How to Give Feedback to an Employee Who Gets Defensive

Abstract

This article is about a problem many managers face: how to give feedback to an employee who gets defensive. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996) found that feedback improved performance on average, but that more than a third of the effects were negative. Feedback also worked less well as attention moved from the task to the self. A set of scenario experiments and a survey (Belschak and den Hartog, 2009) found that feedback triggers emotions, and that those emotions shape later attitudes and behaviour. A study of 360-degree feedback (Brett and Atwater, 2001) found that less favourable ratings went with doubts about accuracy, more negative reactions and a lower sense of usefulness. These are associations in specific groups, not in finance teams. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not HR, legal or medical advice.

The reconciliation that came back late again

It is the third time this quarter that the bank reconciliation has come back two days late. You have booked twenty minutes with the person who prepares it. You have rehearsed your opening line twice.

You get four sentences in. Their face closes. "That's not fair. Nobody told me the deadline changed." The twenty minutes turn into an argument about who said what in March, and the reconciliation is still late.

How to give feedback to an employee who gets defensive: what the research says

The research cited here does not test a script for defensive reactions. It describes how feedback works on average, how it triggers emotions, and how people react when feedback feels unfair or inaccurate. The studies were of mixed groups, of scenarios and of a 360-degree feedback programme, and none was limited to finance. The next three sections cover what each one found. None of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes found about feedback

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) reviewed a century of research on feedback interventions. Their meta-analysis covered 607 effect sizes and 23,663 observations. On average, feedback improved performance, with an effect size of d = .41. More than a third of the effects, though, were negative: the feedback made performance worse.

The authors say this was not explained by sampling error, by whether the feedback was positive or negative, or by existing theories. They propose that feedback moves attention between levels, from the task, to the motivation for the task, to the self. Feedback was less effective as attention moved toward the self and away from the task. Task characteristics also mattered. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the late reconciliation through this. "You are careless" points at the self. "The reconciliation was due on day three and arrived on day five" points at the task. This is an inference. The meta-analysis was of many kinds of feedback, and it does not say how to word a conversation.

What studies of emotional reactions to feedback found

Belschak and den Hartog (2009) examined how employees feel after performance feedback from supervisors, and what those feelings lead to. In a pre-study of 72 employees, feedback from supervisors triggered a range of positive and negative emotions. In a scenario experiment with students (240) and working adults (107), the researchers varied whether feedback was positive or negative and whether it was given publicly or privately.

Feedback shaped emotions, and emotions shaped work attitudes and intended behaviour. A survey of 86 employees of a research firm largely confirmed this: different types of feedback went with different emotions, and the emotions went with later behaviours and attitudes. The emotions linked feedback with counterproductive behaviour, turnover intentions, citizenship behaviour and commitment to the organisation. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the closed face through this. A defensive reaction may be an emotional reaction that then shapes what the person does next, and not simply a trait. This is an inference. The studies used scenarios and surveys, and the abstract does not test how to respond to the emotion once it appears.

What a study of 360-degree feedback found about low ratings

Brett and Atwater (2001) studied how people reacted to 360-degree feedback. Less favourable ratings went with recipients believing the feedback was less accurate, and with more negative reactions to it. Negative reactions and doubts about accuracy were each linked with seeing the feedback as less useful. Recipients who found it less useful were rated by a facilitator as less focused on development.

The authors argue that the common belief that negative and discrepant feedback motivates positive change is not well supported by their results. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read "that's not fair" through this. It may be a belief that the feedback is inaccurate, which is what the study linked with low ratings. This is an inference. A 360-degree programme is not a one-to-one conversation, and the study did not test what a manager can do about the doubt.

How to give feedback to an employee who gets defensive: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Put one observable fact at the centre. Name the task, the date and the gap, and leave the person out of the sentence. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that feedback was less effective as attention moved toward the self and away from the task. This is an inference, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "The bank rec was due on the third working day. The last three arrived on the fifth. I want to understand what is getting in the way."

2. When the reaction comes, pause and ask where it does not match. Name what you see without arguing about it. Brett and Atwater (2001) linked doubts about accuracy with feedback seen as less useful, and this step invites the doubt into the open instead of leaving it unsaid. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "I can see this is hard to hear. Take a moment, then tell me where this doesn't match what you saw."

3. End with one agreed next step and a date, in writing. Belschak and den Hartog (2009) found that emotions after feedback shape later behaviour, and a clear next step gives the emotion somewhere to go. This is a judgement, and no study cited here tested this step. For instance: "From next month, the rec goes to you on day one, and you tell me by day two if anything blocks it."

If the conversation itself is the hard part, Difficult Conversations: A Framework for Honest Communication sets out a structure. For what the other person needs to hear first, there is The Art of Emotional Validation: Why "I Understand" Isn't Enough. If you are deciding whether to tell or to ask, see Directive vs Empowering Leadership: When to Tell or Ask. When the argument involves two people, How to Handle Conflict Between Two Team Members may help. And if your own reaction in the room runs hot, The 90-Second Rule at Work: What's True and What Isn't is worth reading.

Questions People Ask

Why do some employees get defensive when I give feedback?

The studies cited here describe emotional reactions to feedback, doubts about its accuracy and attention shifting to the self. They did not test defensiveness as a trait, and they did not study finance staff. The reaction you see may be about the feedback, about the person or about something else in their week.

Should I give feedback in public or in private?

The scenario experiment by Belschak and den Hartog varied this. The abstract summary used here does not report a rule I can cite. Private is ordinary practice for hard feedback, and that is a judgement, not a research finding.

What if they never accept the feedback?

The studies cited here did not test this. Brett and Atwater argue that negative feedback does not reliably motivate change, so it may help to agree a next step you can both see, and to follow your organisation's process if the pattern continues.

Can coaching help me give feedback?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you notice your own reaction when the other person gets defensive, and plan wording. It is not treatment and not HR advice. No study cited here tested coaching.

When it is more than a hard conversation

A hard conversation is one thing. It is more when the reaction includes threats, when an employee seems unwell or in distress, or when they raise a complaint about bullying or harassment. In those cases involve your HR team or occupational health, and if you are the one affected, talk to your doctor or a qualified mental health professional. This article is not HR, legal or medical advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Consequences of positive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors. Applied Psychology, 58(2), 274–303. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00336.x (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.930 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 (Summarised from the published abstract.)