The shit sandwich

  (Grant, 2024)  

Once upon a time, in the long, long ago when I worked in a corporate, I remember being taught about the "shit sandwich". This is where we were advised by management consultants to give feedback constructed by using compliments in pairs, wrapped around a piece of criticism.

Of course, the consultants didn't call it the "shit sandwich"; they called it the sandwich feedback protocol (Von Bergen et al., 2014). It was we attendees who called it the "shit sandwich". I don't think we ever adopted it as a feedback strategy: it was just 1990s management consultant crap.

When exposed to this idea, we felt some would miss the criticism, and some would ONLY hear the criticism. Both of those were pointless outcomes. Some might lose all of it. Further, reviewing staff might spend forever and struggle to find any positives to convey (some staff were in the wrong industry, and needed encouragement to seek work that better suited them). We might lose half our day chasing down nice things to say... which are more than likely going to come across as fake, or be missed anyway.

As a result, I was entertained earlier this year in a newsletter post by Adam Grant, talking about what he called the "compliment sandwich" where we "Put a slice of praise on the top and the bottom, and stick the meat of your criticism in between" (2024). Ah: a shit sandwich with a much more polite name. Some still use it, but they shouldn't, for the reasons I have highlighted in the previous paragraph. However, Adam goes into the 'why nots' more detail:

• "Problem 1: the positives fall on deaf ears. When people hear praise during a feedback conversation, they brace themselves. They’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it makes the opening compliment seem insincere. You didn’t really mean it; you were just trying to soften the blow" (Grant, 2023)
• "Problem 2: if you avoid that risk and manage to be genuine about the positives, they can drown out the negatives. Research shows that primacy and recency effects are powerful: we often remember what happens first and last in a conversation, glossing over the middle. When you start and end with positive feedback, it’s all too easy for the criticism to get buried or discounted… especially if you’re talking to a narcissist" (Grant, 2024).

In addition, over time, when we get a compliment, we become primed - in a Pavolvian response - for the criticism to follow. This makes the sandwich method counterproductive. A better method has been suggested in the following four step model (Grant, 2024, citing Von Bergen et al., 2014):

1. Why. We begin by explaining why we are giving feedback; perhaps: we value your contribution to the team, you have potential, and we want to help you to develop
2. Team. Remind the recipient that we are a team; for example: "we've been working together for a while", and "I think we can help each other to be more effective"
3. Ask. Say that we have: "noticed a couple things and wondered if you would like some feedback"
4. Talk. Have an open chat about what can improve. Ask the staff member for ideas. Make it a real conversation. Adam Grant suggests we say "I want to start by describing what I saw… and see if you saw the same things…. Then we can decide what, if anything, we need to do going forward". I may have missed something important, or I may have "contributed the concerns I’m raising. How does that work for you?" (2024), and we go from there. If we channel the naive inquirer (more on that here), we can tailor this conversation to suit.

No manipulation, no butt covering. Just a conversation about what needs to improve, working together to collectively solve an issue.

Sam

References:

Grant, A. (2024, January 18). Stop serving the compliment sandwich. file:///C:/Users/Sam/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/29S7LYAT/email.mht

Von Bergen, C. W., Bressler, M. S., & Campbell, K. (2014). The sandwich feedback method: Not very tasty. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 7(9), 1-13. https://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/141831.pdf