how managers inadvertently encouragetheir employees to avoid feedback or at least not toactively seek it, thereby creating a spiraling effectthat widens the feedback gap.

It is the managers behavior that oftendetermines the cost of feedback seekingfor the employee.

Managerial Influences on the F-Gap

A review of the management literature revealedvarious managerial behaviors that hinder the oc-currence of feedback between managers and em-ployees. These individual behaviors, when sortedand combined, led us to create caricatures of threestereotypical managers who are more likely thanothers to widen the feedback gap. We refer to theseas the Zero-Tolerant Manager, the Micromanager,and the Conflict Avoidant Manager. While not allmanagers fall into one of these three stereotypicalcategories, readers may recognize some of thecharacteristics of each caricature in the actions ofmanagers with whom they have worked.

34 FebruaryAcademy of Management Executive

The Zero-Tolerant Manager

Managers who have zero tolerance for failure oftenreact negatively to poor performance or to requestsfor feedback. The negative emotions provoked byan abrupt managers reaction to poor performanceor to the employees request for constructive feed-back may create a mental record of what happensaround here when one performs poorly and asksfor feedback. As a result, employees will prefernot to engage in feedback seeking and will insteadchoose FAB. A nursing administrator at a chil-drens hospital told us, Unfortunately, I have aboss that is very unapproachable . . . I avoid her asmuch as possible, and if I do something wrong, Ihope that she does not find out about it. In supportof this administrators concerns, a study found thatwhen employees receive destructive criticismabout their performance, they experience suchnegative emotional reactions (e.g., anger and ten-sion) that they will avoid that source of feedback inthe future, and so their performance will be un-likely to improve.16

When employees receive destructivecriticism about their performance, theyexperience such negative emotionalreactions (e.g., anger and tension) thatthey will avoid that source of feedback inthe future, and so their performance willbe unlikely to improve.16

In addition to the destructive reactions of Zero-Tolerant Managers to poor performance, theiranalysis of the events that led to poor performanceis an important determinant of FAB. Psychologi-cally and physically distant from his employees,the Zero-Tolerant Manager is oblivious to the situ-ational factors that contributed to their perfor-mance failures and instead attributes poor perfor-mance to individual employee characteristics suchas laziness, incompetence, or lack of effort. In fact,research has widely documented the so-called fun-damental-attribution error, whereby observers areprone to attribute others failures not to the situa-tion but to flaws in their characteristics or behav-ior.17 Prior insensitivity by the manager toward thesituational factors that might have contributed tothe employees performance problems is likely tomotivate FAB in the future, because the employeenow believes that the manager will directly blamehim/her while ignoring all other factors possiblycontributing to the problem. This feeling of beingblamed causes unpleasantness for the employeeand creates a motivation to avoid feedback.18

In addition, their low tolerance for failure influ-ences Zero-Tolerant Managers to react in an explo-sive manner when poor performance is brought totheir attention. They may publicly berate employ-ees in meetings, furthering employee distress fol-lowing poor performance. A VP of marketing andsales told us, Discussing mistakes with my boss isnever a pleasant task as my boss is the scoldingtype who does not use psychology or diplomacywhen addressing issues. When you make a mis-take, he will let you know the old fashioned way,by shouting at you! The adaptive side of humannature tries to restore a healthy equilibrium byminimizing discomfort after a stressful event.Thus, the more unpleasant and painful the typicalfeedback session is with their boss, the more likelyemployees are to avoid feedback.19

The Micromanager

The Micromanager is also likely to precludehealthy feedback exchanges.20 Consider the caseof an executive we will call Joe M.M. (microman-ager), an academically brilliant chemistry Ph.D. ata Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company. His su-perb technical skills made him a star early in hiscareer. He fully invested himself in detailed inves-tigations of production problems. His search for thesource of problems was obsessive, always workinglate and offering himself as a model of how toproblem-solve.

But when Joe M.M. was selected to head thetechnical services area for the entire facility, histroubles began. Now responsible for providingleadership, delegating responsibility, and helpingto develop employees, Joe M.M. did not trust thathis subordinates were as capable as he was. Hefailed to delegate power, became obsessed withdetails instead of providing general guidance, andquickly took over for others when they did not meethis expectations. In his obsession with findingwhat people did wrong, Joe M.M. did not botherexplaining the reasons that made such details im-portant. Afraid of not being able to hold theirground in the face of his intense scrutiny, employ-ees hid the real issues from him or took perilousshort-cuts to give the false appearance that every-thing was under control. Employee discontent andturnover did not take long to mount up, and JoeM.M. was soon terminated.

This type of Micromanager should be compli-mented on his concern for detecting and correct-ing errors, which is a basic tenet of the learningorganization. However, he goes about this goal inall the wrong ways. First, he chooses to be physi-cally close to his employees, and yet he remains


psychologically distant from them. That is, he tellsthem what to do, how to do it, and what they aredoing wrong, but he gives them neither the oppor-tunity to develop their own ways of completing thetask nor support during the process. He does notconsult with them or get their input. He does notdevelop them because he does not trust that theycan do the job as well as he can. He engages in thefalse-consensus bias, which means that he be-lieves that his own way of doing things is correctand then uses this as the standard by which tojudge the performance of his employees. If they donot approach the task using his methodology, heattributes their failure to internal characteristics.Instead of giving them developmental feedback,he jumps in and takes over for them. The Micro-manager struggles to create an environment ofperfectionism that nobody can live up to. Besiegedby the Micromanager, employees focus their ener-gies on concealing mistakes rather than on doingtheir jobs.

