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

read more "The shit sandwich"

Working overtime

Participant average weekly work hours (StackOverflow, 2019).

Most people who work on projects will be familiar with being under the pump towards the end of the project when everything is rush-rush-rushing towards delivering before deadline... and avoiding late penalties. Everyone on the team throws all they have at completion, including late nights and weekends, in order to get the job done.

This project focus applies to many fields, including software development where 100 hour weeks is not uncommon (Heath, 6 August 2019).

We know that prolonged overtime makes us less productive. We know that we start to lose our edge if we try to keep working punishing hours without a break. We know that error rates increase the longer we work.

With huge hours, we might also assume that people might start to lose job satisfaction, but that doesn't seem to be so, according to the latest StackOverflow (2019) survey of 90,000 developers. The survey appears to find "no significant spike in job dissatisfaction among devs working 60 hours a week, with satisfaction levels not really dropping off until developers hit 80-hour weeks" (Heath, 6 August 2019).

But there might something more going on behind the prima facie apparent high satisfaction with huge hours. It appears that 52% of developers don't average more than 44 hours each week, and in fact 65% of developers work 44 hours each week or fewer (see accompanying image).

Only 2% of developers work over 70 hours a week, and this tiny group may be skewing the results. Heath (6 August 2019) reports:

Julia Silge, data scientist for Stack Overflow, says a complicating factor in interpreting the data is that "some of the types of developers who work long hours are also among those who earn the most and also have the highest job satisfaction". The Stack Overflow survey found these high earners typically reported being "very or highly satisfied" with their role, as was the case for 77% of senior executives, 70% of engineering managers, 69% of site reliability engineers, 68% of data scientists and 68% of DevOps specialists.

So. Some love the long hours, and their love of their work keeps them engaged.

It is always wise to cross-tab the data :-)


Sam

References:

• Heath, N. (6 August 2019). Are developers honestly happy working 60-hour weeks? Why it's bad news whatever your programming language. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/are-developers-honestly-happy-working-60-hour-weeks-why-its-bad-news-whatever-your-programming-language/
• StackOverflow (2019). Developer Survey. Retrieved from https://stackoverflow.count.co/share/ZoZKhHvXIurDk0WARlhOD

read more "Working overtime"

Adulting 101

Leading others can leave us open to temptations to shortcut things which we know we shouldn't shortcut. Things which we normally wouldn't skimp on may become less important in an immediate crisis, and we can behave in a more "expedient" way than we usually would.

In a recent TechRepublic article, five elements were listed as ways which project managers could commit career suicide. In summary, the ways were: (a) being rude; (b) lying; (c) gossiping; (d) playing favourites; and (e) getting too attached to outcomes. I found this list interesting: it was all unprofessional behaviour. It is almost like we need a code of conduct for being professional in the workplace. In particular, items (d) and (e) were about losing our objectivity (Alexander, 9 April 2019).

While the TechRepublic article was a list of don'ts, I think we work better with a list of "dos". Further, values are often easier for us to digest than rules. Values give us more elbow room to explore the spirit of what we should do. Following are some values which I find helpful in the workplace:

• Honesty. Try to be absolutely straightforward with everybody. Check our facts. Try to separate the outcomes from the process. Ask ourselves why we are so attached. Be honest with ourselves about our own performance.
• Dignity. Allow everyone their own dignity, and do nothing that may contribute to them losing their composure. That means not gossiping, not running others down, and not spreading "I heard that..." rumours. It means not back-stabbing, or playing hidden agenda games.
• Respect. Treat everyone with the respect we would show our potential parents-in-law on first meeting them. Give others the opportunity to speak. Listen politely. Assume they have something interesting to contribute of immense value. Thank people.
• Humility. Say when we are wrong. Don't assume we will get it right all the time: allow ourselves our own mistakes. But when we make a mistake, own it, and do our best to put it right. If we are rude to someone (intentionally or unintentionally), we apologise.

Being professional in the workplace is not easy: we will all feel that warm wash of shame from time to time. But the earlier we own our own failures, the faster we can learn from them.

Adulting 101 :-)


Sam

• Reference: Alexander, M. (9 April 2019). Top 5 ways tech leaders can ruin their reputations. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/top-5-ways-tech-leaders-can-ruin-their-reputations/

read more "Adulting 101"

Book Review: Sarah Knight

I am not usually a huge fan of self-help books. However, two great reads inhaled over the past few weeks include Sarah Knight's "The Life-Changing Magic of Not Giving a F*ck", and the sequel, "Get Your Sh*t Together: How to Stop Worrying About What You Should Do So You Can Finish What You Need to Do and Start Doing What You Want to Do (A No F*cks Given Guide)". Both simple, clear and irreverent: nicely told tales of why we should learn to say no, and learn to create careful - and respectful - boundaries.

Many might think that the advice may turn us into 'take' people, à la Adam Grant (2012). But that is not the case. Neither book is a treatise on selfishness, but have been written for self-discovery. Life is busy, and if we are to stay healthy, we need to prioritise what is important, and what is less so. Active decision-making will get us closer to what we really want to get from life than passive drifting. Also, neither book is so formulaic that we cannot relate the concepts to our personal and work lives.

KonMari acolytes will find these difficult, as these books shamelessly poke fun at the KonMari craze of thanking your worldly possessions before relegating them to the rubbish tip (read my thoughts on the Mari Kondo method here).

While I bought the first book, I luckily was able to check the second one out as a talking book from my local South Island Library Service. It was great to hear the author read this herself. If you have not run across Sarah Knight yet, you can watch her TEDx Talk here:



She's a hoot. Have a read - or a listen - and think about how to take ourselves less seriously.


