In many cases, participants’ first reaction may be to look for ways to rationalize the information to better fit their self-perceptions or idealized views of themselves. Our experience suggests that an unwillingness or inability to challenge self-perceptions is one of the three most common reasons that people reject their feedback. The other two are a fear of having weaknesses exposed and the perception that the feedback is unbalanced. Understanding and addressing these potential barriers will enable you to design a successful work session. While you cannot control how people feel coming into the session, you can certainly relieve their anxiety once they are there by maintaining their self-esteem and providing a constructive experience.

Unwillingness to Challenge Self-Perceptions. Most people who have experienced a degree of success in their careers will attribute that success to, among other things, their own capability and expertise. A strong belief in oneself and one’s ability is frequently a characteristic of successful people in organizations. Their current styles and behaviors are what got them to where they are today. So why mess with a sure thing? Challenging this self-perception is difficult and usually not high on people’s agendas.

This obstacle becomes less of an issue when people see feedback as a contributing factor to continuous learning and improvement. As one technology manager in a large pharmaceuticals company remarked, “It never feels good to find out that the people you work with believe that you’re more focused on your agenda than theirs or that you’re not spending enough time with your team. But the way I see it, the more I know about how others see me and what they expect from me, the more effective I can be. It’s ammunition to improve my performance.”

Robert Kaplan, in Beyond Ambition,¹ describes four phases of self-development—maintaining the old self, separating from the old self, exploring the new self, and reinforcing the new self. As Kaplan explains, “The first phase is a pre-change phase in which the manager puts most of his or her energy into maintaining the existing self. The individual may receive cues that suggest a need for change, but these are generally deflected. Whatever adjustments the individual might make in this phase are kept comfortably within the existing system—that is, the existing ‘self-system. ’ ”²

If you believe that Kaplan’s first phase is the context for the initial presentation of feedback, how do you ensure that people will be open to hearing information that contradicts their sense of themselves? When their belief in their abilities is challenged, the validity of the data is often challenged as well. Positioning the feedback as a single snapshot of the individual at a specific point in time will better enable people to accept the messages others are sending them. Emphasizing that this is not the absolute and final truth about the recipient will help put the feedback into perspective.

Changing a person’s self-image is a slow and difficult process. During the initial review of the feedback, we ask only that people walk away with one or two key learnings, not that they receive every message from which they might benefit. When people are allowed to hold on to what they see as the fundamental elements of their success, they are more accepting of information that challenges their image of themselves. It is our belief that, given the proper guidance and support, additional insights will come over time.

During a recent feedback session, a senior investment banker became quite vocal about his reactions to data he perceived as negative and attempted to disprove each data point one by one, arguing that people just did not understand the requirements of his job and the pressure he was under. Instead of trying to defend the feedback he had received, we listened in silence and then began to ask questions about what was going on in the organization that might cause people to misperceive him. He seemed surprised that we were not trying to convince him; gradually, his tone and attitude changed, and he seemed more comfortable with the idea that some of the data might be relevant. He even acknowledged that there could be reasons for people responding the way they did.

In situations like this, it is generally better to let recipients argue with and reject some of their feedback, even if the data seem perfectly plausible. By letting recipients vent, you are clearing the way for them to acknowledge and accept at least a few of the messages they received and thereby increasing the likelihood that they will act on them.

Fear of Exposing Weaknesses. No one wants to look ineffectual or foolish—particularly managers, who are conscious of the need to appear confident and self-assured to those around them. By asking people to rate our behavior, however, we run the risk of having our weaknesses exposed—weaknesses we either compensate for or keep hidden and have never shared with anyone.

To minimize the anxiety associated with having one’s weaknesses brought out into the open, make sure that people are given complete control of their feedback during the session. They should be allowed to make choices about what results they will share, and how. They should never be required to show or discuss their specific feedback with others. Any group activity should be focused on the participants’ analyses and conclusions from the data, not on their specific results for any scales or items. This type of control enables people to concentrate on understanding the data rather than protecting their self-esteem. In addition, if they do elect to share what they have learned after the session, they should be given guidance on how to do so effectively. In our experience, focusing on learning and next steps, as opposed to specific numbers and ratings, is the most effective approach.

Unbalanced Feedback. Another factor that influences the acceptance of feedback is the message itself. Obviously, positive feedback is more readily accepted than negative feedback, since it tends to fit with our own self-image. Feedback should give people a sense of what behaviors they ought to continue, not just what they ought to do differently. Such an emphasis not only provides a more accurate, balanced picture of the person’s overall effectiveness, but it also increases the probability that, having examined the good news, the recipient will be open to hearing the bad as well.

What does this mean for how the feedback should be presented? It means that the facilitators, through the design of the work session, must ensure that there will be as strong a focus on strengths as on weaknesses during the analysis and consolidation of the feedback. People should have an opportunity to identify—and celebrate—those behaviors and characteristics that have served them well and contributed to their success. Before they start considering how to overcome or compensate for their weaknesses, they should decide how they will leverage their strengths. Lauren W. Ashwell describes her experience at Lehman Brothers. “We insist that managers not only identify their strengths but have them include action steps in their development plan that will enable them to apply those strengths in new situations or even more effectively. We consider it a huge plus if they can use their strengths to address their weaknesses.”

The Center for Creative Leadership offers several programs of varying duration that allow people the opportunity to focus on their development. While these programs may not be affordable for everybody, the idea of separating the feedback recipients from their daily grind can be applied to any workshop by holding the session in another building, such as a nearby hotel or conference center, or a conference room in another area of the building could be used. This helps eliminate interruptions, removes managers from other distractions, and lets recipients know that the event they are taking part in is seen as important.

Several organizations we have worked with have committed the resources to provide their own dedicated learning centers. Companies like The Coca-Cola Company, Pfizer, Eisai, Forrest Labs, and General Electric have professionally run facilities that remove people from the day-to-day demands of their jobs and provide an environment in which they can focus only on themselves and their personal development.