Blogs

This post forms part of a review of Baumeister and Tierney's 2015 book The Power of Bad. The book is wholly dedicated to the negativity bias phenomenon. This is something that Polyanna would have loved, for sure, for sure, said Miss Nancy.

I would like to go ahead and summarize the book by saying that its about the idea that the human mind has a striking tendency to pay more attention to negative events, than either neutral or positive ones. The reason for this is simple: our nervous system has been tuned for threat so that our genes have the best chance of survival, and this trait has been selected for over millions of years of evolution.

But in modern day social situations it is sometimes problematic. In a sentence, "The human mind magnetizes to bad news, criticism, and perceived slights".

By breaking this book review into pieces, i want to start by addressing the idea of the "feedback sandwich" found in chapter four.

NB: Be advised that i use the terms: criticism, bad news and praise, as the authors use them, and the use of confidently assertive language in this review is a product of me reporting their conclusions, not about a claim to objectivity.

Why the feedback sandwich doesn't work

Still lingering in the business world today, the authors attribute the sandwich practice to, of all people Mary Kay Ash, of Mary Kay Cosmetics, the direct marketing company. This, for those that managed to skip this charming bit of history, was in the 1980s.

So the basic idea is that for their annual performance evaluations, managers would give their staff a long list of praise first, hoping to soften the impact of the 'actual' performance review. After that they would then give the particular piece of 'room for improvement' advice they wanted to give, then finish up with a token final sentence of praise to end on a happy note.

The upside of this scheme was that it made the managers feel better about having to provide critical feedback to their employees, it softened the impact of being the bearer of bad news.

"But that's usually not how it feels to the employee. By this time all the opening praise has been forgotten. The employee can't get the bad stuff out of his mind. He's choking on the middle of the sandwich. A conversation that was supposed to inspire better work has left him demoralized".

So lets ask the same question the authors ask in chapter 4: why doesn't it work, and what does?

Two interesting things seem to happen when the praise is placed first.

1. The opening praise gets stored in short term memory. When the bad news arrives the shock that ensues, causes interrupts the process of filing the praise to long term memory. Studies show very poor retention of the preceding praise. The brain uses so much energy to focus on the threat that the previous pleasantness gets overwritten from short term memory before it got to be filed. This also explains why people often can't recall what they were doing just before something bad like an accident occurred.

2. By starting with lots of praise the recipient's guard is kind of let down and the shock of the bad news is actually increased. "In fact, the opening praise can make the subsequent criticism even more painful". But it gets worse. The bad stuff in this setup become much more memorable. Most of us have some defences to unwanted criticism, for example denial. By relaxing those defenses the impact of the criticism gets to be felt with its full force. Whereas, by being more direct, just: here is the bad news, people can optimise the experience, and make the most of a bad deal.

The criticism sandwich may be logical, but the brain doesn't process threatening information at all logically.

Ok so, how do we give bad news?

First they rule out breaking it to them gently or slowly, drip feeding it over multiple days (people would just rather hear it plainly, and get it over with).

Then they discuss how doctors are trained to give bad news. Doctors have rather a lot of practice at doing this. The authors report a common 3 step formula used by the medical industry:

1. Do it in person so you can track the recipients reactions.

2. Start off by asking the recipient what they make of the situation they find themselves in. "What do you think is going on?", "What have you learned about this condition so far?", "What do you think it means?". Getting the recipient to go first, means they become an active part of the conversation, and it often opens up a door that allows them to better hear and engage with the bad news.

3. Once the recipient has owned that there is a problem, there is now an alliance, and the doctor can go ahead and give the bad news, with a better chance they can hear it.

4. Usually the best approach after that is to say nothing for a bit, to give them time to absorb. By watching their reaction, either validate "I know this must be hard" "What worries you the most about this?", or when the time is right proceed to questions to confirm their understanding, or to seek input on their treatment choices.

"This is called the 'perspective display sequence,' a three-step process in which the doctor first seeks the patient's perspective, then confirms it, then delivers the details of the bad news. Instead of being the hated bearer of ill tidings, the doctor becomes someone who agrees with the patient and wants to work together to deal with the problem."

The authors consider that the doctors' approach forms a good basis to inform a more general process of giving hard to hear feedback of all kinds.

1. First, be clear what your objective is. Sometimes we skip this step, and wonder why it goes pear shaped. Are we doing it for the right reason?

2. Start by reassuring them that the relationship is to remain intact after the conversation. That puts the worst of the worry to rest.

3. Invite input into the topic order. In the statistically 25% chance that they opt for praise first, make it brief.

4. Invite their self feedback first to open the door. If there is any data, look at that first, to give them something to bounce off.

5. Now give your feedback, allow a pause to digest, then follow with "Does that make sense?" or "Is that fair".

6. The power of bad, means that their brain has now kicked into high gear, and any information they now encounter has MUCH more salience. We survive by remembering the details of stressful moments. So this is a good time to convert 'mistakes' into ideas for doing this successfully in the future. Transforming what is not wanted, into what is wanted.

7. Ok, while this information sponge stage is still active, now hit them with the praise. By offering the praise here, the praise will get stored in long term memory along with the criticism / request for change. Pretty cool huh? The books rule of 4, leads them to recommend four bits of praise for each criticism. If the size of each praise is different to the size of the criticism, err on going to a higher ratio.

Now, here Baumeister and Teirney add some additional interesting tidbits to go with this process.

Firstly, to not fear going overboard with the praise. Studies show that flattery indeed does work. The brain trades verbal accuracy for regulation (Ed: its about nonverbals?).

Second, be succinct or poetic with wording your praise, for example instead of extolling their sales figures, call them Mr Closer. Being surprising or clever makes it all the more memorable, perhaps because metaphors are easier to store. (Ed: long sentences cant be processed well while dysregulated).

Caveats

I will conclude by naming two caveats regarding all of the above.

1. I want to clearly restate my view that critical feedback is best delivered when both parties are regulated. That to me is the key to it being

constructive.

2. I trust in the AR frame of reveal and own my experience, as really the single most juicy way to understand giving critical feedback. The implication being that we rigorously integrate the language of NVC. Rather than "you forgot to...", instead, "i would love to see you...". Framed in the affirmative.

A parting note about the book

So this is just one chapter of this interesting book. While the book's framing and language is a bit removed from AR, i am finding plenty of parallels, and useful shared premises.

And although it is written by a pair of research psychologists, they have managed to present it in a very readable way, with lots of examples and anecdotes, as well as the usual barrage of research studies.

I am left with a sense that The Power of Bad explains how and why some of the practices that we have been intuitively embracing, actually work from a science point of view. Highly recommended.