The Conflict Avoider

Still another type of manager who contributes tothe feedback gap is the Conflict Avoider. Uncom-fortable with giving bad news to others, thesemanagers simply avoid giving negative feedbackaltogether.21 In a recent survey of 2,600 Americanworkers, Mercer Human Resource Consultingfound that 58 per cent of respondents claim thattheir supervisors do not give them regular feed-back on their performance.22 If avoidance is not anoption, the Conflict Avoider may delay giving feed-back.23 This means that when feedback is eventu-ally given, there may be little connection in theemployees mind between the poor performanceand the feedback. In the cases of delay and avoid-ance, the payoff for the manager is that she eithertotally or temporarily avoids the uncomfortablediscussion. The organization, however, pays ahigh price because the poor performance remainsuncorrected for an unnecessarily long time. Fi-nally, Conflict Avoiders may distort feedback sothat the poor performance seems less severe thanit really is.24 That is, they water down the nega-tive feedback, which results in the employeegetting a mixed message that fails to convey theseriousness of the performance problem. As amanager at a major public utility shared with us, Ihave found that managers tend to be hesitantabout giving negative feedback. Managers tend tobe polite to a fault. There have been several in-stances [in my company] when the employees per-ception of their performance is nowhere near theperception of the manager.

One explanation for the Conflict Avoiders reti-cence to give negative feedback involves the kindsof attributions that this type of manager is likely tomake. If the manager is convinced that the em-ployee has little control over the situation, he islikely to be more forgiving of the employees poorperformance. Managers are especially likely tofeel this way when they perceive that the situationis temporary (The problem will go away soon, sowhy bother confronting the employee?).25 More-over, the Conflict Avoider may be more inclinedthan other managers to accept the employees ex-ternal attributions (i.e., excuses) for failure as away to avoid the discomfort of providing negativefeedback.

It can be said that emotional reactions to feed-back always play an important part in the manag-ers decision to provide feedback, but such emo-tional reactions seem to be pivotal for the ConflictAvoider. For instance, managers who perceive thatthe employees self-concept is likely to be threat-ened by the feedback, probably because there is awide gap between the employees self-perceptionof competence and the employees results, may beless inclined to provide it. Those employees whoreact defensively to negative feedback are difficultfor conflict-avoiding managers to handle becausethey refuse to acknowledge culpability for poorresults. In addition, those employees who becomeemotionally upset when they receive negativefeedback make Conflict Avoiders especially un-comfortable. The easiest way out, in both of thesecases, is for the manager to avoid giving negativefeedback to these employees.

Those employees who react defensivelyto negative feedback are difficult forconflict-avoiding managers to handlebecause they refuse to acknowledgeculpability for poor results.

Still another explanation for the reluctance toprovide feedback is that some conflict-avoidingmanagers have a nurturing style and like to besupportive, no matter what. These managers maybe so psychologically close with their employeesthat they focus on providing support, consolation,and reaffirmation of the employees competence.This style may be driven by the fact that somemanagers have a strong need for approval andwant to be held in high esteem by their employees.Some evidence suggests that female managers aremore likely to delay giving feedback and to posi-tively distort feedback than male managers.26


Many managers, regardless of gender, may feelmore comfortable in a nurturing role, and thismindset may push them to provide unconditionallypositive feedback, even if it means ignoring seri-ous signs of poor performance.

In sum, different types of managers engagein zero tolerance, micromanagement, or conflictavoidance which, in combination with various em-ployee motivations to avoid feedback, spirals intoa mutually reinforcing set of behaviors that widenthe feedback gap. The following section describesseveral specific strategies that managers can useto begin closing the feedback gap.

Managerial Strategies for Closing theFeedback Gap

Through their individual behavior, managers arein the unique position to stimulate individual em-ployees to seek feedback. Here we offer a set ofbehavioral prescriptions that will help managerssurmount the spiraling effects of the feedback gap.The tactics fall into five main categories: (1) inves-tigating potential causes of poor performance, (2)managing physical and psychological distance, (3)engaging in active listening, (4) giving effective,non-threatening feedback, and (5) developing alearning mindset for failure. Table 2 outlines thetactics described below, and Table 3 describeshow the tactics will specifically help each of thethree manager types.

Be Open-Minded About All Potential Causes ofPoor Performance

When analyzing poor employee performance, eachmanager type seems predisposed to a particularattribution bias. The Zero-Tolerant Manager com-mits the fundamental-attribution error by attribut-ing failure to internal employee characteristicssuch as lack of effort or lack of ability. The Micro-manager believes that things should be done hisway and that there is something wrong with em-ployees who tackle tasks their own way. The Con-flict Avoider is overly accepting of employees ex-ternal excuses for their poor performance becauseof her own need to be accepted. While it is normalfor most managers, not just the three extremesdepicted here, to let their biases taint their feed-back behavior, the better manager will take thetime to investigate all of the potential causes ofpoor performance before deciding whether, when,and how to deliver feedback.

