The above seems like a straightforward, simple question. It should not be difficult to be honest. Is it?
No one is in perfect… yet honest and fair feedback process should weight all aspects, good and bad. One should consider inquiring about what worked well and what could be improved. Both views should be equally weighted and considered in the same proportion.
This is extremely important if one asks an opinion or feedback from a team member, regarding peers or managers. Asking balanced questions should be the best way to see the full picture and not in a tendentious manner (intentioned or not). Asking one an un-adjusted questions or "begging the question" in one direction, miss the entire feedback point. It may also cause a gap of expectations from the procedure. In such cases the results are un-fairly clear, known in advance and therefore biased.
Reflecting about such process one should make sure that the purpose of the evaluation is fully transparent. Thinking about how the questions should be rephrased to these supposed to provide feedback is equally important. Try to avoid leading question, use open questions instead, just to make sure that there is no "hidden direction". Asking questions like "How bad is your peer" or "Can you provide examples of bad behavior of your colleague" are obviously leading questions.
I have observed a situation which looked like a kind of an "informal fallacy" where the conclusion that one was attempting to prove was included in the initial premises of the questions. Needless to say, it was an unprofessional feedback process. For the external witness It looked like a "field trial" more than a "fair trial".
No one is in perfect… yet honest and fair feedback process should weight all aspects, good and bad. One should consider inquiring about what worked well and what could be improved. Both views should be equally weighted and considered in the same proportion.
This is extremely important if one asks an opinion or feedback from a team member, regarding peers or managers. Asking balanced questions should be the best way to see the full picture and not in a tendentious manner (intentioned or not). Asking one an un-adjusted questions or "begging the question" in one direction, miss the entire feedback point. It may also cause a gap of expectations from the procedure. In such cases the results are un-fairly clear, known in advance and therefore biased.
Reflecting about such process one should make sure that the purpose of the evaluation is fully transparent. Thinking about how the questions should be rephrased to these supposed to provide feedback is equally important. Try to avoid leading question, use open questions instead, just to make sure that there is no "hidden direction". Asking questions like "How bad is your peer" or "Can you provide examples of bad behavior of your colleague" are obviously leading questions.
I have observed a situation which looked like a kind of an "informal fallacy" where the conclusion that one was attempting to prove was included in the initial premises of the questions. Needless to say, it was an unprofessional feedback process. For the external witness It looked like a "field trial" more than a "fair trial".
I strongly think that perfect objectivity is an unrealistic goal; fairness, however, is not. Be fair.
No comments:
Post a Comment