Engagement surveys are a common tool in organizations that focus on leadership development. However, it does not take much imagination to see how low leadership scores can be damaging to the leader being assessed. This article examines how low scores for the direct manager can affect the self-image and confidence of the appraised manager and lead to paralysis. After reading this article, you will have a better understanding of the manager's experience and know how to support the manager when a low score challenges the manager's follow-up.
|
Note: The article was written as part of the author's Master's thesis in Philosophy under the supervision of Thomas Schwarz Wentzer, Professor MSO at the Department of Philosophy and History of Ideas at Aarhus University. |
A manager looks convincingly into the webcam on his computer. "I was just terrified. I just thought, 'What the hell am I doing? How can I do so badly?". This was the message from a manager during one of the 10 interviews that formed the basis of this study.
Prior to this statement, the manager had described how a low score in an engagement survey a few months before the interview had caused her stress symptoms such as poor sleep, stomach aches, and mental absenteeism. Cut to the manager now, after a thorough follow-up process, experiencing well-being and good cooperation - in herself and with her employees.
This was just one of many examples of managers who, during the preparation of this article, described how low scores had thrown them off course. Based on 10 interviews with different managers from different industries, with different levels of seniority and experience, it is possible to define some recurring themes.
Some managers received good scores and had good experiences. Others had the opposite experience. Comparing the interviews, it became clear that context has a major impact on the experience and outcome of a low measurement.
When the manager is surprised and overwhelmed
In all 10 interviews, the managers were excited to receive the survey. All were motivated to use the survey for development - both those who had a more immediate approach as well as those who approached the process with a degree of awe.
They wanted to understand what they could do better. They were excited to see what their employees had to say. After receiving the survey, managers unsurprisingly split into two groups. As might expected, managers who had received high scores had more positive experiences than those who had received low scores.
However, the devastating reactions did not come from low scores in isolation. The devastating reactions came when the criticism was surprising and caught the managers off guard. Several managers expected critical scores on 'immediate manager' in the surveys they received, but when they were surprised by the extent of the criticism, they were overwhelmed with astonishment and felt despair. Managers who had not expected any criticism at all shared this strong reaction.
”It feels a bit like being publicly beheaded and you don't know who's pointing at you," said one manager, who added: "You just feel completely exposed without really knowing why.”
As this leader's description suggests, lack of understanding plays a major role in the experience. As the other managers could confirm, the feeling of not understanding what the criticism was about or who was sending it was a direct cause of being surprised and overwhelmed.
When the manager is surprised by the scores, the manager's expectations about how the score should be interpreted are challenged. What does the score really mean? How did I not see this coming? Are the employees right in their criticism? The surprised manager may have deep doubts about many things. Doubts that can affect their self-image and self-confidence in the subsequent follow-up.
Paralysis
Surprised and overwhelmed managers describe how their own reaction makes it difficult for them to follow up on the survey. As a result, the survey is not followed up appropriately and the only result is that the manager is hurt. In short, the surprise aspect is related to the manager's paralysis.
When the manager is paralyzed, they do not know how to follow up. The manager does not understand what the score is expressing, and it becomes difficult to engage the team in a collaborative, dialogue-based follow-up process.
Surprising criticism is perceived as intangible and unmanageable, which sometimes also makes the criticism feel more general and personal. As a result, the manager finds it more difficult to include the employees in the follow-up process because they are emotionally overwhelmed. Ultimately, this means that the team runs the risk of not being sufficiently involved in the subsequent development of leadership.
”What should I do with the whole group of employees? I don't even know what the individual is thinking,”
said one manager when the person talked about finding the feedback very general. The manager continued: "It creates a lot of uncertainty when I don't know how the individual relates to the group".
If the criticism is perceived as intangible, i.e. with a non-specific sender or content, the manager may find that it is he or she personally who is being criticized. This reinforces self-doubt, which, according to several managers, can develop and affect their confidence as a leader in general.