While it is normal for most managers, notjust the three extremes depicted here, tolet their biases taint their feedbackbehavior, the better manager will takethe time to investigate all of thepotential causes of poor performancebefore deciding whether, when, and howto deliver feedback.

Given the tendency to let attribution biases af-fect whether and how we give feedback, managersmay attend training sessions that describe biasesin causal reasoning processes, so that they canimprove their ability to detect causes of poor per-formance.27 This kind of training should makemanagers aware of the need to think multi-dimen-sionally about the causes of poor performance.28 Itcan also teach managers to distinguish betweenreliable patterns of poor employee performance

TABLE 2Management Tactics for Closing the F-Gap

Understand All PotentialCauses of PoorPerformance Receive attribution

training Explore attribution

biases Ask for employee

accountsManage Physical andPsychological Distance Reduce physical distance

to understand externalcauses of poorperformance

Increase physicaldistance to give decisionlatitude

Reduce psychologicaldistance to gain empathyand trust

Increase psychologicaldistance to gainobjectivity

Engage in Active Listening Be fully attentive to

employees when theyseek feedback

Express interest inemployee needs

Verbally summarizeemployee concerns toensure understanding

Verbally acknowledgeemployee statements

Give Effective, Non-ThreateningFeedback Give task-level and

motivational feedback Describe poor performance in

behavioral terms Focus on specific, controllable

behavior Ask employee for

improvement suggestions Give negative feedback in

private Use effective timing Compare employee

performance to a standard,not to other employees

Use a feedback script (e.g.,DASR)

Develop a Learning Mindset Consider failure an

opportunity to learn Dissect failure from a

learning perspective Capture the learning Realize that failure is a by-

product of risk-taking andinnovation

Do not tolerate scapegoating


and isolated incidents. For instance, rather thantaking for granted the employees seemingly validexcuses for an incident of poor performance, themanager should consider the base rate or fre-quency with which the employee engages in thiskind of perhaps-not-so-unusual occurrence.29 Attri-bution training can help managers feel more com-fortable discussing episodes of poor performancewith their employees (see Table 3).

Another tactic for identifying the root causes ofpoor performance is to seek employee accounts.Zero-Tolerant Managers, instead of relying on theirnatural tendency to blame employees for poor re-sults, should seek the employees explanation forthe poor results. The Micromanager should takeinto consideration the possibility that the employ-ees approach may have merit. By acknowledgingand considering the employees views, the man-ager creates a perception of fairness.30 While it isnatural for the employee to provide self-servingexcuses (external attributions) for poor perfor-mance, showing consideration gives the manager

a better chance to instill a similarly considerateattitude in the employee throughout the feedbackexchange. Supervisors who have had long andclose working relationships with employees aremore likely to allow employee accounts to influ-ence their perceptions of the causes of poor perfor-mance.31 In seeking the employees account of thereasons for poor performance, the manager haspotentially learned that there are resources thatshe can bring to bear in order to reduce the barri-ers to success.32

Distance Management

We have said that the Zero-Tolerant Managertends to make faulty attributions partly due to thelack of time spent with an employee and/or thelack of empathy for the employees feelings. Toreduce the physical distance between themselvesand employees, managers can occasionally visitemployees in their own work spaces or join them inthe field, thereby gaining a better understanding

TABLE 3Effects of Gap-Closing Strategies on Each Managerial Type

Management Strategy Zero-Tolerant Manager Micromanager Conflict Avoider

Open mind aboutcauses of poorperformance Attribution training Understand fundamental-

attribution errorUnderstand false-consensus

effectUnderstand employees use of

self-serving bias Seek accounts Understand possible external

reasons for failureUnderstand employees

rationale for task strategyOpen up dialogue more

comfortably (for manager)

Distance Management Reduce physical distance tounderstand employeesenvironment

Increase physical distance togive discretion

Increase psychological distanceto gain objectivity

Reduce psychologicaldistance to gain empathy

Reduce psychological distanceto gain empathy

Active Listening Gives manager tools to avoidhasty emotional responses

Allows manager to consideralternative ways to completetasks

Reduces managers discomfortby having employee controldialogue

Give Effective Feedback Task or motivational

levelManager avoids attacking

the employeeManager avoids making

employee feel inadequateManager realizes that negative

feedback can be non-threatening

Private Reduces employee discomfort Reduces employee discomfort Reduces managers discomfort Well-timed Wait: Allows manager to

check emotionsWait: Allows employees task

strategy to play outGive immediately: Maximize

impact and reduce chance oflosing contingency throughdelay/avoidance

DASR Allows manager to expressemotions in a non-threatening way

Forces manager to assesswhether feedback focuses ontask process or task outcome

Manager feels more in controland less uncomfortable witha rehearsed script

Develop a LearningMindset

Organization will advance ifwe embrace failure ratherthan find scapegoats

Employee will develop more ifgiven discretion to experimentand possibly fail

If we dont directly addressfailure, we will never improve


of the external barriers and difficulties that em-ployees encounter in performing their duties. Theywill then be capable of making a more accuratediagnosis of performance failures, thereby becom-ing better equipped to help the employee over-come barriers.

