- -
Research -
The Impact of Telling Others What They Should Do to Improve
© 2003 by Barry
Sweeny
When one person tells another what the other should
do to improve, some very interesting phenomena happen. People
sometimes become defensive, as if they are saying, "What's
the matter with what I am already doing!" When that happens,
they begin to erect defensive 'walls' and become less approachable,
less open to growth, and less open to the support of those who
MAY KNOW BETTER than themselves what they need to do.
Mentors sometimes run into this phenomena in the
form of offering advice and suggestions which their protege NEEDS
to follow, but which the protege chooses to ignore. When that
happens, mentors need more effective strategies, such as those
the author teaches in his mentor trainings.
Surprisingly, the author has found that the
vast majority of new mentors do NOT expect this resistance to
happen, and they themselves RESIST learning the effective strategies
mentors must know to counter this problem when it happens. Amazing!
That is one reason why the author uses the following
research in his mentor trainings. Another reason is that mentors
are likely to have an even LOWER impact than the following data,
because they do not have the positional authority of a supervisor.
On the other hand, mentors who are careful to be non-judgmental
in offering advice will have better success than the following
research demonstrates.
The choice of your impact as a mentor rests on
how you do what you do.
Note: This research shows what happens when supervisors (and
mentors?):
- OBSERVE you at work
- See a PATTERN of behavior that is not useful
or acceptable
- BECOME COMMITTED to making the pattern change
- DECIDE HOW it needs to be changed, and...
- TELL you the supervisor's decision about
what you need to do to improve.
When that was the model of providing "feed
back", here is what happened. How effective was the supervision
effort?
RESEARCH
ON THE IMPACT OF SUPERVISOR DIRECTION
(mostly 1st and 2nd year employees)
By Carl Glickman, University of Georgia
25 % Took the supervisor's suggestion and tried
to do it (but did not necessarily succeed)
18 % Did the OPPOSITE of the supervisor's suggestions
57 % Did nothing different at all.
Weird, huh? These data are BAD news!
And yet anyone who has ever worked and had a supervisor use this
approach knows at least 3-5 reasons why this happens:
- Lack of credibility
- "Why does she think she knows SO much?!",
or...
- "I wonder when the last time was that
SHE was in a real job like mine?!"
- Lack of trust - "Who IS this person, and
why should I take their advice?"
- Lack in knowing HOW to use the advice - "I'd
already be doing what she suggested IF I knew how!"
- Lack of understanding - "How do her ideas
fit with what I learned in college? It makes no sense to me."
- A prior decision that's unknown to the advice
giver - "I'm outa here in 2 more weeks. Forget it."
- Etc.
The point, however, is "How can Mentors ensure
that they are MUCH more effective than these data suggest?
THAT advice (should you choose to take it from
this mentor) is elsewhere on this web site. Start with Guidelines
for Appropriate Mentor Feed Back.)