As a result of the overwhelming emotions and paralysis, leaders can reach a point where they doubt whether they are fit to lead at all. When asked if the survey had made her doubt whether she wanted to continue in her current managerial role, one manager replied: "I would rather say that there was a period before the survey when I doubted whether I should be a manager at all. I wondered if I was good enough."
When the challenge calls for support
If critical scores are experienced so violently, and if they are so hard to recover from, and if the consequence may even be counterproductive, what do you do as an organization?
Fortunately, all interviews with paralyzed managers show that the process can be saved. The manager's experience can be influenced in such a way that negative results are turned into leadership development. When one manager was asked if he had found the whole process useful, the answer was: "Yes, 100 %! And I can already feel it in the team". An experience shared by several managers.
Managers say that with the right support, they were able to turn the situation around. Although they still had feelings associated with receiving criticism, the managers were able to transform the perception of the criticism as general and personal into specific and tangible issues through help and support.
Despite the different experiences of the managers interviewed, it became clear that the reception of the survey and the subsequent follow-up work was made easier if they 1) were properly prepared for the survey, 2) received facilitative support to enter into dialogue with the employees and thus understand the criticism, and 3) received encouragement from their own manager and the rest of the organization.
Managers must be properly prepared
In the managers' own descriptions of what it means to feel well prepared, knowing exactly what the survey was measuring made a positive difference. More specifically, good preparation includes knowing the questions of the survey before receiving the results.
When managers were familiar with the questionnaire, the immediate understanding of the survey was less surprising and overwhelming because they had first thought about employees' answers.
In addition, several managers pointed out that a good introduction to how to appropriately include the team's perspectives in the follow-up to the survey made the manager feel more 'prepared' for the whole process. In the end, good preparation made it easier for the manager to be open and inclusive in the follow-up.
Managers must be supported to understand
In line with this, it has a positive effect on paralyzed managers if they are supported in finding an explanation for why the scores are the way they are. People in a supportive role can help the manager in a number of ways.
Managers described how they were better able to focus on listening to employees and considering their perspectives when a support person, such as an HR business partner, took responsibility for the dialogue during follow-up meetings. The manager is better able to focus on accessing the employee's experience of their leadership when the support takes the form of facilitating the dialogue.
Facilitation also had a supportive effect on the overall process. Managers responded positively to people such as HR Business Partners setting the direction and strategy for the overall follow-up process. This support consisted of defining criteria for how the process should be approached and when the process was sufficiently completed.
Several managers also mentioned that qualified sparring on the interpretation of the results had a positive effect on the follow-up of the survey. A coaching approach is appropriate for this, as sparring with support persons should not replace the dialogue-based involvement of employees in the subsequent follow-up.
Most importantly, the manager must feel that the survey triggers the appropriate support, i.e. that they do not have to worry about whether the follow-up will be successful. The support must reassure them that they need not worry if they are at risk because of low scores.
Managers must feel encouraged
In terms of worry, the 10 interviews showed that managers experienced a better overall process when they felt they had the approval of their own manager and the rest of the organization.
It was described how the managers themselves felt more able to cope with the survey if their own managers and HR Business Partners, or likewise, had confidence in their ability to lead. When managers feel supported by their own organizations, they are less concerned about the potential consequences of poor scores, allowing managers to focus more on managing the follow-up.
Now what?
The bottom line is that being the focus of an engagement survey is a challenge that can shake even experienced managers. The surprise and paralysis experienced by managers show how some managers struggle to deal with negative feedback. However, it is important to emphasize how preparation, support, and backing can be crucial in turning a bad situation into a leadership development opportunity.
Successfully dealing with a low appraisal requires more than just receiving feedback. It requires good preparation leading up to the engagement survey and a deeper understanding of the results after receiving them. When managers are well prepared and supported, they can better navigate the emotional turbulence of the process and use the review as a tool for their leadership development.
So, even when managers feel the pressure of having their leadership reduced to numbers, there are good conditions for constructive processes if managers receive the right support and preparation.