Sam

References:

• Grant, A. M. (2013). Give and Take: the hidden social dynamics of success. USA: Penguin Group.
• Knight, S. (2016). Get Your Sh*t Together: How to Stop Worrying About What You Should Do So You Can Finish What You Need to Do and Start Doing What You Want to Do (A No F*cks Given Guide). USA: Emergency Biscuit Ltd (Little, Brown & Company).
• Knight, S. (2015). The Life-Changing Magic of Not Giving a F*ck: How to Stop Spending Time You Don't Have with People You Don't Like Doing Things You Don't Want to Do. USA: Emergency Biscuit Ltd (Little, Brown & Company).
• Knight, S. (2015). TEDx CoconutGrove: The Magic of Not Giving a F***. Retrieved 30 September 2017 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwRzjFQa_Og
• Kondo, M. (2014). The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing. USA: Ten Speed Press

read more "Book Review: Sarah Knight"

Behaviours that define a great work colleague

I read an interesting post that defined a great work colleague, posted on the CareerBliss website, and written by Ritika Trikha on 15 July 2013. The post was flagged to me via a LinkedIn comment on the US National Career Development LinkedIn group by Summer Dawson.

Ritika listed her top nine characteristics for what made for a harmonious open office environment: that we all need to step upand help each other out; we need to be generous with praise and give credit where it is due; we need to check on people's availability before interrupting them; we need to share our schedules with each other; we need to be emotionally intelligent in our workspaces; we need to keep the volume down; we need to share our favours around and not be cliquey; we should avoid gossiping (that phrase of my Mother's comes back to me of "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all");and SMILE. Say Hi. Create conversation.

A great, simple set of office etiquette guidelines.

Summer thought these tips would make a great poster. So I have created a simple one, which is downloadable here (click image, once open, right mouse, then 'save').

• Reference: Trikha, Ritika (15 July 2013). 9 Ways to Be a Great Coworker Everyday. USA: CareerBliss. Retrieved 28 August 2013 from http://www.careerbliss.com/advice/8-ways-to-be-a-great-coworker-everyday/?goback=.gde_2115428_member_266475047#!

Sam

read more "Behaviours that define a great work colleague"

Developer Bob - Outsourcing Your Job

Have you heard of Developer Bob? He's the guy whose story Iain Thomson broke on 16 January 2013 in the UK's Register, reporting on the 2012 security audit of a US 'critical' infrastructure company. The audit found that the firm's top performing coder had "outsourced his own job to a Chinese subcontractor" (Thomson, 2013).

He was found out by a check of the company's VPN logs (Virtual Private Network), pinging up a "regular series of logins to the company's main server from Shenyang, China, using [Bob's] credentials". The IT gurus thought that Bob's PC had been co-opted by a hacker or was being set up for a 'zero day malware' attack, and were worried. They didn't suspect Bob, but got permission watch and monitor Bob's activity so as to catch the ghost in their system (Thomson, 2013).

Boy, was everyone surprised! Thomson reported that the IT guys discovered that Bob had "hired a software consultancy in Shenyang to do his programming work for him, and had FedExed them his two-factor authentication token so they could log into his account. He was paying them a fifth of his six-figure salary to do the work and spent the rest of his time on other activities" (2013).

Some deeper digging turned up that Bob was not only doing this work for this employer: he had taken jobs with other companies, cranking out a very nice income for himself indeed. But what caught the public imagination was when the company eventually pieced together Bob's 'typical' day at work: "9:00 a.m. – Arrive and surf Reddit for a couple of hours. Watch cat videos 11:30 a.m. – Take lunch 1:00 p.m. – Ebay time 2:00-ish p.m – Facebook updates, LinkedIn 4:30 p.m. – End-of-day update e-mail to management 5:00 p.m. – Go home" (Thomson, 2013). The cat videos have sparked a lot of online me-too comments, articles and blog posts.

Nice work if you can get it, eh. Unfortunately Bob isn't getting it any more. He is no longer with the company.

Interestingly, many people seem to feel that Developer Bob is a Robin Hood character. David Futrelle reported for Time on 18 January 2013 that many people in the US were wishing they had done what Bob had; "fantasizing about outsourcing [their] own job". He went on to relate what Arden, a commenter on Gawker (an online media and blog site), had said: "So when a corporation outsources your job, it’s just Capitalism and sorry but that’s how things work, get used to it. But when YOU outsource your OWN job, well that’s wrong and bad and you’re fired now and you shouldn’t be lazy. Smell that? That’s the smell of good old fashioned American Hypocrisy" (Futrelle, 2013).

Futrelle went on to say that "every company who outsources jobs to foreign workers who are willing to work for less is doing" the same (2013). However, he also pointed out that the difference between a company outsourcing tasks and Bob's endeavours; that when companies outsource work, the shareholders - sometimes - get the benefit. Bob got the outsourcing benefits himself, not passing those benefits on (2013).

But perhaps Bob's consistently high performance achievements (Thomson, 2013) gave others in the organisation something to strive for. At least he will have lots of time to update his LinkedIn profile now, and to catch up on all those cat videos.


Sam

References:

• Futrelle, D. (18 January 2013). Developer Bob and His Illicit Work-Around: What’s Wrong With Outsourcing Your Own Job to China? Time (Business & Money). http://business.time.com/2013/01/18/developer-bob-and-his-illicit-work-around-whats-wrong-with-outsourcing-your-own-job-to-china/
• Quan, K. (17 January 2013). Business Developer Outsources Job to China so He Can Watch Cat Videos. Time. http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/17/developer-outsources-job-to-china-so-he-can-watch-cat-videos/
• Thomson, I. (16 January 2013). Security audit finds dev OUTSOURCED his JOB to China to goof off at work. The Register. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/16/developer_oursources_job_china/

read more "Developer Bob - Outsourcing Your Job"