Giving Feedback: Is the Sandwich stale?

This is the time of year for annual staff reviews. Line managers everywhere will be arranging appointments with their staff to discuss 2015 performance and 2016 plans. A lot of feedback will be offered, some expected and some a surprise, some welcomed and some rejected, some acted upon and some ignored.

In common with most managers, I was taught years ago to offer feedback in a sandwich form. I should start with something positive, then make the development point, and finally revert to a positive aspect. I never used this method religiously, but it certainly had its place in my sessions. So I was shocked to read last year that some people questioned its value.

My shock came from reading the wonderful weekly column of Oliver Burkeman in the Guardian Weekly. It is amazing to me how many models and other useful life aids he has up his sleeve, and almost always his words resonate with me as soundly based, worthy of consideration and also practical to apply. I recommend him wholeheartedly.

His damnation of the legendary sandwich was almost offhand, including as a minor digression in a wider article. But it was so diametrically opposite to my previous assumption that it got me thinking for myself about the pros and cons of sandwiches.

Burkeman claimed that sandwiches cloud the issue. Quite often, people are predisposed to think negative or positive things about themselves and their abilities. Someone thinking negatively will ignore the bread from the sandwich, no matter how it is dressed up, while the positively predisposed will gloss over the meat without really taking it in. So the key point, whether intended as positive or negative, is in danger of being lost in the fog.

Further, the sandwich does nothing to frame an overall opinion of the manager about how the staff member is doing. It is possible that the manager finds the employee stellar, and finds something relatively trivial in her mind for the meat. It is also possible that the meat is a fundamental blocking attribute to performance, something that would have dire consequences if not addressed, yet does not come across this way surrounded by layers of bread. In this instance, the employee could receive a series of well-constructed sandwiches through the year from the line manager, yet be completely surprised when the overall ranking is announced or promotions considered.

Finally, and linked to the points above, the sandwich is now so widely used as to be expected. This creates a game in which the employee receives the sandwich with some cynicism, concluding that it is somehow artificial and seeking to unravel the code within – correctly or incorrectly.

So Burkeman says it is time to dispense with such an artificial construction, and just give feedback directly. If everything is meat, then make that plain. If there is no meat, don’t try to make some up. Speak plainly to be heard and to avoid any misunderstanding.

Thinking about it, it is clear to me how the sandwich came into being. It was precisely because many managers followed Burkeman’s advice and spoke plainly, but without enough guile or context, and HR departments and more senior managers were left to pick up the pieces from broken relationships and disputes. A bullying line manager can make an employee’s life a misery, with no apparent route out of a huge hole, while a weak line manager can gloss over issues and create a different sort of disconnect. HR will have seen the sandwich as a neat solution, good enough in many situations, since it forced the bully to make efforts to maintain confidence in staff and force the coward to at least mention problems.

But, thinking about it, what an unsatisfactory compromise it is. Burkeman is right! The sandwich should be discarded in the dustbin before someone gets listeria. Instead, we just need to remember one keyword, which is context.

Just launching in with a piece of feedback, whether positive or negative, can misfire. The recipient will wonder where it has come from and wonder if there is more to it than stated. That said, feedback is so valuable that we should consider offering it, in the moment, in many situations, not just up and down a management line. I often preface with “Would you mind if I gave you some feedback?” as a discussion starter. Usually, people quickly get over their surprise and are curious and open. Then I’ll make some remark saying that I have no idea how they do their job generally and am only acting on what I observe with a motive to help them, and then launch in. I get all sorts of responses, but gratitude is the most common.

For behavioural feedback, I like the model where you state what you observe, explore how that might come across, then discuss alternative behaviours and how they might come across better. It takes a bit of practice to follow this, but it shows that your motivation is the right one and tries to be practical with solutions.

If giving feedback in the moment, the most valuable kind since the example is fresh in everyone’s memory, the context does not need to be too extensive, and the sandwich is especially clunky. A simple opener to establish motive and dialogue is enough. Of course if you show yourself as open to some feedback yourself it can only help as well.

In a line manager situation, context needs to be a bit wider. Here, a statement about how the team member is doing overall is a good way of setting the context, especially if the feedback you intend to give is negative or developmental for a generally effective staff member. Even if the overall performance is mixed, you can refer to where they are on their development journey and perhaps some other conversations or examples. Then launch in with the feedback, and try to invite a detailed discussion about it if possible. Finally, you can refer to consequences, both to the overall performance and the upside if improvement is possible. If you are planning to rank the team member below their expectations, then gently massage those expectations downwards, but with clear indications as to what might change the picture for the better or worse.

This method can sometimes feel like a sandwich, but should not be forced into a sandwich shape. In some situations, you might want to finish on a negative, highlighting consequences of the current path. You owe it to a team member to give as clear an indication as you can, so they can do something about it while they have time.

I always struggled to give enough feedback in the moment. It is hard. You don’t want to confront someone in a public setting, or at a time when you can’t be sure a conversation won’t be truncated. But that rules out most opportunities, so we have to really work to make other ones, and force yourself to take advantage when opportunities arise, even if that is a little uncomfortable. One option I like is to deliberately schedule short gaps between meetings. That allows for some overrun, and for changing meeting rooms, but it also creates space for quick 1-1 feedback sessions when they can be most valuable.

So the sandwich is dead, at least in Oliver Burkeman’s professional opinion and my own future practice. I wonder what other longstanding practices of mine are equally invalid? I’ll continue to read The Guardian Weekly to find out.