Feedback in the workplace is generally a good thing, but it can also lead to many problems if it’s not delivered in the right way. While a lot of research has been devoted to the repercussions of poorly delivered feedback, new research from IESE Business School takes a novel approach.
It explores the impact feedback has on our willingness to collaborate with our peers at work. The research set out to understand what kind of feedback results in competitive behavior, and what kind of feedback supports collaborative behavior.
The researchers recruited a few hundred volunteers, divided between managers and subordinates, to participate in a lab experiment whereby groups of four were required to play variants of classic public goods games. Across the games, rewards for cooperative behavior differed, which ultimately impacted the amount of money each participant was paid.
Cooperation
As expected, the results show that cooperative behavior led to better outcomes for the group, even though they were sometimes worse for the individuals. This was because uncooperative behavior typically led to worse outcomes for others than it did for individuals themselves.
After each round of the game, each participant received feedback, with this ranging from feedback on their own feedback, feedback on their performance relative to their peers, or feedback on the performance of the entire group.
The results show that different types of feedback had differing impacts on the performances of participants, and indeed on their perceptions of the scenario. When people were given feedback on their own performance, they tended to behave more cooperatively in the cooperative scenario, and more competitive in the competitive scenario. When the feedback was on the performance of the group as a whole, they tended to be more cooperative, regardless of the scenario.
Rather alarmingly, those who received feedback that ranked them with their peers saw every scenario as a competitive one. This resulted in them turning down opportunities for both personal and collective gains, with their sole focus becoming to claw their way higher up the rankings, even though the ranking was financially irrelevant.
“Ranking feedback drives even experienced managers to act competitively, even in situations where cooperating would unquestionably be in their financial interest. When the focus is on comparison with others, both students and managers are willing to take financial losses for the sole purpose of inflicting even greater losses on others,” the researchers explain. “Feedback can distort people’s perceptions of a situation and turn them into competitive situations for no objective reason.”
Pervasive influence
What’s more, the results were consistent regardless of whether the participant was a highly experienced manager, who had a background in feedback and the pernicious impact of excessive competition on group performance, or the least experienced professionals.
It’s a finding that the team believe has significant implications for the workplace, where ranking employees remains a common past-time, even in environments where cooperation is sought after.
“Publicly comparing employee performance or even, in extreme cases, making bonus payments or contract renewals dependent on employee ranking is counterproductive,” the researchers say.
If organizations truly want cooperative and collaborative cultures, then it really will serve them well to provide feedback for the whole group rather than individually, and certainly not in the form of rankings!