Contrary to the Zero-Tolerant Manager, the Mi-cromanager is too physically close to the em-ployee. Spending too much time hovering over theemployee and making sure that every detail ishandled in a certain way smothers the employeeand impedes his development. Our advice for Mi-cromanagers is to increase physical distance andallow employees more discretion. The Microman-ager may still maintain control by resorting to out-come as opposed to behavior-oriented controls;that is, focusing on the employees results insteadof being consumed with every tiny employee stepin the process.33

While the Zero-Tolerant Manager and the Micro-manager differ in the amount of physical distancethey leave between themselves and their employ-ees, they are both guilty of lacking empathy orpsychological closeness with their employees.Research shows that decreasing psychologicaldistance not only improves manager-employee re-lations, but also reduces attribution biases.34 Re-ducing psychological distance involves develop-ing and demonstrating an understanding of theemployees point of view. It is a communicationstyle that involves open discussion, patience, un-derstanding, and support without dominating theemployee.35 It also involves the use of active lis-tening (see next section).

Finally, although seemingly counterintuitive, werecommend that the Conflict-Avoidant Managerconsider increasing psychological distance be-tween himself and his employees. Take the case ofthe new and inexperienced manager of the MathHelp lab at a local university. He began havingproblems when his employees, formerly his co-workers/friends, began missing their scheduledshifts. Because of the psychological closeness hehad developed with them when they were his co-workers, he felt uncomfortable in addressing theabsenteeism problem. When employees told himthat they were skipping their shifts because theyhad to study for their own exams, he empathizedwith them because he too was a graduate student.The lab manager felt that giving them negativefeedback would cause a loss of friendship. As aresult, the Math Help lab had angry customers,particularly at mid-term and final exam time, be-cause of the lack of availability of math tutors.

This manager should have discussed with hissubordinates the problems he was facing as a re-

sult of their absenteeism. This conversation wouldhave been from the perspective of a manager try-ing to solve a business problem and would havesolicited their input but would also have been firmabout not sacrificing the professionalism of the laband the necessity of committing to ones scheduledhours. The conversation would have been lessbuddy-buddy and more here are my needs asthe manager of this lab. Our recommendation toincrease psychological distance does not implythat managers should lose their ability to showempathy. It does mean that they should let theiremployees know that, as managers, they muststrike a balance between their concern for the em-ployee and their concern for results.

Engage in Active Listening

When soliciting employee accounts for poor re-sults, managers must engage in empathetic andactive listening, which increases psychologicalcloseness.36 Being an active listener does not meansimply spending time with employees. If manag-ers do not listen effectively, their employees willnot feel comfortable discussing barriers to perfor-mance and may in fact resort to FAB. Managerscan encourage employees to share any issuesopenly by setting the appropriate tone for commu-nication. To do so, the manager must be attentive,express interest in the employees needs, expressconcern for the employee, reflect the sentiments ofthe employee by restating or summarizing the em-ployees concerns, and verbally acknowledge theemployees statements.37 These actions can makethe employee feel that the manager is really lis-tening. He will therefore feel more comfortable dis-cussing disappointing results and can request theresources or direction necessary for improvement.

Consider for instance the frustration of theWorldCom employee who had built a spreadsheetmodel predicting Internet growth. He tried to sendmessages up the chain of command questioningthe validity of the Internet growth numbers thatwere taken for granted, but nobody wanted to hearthem. Ignoring this employees warnings, World-Com was laying fiber optic cable at a frantic paceto keep up with the false expectations of Internetgrowth. Had his bosses taken the time to activelylisten to him and carefully examine his data, theywould have acted differently.38

Debby Hopkins, formerly chief financial officerof Lucent until forced out in April 2001, says, Thekey thing Ive learned is that the most powerfulthing you can do is listen. You dont need to havethe last word . . . I hold back what I think. I say tomyself, Not now, not now! Wait, wait!39 Hopkins


insights may be particularly good advice for theMicromanager, whose instincts tell her to inter-vene with task instructions before her employeeshave the chance to start the job. Waiting is alsogood advice for the Zero Tolerant Manager, whomight benefit from withholding substantive com-ment or emotional reactions until an employee hashad the opportunity to provide a full account of anassignment gone awry.

The key thing Ive learned is that themost powerful thing you can do is listen.You dont need to have the last word.

Give Effective, Non-Threatening Feedback

Feedback can be given at three primary levels:task, motivational, and self. Failure to providefeedback at the adequate level is one of the rea-sons why feedback is effective in only one out ofthree instances.40 Task-level feedback focuses onhow to perform the job, and it might include guide-lines and suggestions. Motivational feedback fo-cuses on stimulating and directing effort to per-form the job, and it might include setting goals anddeadlines. Self-level feedback deals with generalemployee attributes, such as telling an employeethat he or she is not friendly or sensitive enough.Research suggests that task and motivationalfeedback are more effective than self-level feed-back, which in turn tends to threaten employeeself-esteem.41 Rather than accepting such negativeinformation, the employee is more likely to dis-count the feedback and subsequently engagein FAB.

