A Closer Look at Authoritative Feedback
Now let’s take a more detailed look at the three types of authoritative feedback: directive, contingency, and attribution.
Directive Feedback
This type of feedback is future oriented; it specifies a type of action for the receiver to take. Directive feedback tells the receiver what to do, what not to do, or what to do differently. In the story at the beginning of this guidebook, Ethan does this when he suggests that Brenda use different wording, like “symptoms” instead of “problem.” Directive feedback can be delivered in six different styles (command, advice, advocacy, request, inquiry, and example), and a different tone or attitude can be used with each style (for example, harsh, warm, impatient, or easygoing).
Command. You can give directive feedback in the form of a command. Essentially, you are giving an order, making a demand, or instructing; this is telling the receiver what to do in the most literal sense.
• “Make priorities clearer to your direct reports.”
You can enhance or emphasize command-style directive feedback by prefacing it with a rationale (such as “I would appreciate it if…” or “Things would run more smoothly if…”) or with your expectations (such as “I expect you to…” or “It is my understanding that you will…”).
Advice. You can structure your directive feedback as advice or a recommendation. Advising leaves the final decision up to the feedback receiver; it feels less authoritative to the receiver than a command.
• “I would suggest that you make priorities clearer to your direct reports.”
Advocacy. You can structure your directive feedback as advocacy. When advocating, you speak in favor of or promote a new or different action. It is a lot like advice; the difference is that advice feels a little more personal to the receiver than advocacy. Advice emphasizes the receiver more than the action. Advocacy emphasizes the action more than the receiver.
• “Direct reports are more aligned when you make priorities clearer to them.”
Request. You can structure your directive feedback as a request. The message is basically the same as telling the receiver what to do, but you are asking rather than telling. A request is less authoritative than a command.
• “How about making priorities clearer to your direct reports?”
Inquiry. You can structure your directive feedback as an inquiry. The feedback giver asks the receiver to consider options or possibilities. It implies that the receiver has a choice; the prescribed action appears optional, so it feels less authoritative to the receiver.
• “Are there ways to make priorities clearer to your direct reports?”
Example. You can structure your directive feedback as an example. In this case, the feedback giver uses a story to convey the message.
• “Let me tell you about an experience that taught me to make priorities clearer to my direct reports.”
Contingency Feedback
In this type of feedback, givers alert receivers to the likely or certain consequences of their doing or not doing something. Ethan does this when he tells Brenda that if she does not improve her reputation with the staff, he will be forced to make some changes. The consequences to feedback receivers are contingent on the action in question. While the emphasis is on the contingent consequence, there is still a message telling feedback receivers what to do:
• “If you work on this team, you’ll get visibility.” (Prescriptive message: “Be on the team.” Consequence: visibility.)
Attribution Feedback
In this type of feedback, givers attribute a quality to the receiver or something the receiver has done. Ethan does this when he describes Brenda as “one of the sharpest problem solvers on the team.” In order to convey an attribution, we have to pass judgment on the feedback receiver or on what the feedback receiver has done or not done. For example:
• “You’re good with people.” (Quality attributed to the receiver: good with people. Prescriptive message embedded in this attribution: “Keep doing what you are doing with people.”)