When giving feedback, managers should con-sider the relative merits of comparing the employ-ees poor performance to an objective standard (i.e.the goal) versus comparing performance to co-worker performance, including the employees rel-ative strengths and weaknesses.42 Contrast thedifferent effects on the employees self-esteem pro-voked by comparative statements like You hadthe lowest sales in the department. You rankednumber 12 out of the 12 salespeople and goal-oriented statements like Your goal was $500k insales but you only produced $375k this quarter.One of your strengths is your ability to create anetwork of loyal customers; lets talk about howyou may leverage this strength to generate newsales in your territory. Simply comparing an em-ployees performance to coworkers performanceinvites the employee to focus on his seeminglyinsurmountable inadequacies, rather than on the

inadequate task-level strategy or lack of motiva-tion that led to the sub-par results.

To avoid falling into the feedback-gap trap,managers are generally better off providing taskand motivational feedback which not only is spe-cific and descriptive but also focuses on control-lable behavior, not on hard-to-change personalcharacteristics. The manager must describe theproblematic behavior and how this behavior af-fects the results or the organization. The managermay say, for example, When most of your atten-tion is focused on maintaining current accountsand not enough time is spent developing new busi-ness, the company is not able to improve marketshare in your territory. This is quite different fromsaying, You are lazy and dont want to work eventhough the manager may have these thoughts.

The feedback from the manager may also spec-ify guidelines regarding possible replacement be-haviors such as I would like to see you spend 50per cent of your time on old accounts and 50 percent of your time developing new accounts. Themanager could show consideration and say, Canyou think of some strategies which you could useto add new clients? or Are there any resourcesthat I can provide to help you build your clientbase? These comments may lead to a discussionduring which tactics to improve performance areidentified.

The reader may notice that in the descriptionof the feedback exchange above, the managerfollowed a specific script often referred to asDASRDescribe, Acknowledge, Specify, andReaffirm.43 This feedback strategy has been usedin family counseling as well as in manager train-ing programs. It gives participants an easy-to-follow script that eases the pain of giving negativefeedback. The idea is to first describe the specificbehavior the employee performed (e.g. You havebeen late to 5 of the last 6 weekly staff meetings.).Next, the feedback giver acknowledges how thebehavior affects him or how it affects the team/organization (e.g., When you arrive late to ourweekly staff meetings, I have to repeat the infor-mation you missed, and this is not a good use of mytime or the time of the other members of our team).Then, the manager specifies the general parame-ters of a replacement behavior (e.g., I would reallyappreciate it if you would make a concerted effortto make it to our meetings on time. We startpromptly at 8:00 a.m.). Finally, the manager reaf-firms the value of the employee and his/her contri-bution (e.g. You are a valued member of this team,and we need your input when we meet togethereach week.).

For the Zero-Tolerant Manager, the feedback


script provides a vehicle for the manager to focuson the behavior, rather than on the person. Takinga few minutes to rehearse the script gives the man-ager the opportunity to diffuse his emotions, thinkabout the message he really wants to send tothe employee, and increase his self-confidence.44While rehearsing the script, the Micromanagershould evaluate whether or not she is giving feed-back at the appropriate time in the task cycle. Inthinking about how she will describe the problembehavior to the employee, the Micromanagershould determine whether her feedback is aboutthe outcome of the employees behavior or aboutthe process. For the Conflict-Avoidant Manager,the rehearsed script provides a stronger sense ofcontrol over the feedback interaction. One execu-tive who recently employed the technique for thefirst time told us, As I prepared for the discussion,I felt somewhat awkward rehearsing what I wasgoing to say. However, once we started talking, Iknew exactly where I was going, and that allowedme to maintain a level and assured tone. Manag-ers will realize that feedback delivered in thismanner provokes a more open and accepting reac-tion from the recipient, rather than a defensivereaction.

Another factor that managers should consider ingiving effective feedback is privacy. First, the merepresence of others tends to increase evaluationapprehension,45 and therefore negative feedbackis best given in private. A physical therapy man-ager told us, If my boss were more understandingand involved, I am sure my behavior would bedifferent. I would share my failures and feel com-fortable asking for advice. This is not the situation.If a failure is recognized, it is brought up at almostevery meeting. Its a very demeaning situation.This scenario demonstrates that when managerspublicly scold employees in the presence of others,employees will engage in their best FAB to preventthe manager from finding out about poor perfor-mance. The manager should consider taking thetime to pull employees to the side and give themfeedback in private. Employees wish to preservetheir dignity and self-esteem by having negativefeedback delivered privately, as evidenced by oneof the managers we interviewed who told us, Asfor sub-par performance, I am grateful when mysuperiors take the time to point out these instanc-es; they are a learning opportunity. Of course, Iprefer to be told privately . . . because the respectof my peers is important to me. Even if the Zero-Tolerant Manager and the Micromanager used noother tactic mentioned here, this one would savethem and their employees the embarrassment ofgiving and receiving harshly delivered feedback

in public. For the Conflict-Avoidant Manager, giv-ing feedback in private will not only reduce em-ployee discomfort but his own discomfort as well.However, when discussing extreme cases of poorperformance leading to termination, legal advan-tages may be derived from having a witnesspresent. Legal concerns should be balanced withmanagerial ones, because the presence of a wit-ness may be perceived as a veiled threat, therebyraising the barrier to open communication.

Negative feedback is best given inprivate.

Still another way to avoid the feedback gap is tomake sure negative feedback is well timed. Gen-erally, this means providing feedback immedi-ately after the behavior occurs. This way, there is aconnection between the behavior and the conse-quence, and therefore a greater probability thatthe employee will change the behavior. The timeconnection is important for the Conflict Avoider,who runs the risk of losing impact by providingfeedback after a long delay, if at all. One exceptionto this rule pertains to the Zero-Tolerant Managers,whose inability to hold their tempers in check maylead them to discharge prompt yet unproductivefeedback.46 In these cases, managers should waituntil they are calm, collected, and able to provideconstructive feedback. The Micromanager wouldbe well advised to resist the temptation to jump inwhen he sees that the employee is performing atask in a manner different from the one he wouldhave used. Unless the employees approach devi-ates from an approved standard operating proce-dure, is too risky, or is too costly, the managershould wait to give feedback until he observes theemployees end result. At that point, if the resultsare poor, the manager can provide task-level feed-back, explaining how a different strategy wouldwork better. In any case, the feedback should notbe so far removed from the behavior that the con-nection is lost and the learning opportunity fore-gone.

Develop a Learning Mindset

Failure is a normal outcome when one takes risksand attempts to innovate. Failure allows for theexamination of processes and practices that mayotherwise go unchallenged, thereby facilitatingcontinuous improvement. Failure provides the op-portunity to do an autopsy of key decisions, re-source allocations, strategies, and processes,


which may ultimately lead to better results. Unfor-tunately, failure too often leads members of organ-izations to direct their energy toward identifyingscapegoats or avoiding confrontation rather thanexamining the causes and learning from the expe-rience. It is the latter that prevents the widening ofthe feedback gap. This learning mindset must bevisible at every managerial level in the organiza-tion.

Top management first needs to open the doors tofailure analysis by reinforcing a learning-orientedreaction to failure through clear, consistent mes-sages and reward systems. Consider, for instance,the manner in which top management at GeneralElectric handled the commercial failure of theHalarc, a new light bulb that lasted ten timeslonger than the typical product at a fraction of theenergy.47 The problem was that in the late 1970snobody was eager to pay $10.95 for a single lightbulb! So, the product was a flop. Jack Welchs man-agement team decided to reward and promotesome members of the Halarc team to send a loudmessage that risk-taking, even if things did not goas planned, was welcomed. In a similar account, atop executive at Intel, an organization known forinnovation, threw big failure of the month din-ners for those groups that took the biggest risks butsuffered the biggest failures.48

Many organizations have adopted this approachto confronting failure and have diffused it through-out the organization. One of the most visible ex-amples is Microsoft. Though Microsoft is wellknown for having a demanding culture in whichemployees are given assignments which stretchthem far beyond their experience, the company isalso known for promoting people who have man-aged failed projects. According to a popular Har-vard Business School case which is used in manyMBA classrooms, the thinking behind this practiceis, If you fire the person who failed, youre throw-ing away the learning.49 According to one Mi-crosoft manager we interviewed, It is not difficultfor me to discuss mistakes. I believe this happensbecause I am very self-critical, and one of our com-pany values is being self-critical. We are promptedto ask why or why not, we view each experience asan opportunity for learning, and we are encour-aged to provide direct, thoughtful feedback onstrengths and weaknesses. Since my values are sosimilar to Microsoft values, I feel very committedand safe as an employee in sharing my failuresand successes. When managers adopt this mind-set, feedback emerges as a critical resource forcontinuous organizational learning available toemployees and managers.

The results of a recent study support the idea

that organizational learning occurs in the trenches.It appears that there is wide variability among workgroups within the same organization regarding theirshared beliefs about how to address failure. Specif-ically, work teams that believed in encouragingmembers to discuss mistakes openly, evaluate waysto prevent them, address differences of opinion, andcommunicate errors to the appropriate peopleachieved greater results than those teams that cov-ered up mistakes, did not openly discuss mistakes asa group, and avoided discussing differences of opin-ion. Further, the study found that teams with leaderswho deliberately refocused employees traditionalview of failure (as something shameful and to beavoided) to the contemporary view (failure is essen-tial to innovation and success) were more likely toshare the learning-oriented beliefs about failure thatled to better performance.50 Through their frequentrepetition, these beliefs and behaviors will belearned by and taught to new members as theaccepted way to think about, feel, and handle per-formance feedback, thereby giving birth to the or-ganizational routines and shared meaning that char-acterize the culture of a learning organization.51

Organizational learning occurs in thetrenches.

Avoiding the NASA Syndrome

On one occasion during his tenure with NASA dur-ing the 1960s and 1970s, famous chief scientistWernher von Braun sent a bottle of champagne toan engineer who admitted that he might have in-advertently short-circuited the Redstone missilewhich went out of control during pre-launch test-ing. A subsequent investigation revealed that theengineer was right. As a result of the engineersvoluntary disclosure, an expensive missile rede-sign was avoided.52

Let us imagine that this engineer, instead ofreporting to von Braun, worked for a stereotypicalZero-Tolerant Manager, a Micromanager, or a Con-flict Avoider. Being afraid of the abrupt reaction ofthe Zero-Tolerant Manager, the engineer wouldprobably have hidden his mistake. If working for aMicromanager, the engineer would probably havebeen busy erasing all traces of his mistake fromhis superior, so that he would not have to suffereven closer supervision in the future. The engineermight have abused his personal relationship withhis Conflict-Avoiding Manager by arguing thatfriends do not blow the whistle on each other, orthat the short-circuit problem was due to factorsbeyond the engineers control.


We would have applied some of our prescrip-tions and advised the Zero-Tolerant Manager toinvest his energy in working closer with the em-ployee, listen to his account of the events, andremain open-minded about external factors be-yond the employees control. Our recommenda-tions to the Micromanager would have includedgetting to know her engineers a bit better, trustingthem more, and leaving them some room to dotheir job. We would have advised the ConflictAvoider to be more assertive, to learn to respect hisjob as much as he respects his engineers feelings,and to become more comfortable with the processof delivering feedback.

Unfortunately, it appears that the legacy of vonBrauns management style has not survived thepassage of time. The final, official report on thespace shuttle Columbia accident stated that anumber of organizational cultural traits contrib-uted to the loss, including organizational barriersthat prevented effective communication of criticalsafety information and stifled professional differ-ences of opinion.53

While most of us do not work in organizationsfor which product failures produce such dire re-sults, it is indeed still difficult to overcome thefear and personal cost of acknowledging onesown mistakes. Career trajectories hang in thebalance in todays rapidly changing workplace.Consequently, managers fear losing credibilityfor admitting mistakes, and employees fear ap-pearing incompetent following an episode ofpoor performance. While there is much more tothe learning organization than effective feed-back-seeking and feedback-giving, we believethat the suggestions provided here will go a longway toward helping managers embrace feed-back as a precious opportunity to correct per-formance problems while they can still becorrected.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Robert G. Jones, Mark Martinko, andthe two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlierdrafts of this manuscript. We would also like to thank thevarious executives we interviewed for this work.

Endnotes1 Associated Press. Engineers feared shuttle wing burning.

CNN.com, 26 February 2003.2 Flor Cruz, J. Pressure on China over SARS bug. CNN.com, 2

April 2003.3 Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline. The art and practice of

the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.4 Crossan, M. 2003. Alternating theories of learning and ac-

tion: An interview with Chris Argyris. The Academy of Manage-ment Executive, 17(2): 4046.

5 Ashford, S. J. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations: Aliterature review and integrative model. In L. L. Cummings &B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 11:133174. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; Ashford, S. J., & Cummings,L. L. 1983. Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strate-gies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performance, 32: 370398.

6 Ashford, S. J. 1993. The feedback environment: An explor-atory study of cue use. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14:201224.

7 Northcraft, G. B., & Ashford, S. J. 1990. The preservation ofself in everyday life: The effects of performance expectationsand feedback context on feedback inquiry. Organizational Be-havior and Human Decision Processes, 47: 4264; Levy, P. E., etal. 1995. Situational and individual determinants of feedbackseeking: A closer look at the process. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 62(1): 2337.

8 Ashford, S. J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual adapta-tion: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal,29(3): 465487.

9 Moss, S. E., Valenzi, E. R., & Taggart, W. 2003. Are you hidingfrom your boss? The development of a taxonomy and instru-ment to assess the feedback management behaviors of goodand bad performers. Journal of Management, 29(4): 487510.

10 Bandura, A. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. NewYork: W. H. Freeman, 1997.

11 Miller, D. T. 1976. Ego involvement and attributions forsuccess and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 34: 901906.

12 Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

13 Moss, Valenzi, & Taggart.14 Ibid.15 Fedor, D. B., Rensvold, R. B., & Adams, S. M. 1992. An

investigation of factors expected to affect feedback seeking: Alongitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology, 45: 779805.

16 Baron, R. A. 1988. Negative effects of destructive criticism:Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journalof Applied Psychology, 73(2): 199207.

17 Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations.New York: Wiley.

18 Moss, S. E., & Martinko, M. J. 1998. The effects of perfor-mance attributions and outcome dependence on leader feed-back behavior following poor subordinate performance. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 19: 259274.

19 Langley, L. L. 1965. Homeostasis. New York: Reinhold.20 Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. 2002. Primal leader-

ship. Boston: HBS Press: 72.21 Larson, J. R. 1986. Supervisors performance feedback to

subordinates: The impact of subordinate performance valenceand outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 37: 391408; Larson, J. R. 1989. The dynamicinterplay between employees feedback-seeking strategies andsupervisors delivery of performance feedback. Academy ofManagement Review, 14(3): 408422.

22 Bates, S. 2003. Performance appraisals: Some improvementneeded. HR Magazine, 48: 4.

23 Bond, C. F., & Anderson, E. L. 1987. The reluctance to trans-mit bad news: Private discomfort or public display? Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 73(2): 199207.

24 Lee, F. 1993. Being polite and keeping MUM: How bad newsis communicated in organizational hierarchies. Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 23(14): 11241149.

25 Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. 1987. Behind


the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy ofManagement Executive, 1(3): 183193.

26 Benedict, M. E., & Levine, E. L. 1988. Delay and distortion:Tacit influences on performance appraisal effectiveness. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 73(3): 507514.

27 Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. 1982. Learned helpless-ness: An alternative explanation for performance deficits.Academy of Management Review, 7(2): 195204; Martinko, M. J.2002. Thinking like a winner: A guide to high performanceleadership. Tallahassee: Gulf Coast Publishing.

28 Bernardin, H. J., et al. 1998. Effective performance man-agement. A focus on precision, customers, and situationalconstraints. In J. S. Smither (ed.), Performance appraisal:State of the art in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 3 48.

29 Nisbett, R. E., et al. 1983. The use of statistical heuristics ineveryday inductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 90: 339363.

30 Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. 1992. A dueprocess metaphor for performance appraisal. In B. M. Staw &L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 14:Greenwich, CT: JAI Press: 129177.

31 Fedor, D. B. 1989. Investigating supervisor attributions of sub-ordinate performance. Journal of Management, 15(3): 405416.

32 Martinko, M. J., & Gardner, W. L. 1987. The leader/memberattribution process. Academy of Management Review, 12(2):235249.

33 Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Agency theory: An assessment andreview. Academy of Management Review, 14: 5774.

34 Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. 1972. The actor and the observer:Divergent causes of perceptions of behavior. In E. Jones, et al.,(eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morris-town, NJ: General Learning Press: 7994.

35 Wiswell, A. K., & Lawrence, H. V. 1994. Intercepting man-agers attributional bias through feedback-skills training. Hu-man Resource Development Quarterly, 5(1): 4153.

36 Ibid.37 Burley-Allen, M. 2001 Listen up. HR Magazine. November:

115120.38 Faber, D. 2003. The rise and fraud of WorldCom. CNBC, 12:12

p.m. EST, 8 September. Can also be found at: http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P60225.asp.

39 Sellers, P. 2003. Power: Do women really want it? Fortune,October: 88.

40 DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. 2000. Feedback effectiveness:Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? The Academy of Man-agement Executive, 14(1): 129139.

41 Ibid.42 Sanchez, J. I., & De La Torre, P. 1996. A second look at the

relationship between behavioral and rating accuracy in perfor-mance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1): 310.

43 Skillsoft 2002. Giving feedback to colleagues. SkillsoftThe E-Learning Solutions Company, www.skillsoft.com.

44 Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. 1977. Cognitive pro-cesses mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality &Social Psychology, 35(3): 125139.

45 Guerin, B. 1989. Reducing evaluation effects in mere pres-ence. Journal of Social Psychology, 129(2): 183190.

46 Baron.47 Welch, J., & Byrne, J. A. 2001. Jack. Straight from the gut.

New York: Warner Business Books: 3132.48 Leavitt, H. J. 2003. Why hierarchies thrive. Harvard Business

Review, March: 96102.49 Bartlett, C. A. 2001. Microsoft: Competing on Talent (A).

Harvard Business School Press, p. 6.50 Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. C. 2001. Confronting fail-

ure: Antecedents and consequences of shared beliefs aboutfailure in organizational work groups. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 22: 161177.

51 E. Schein, 1988. How culture forms, develops, and changes.In R. Kilmann, et al., Gaining control of the corporate culture.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 1743.

52 Coutu, D. L. 2003. Sense and reliability: A conversation withcelebrated psychologist Karl E. Weick. Harvard Business Re-view, April: 8490.

53 Concerns raised that changes in NASA wont last.CNN.com/Science & Space, 26 August 2003.

Sherry Moss is academic di-rector of the executive MBAprogram and an associate pro-fessor of management at Flor-ida International University.She earned a Ph.D. in organi-zational behavior at FloridaState University. She has pub-lished articles on leader emer-gence, attributions, feedback,and feedback seeking andavoiding in leading journalsincluding AMJ, Journal of Man-agement, and Journal of Or-ganizational Behavior. Contact:mosss@fiu. edu.

Juan I. Sanchez is academicdirector of the M.S. in HRmanagement and an associateprofessor of management andinternational business at Flor-ida International University.He serves on the editorial boardsof the Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, Personnel Psychology, andthe International Journal of Se-lection and Assessment. He haspublished in AMJ, AME, andmany other journals. Contact:sanchezj@fiu. edu.


employees avoiding feedback

Documents