Innovation requires that feedbacks be precise and objective as well as aligned with clear criteria - so that people can use these to leap forward and risk vulnerability. In traditional organizations, where an old guard clings to bureaucracy, feedbacks are often used to serve and sustain that system. Some might see a call for tone skills that build goodwill with those who disagree, as watering down reviews, or asking all to agree. The opposite is true. Tone skills fuel intelligence-fair feedbacks from many opposing views, in ways that drive the best ideas forward. Many participants can make offerings and help shape others' contributions, so top talents get facilitated and sometimes integrated across traditional silos, into top inventions and approaches . It's a bit like using feedback to project ideas forward, for mutual benefits.
In order to collaborate well, we must learn skills to rate well. True collaborate will require honesty, integrity and sheer skill to rate all components according to an accurate and objective measuring rod that prospers recipients, and extends innovation opportunities.
Intelligence-fair feedbacks leave an entire community moving forward! The assessor gains wisdom through understanding the innovations illustrated, and the recipient gains from support and further suggestions. Where that fails to happen, the problem is likely that feedbacks grew unfair and disconnected to intelligent outputs. Have you seen it happen where you work?
Evaluations can create a winning endpoint when people feel their work was valued in a fair, open, and transparent way - so they can use mistakes as stepping stones forward.
The organization wins also, as in Wegmans' case where they are voted in as highest place to work - with Forbes - year after year.
As I think more about assessment, and years of reflection has gone into this topic (with a book published on intelligence fair evaluations in 1999) I think the innovation metaphor is the device and approach used in the Chilean mine collapse. It means a great deal to me as I worked extensively with amazing leaders in several parts of Chile, including their top university in Santiago.
That said, I see feedbacks for innovation in similar ways to the recent miner rescue:
1). People at the center!
2). Shared talent for technology to make it happen
3). Networking and a crowd that cheers on mutual dividends
4). Results bear integrity for the greater good, and motivation for success
5). Shared credit for bravery, care, purpose, and passion
6. Honesty is stories about what will work best, why, and how it can be achieved.
7). No interest evident in diminishing some to help others
8). All actions steered toward one shared innovative outcome
9). A sense of urgency for a broken system that stoked adequate investments
10). Transparency in how the innovation was created and then used
How could our innovations bear the care and curiosity building of the instruments created by a talented group to bring good from a terrible disaster that could have meant death to 33 valuable men?
We have talented leaders, potential investments, motivation for success, and a caring community – concerned about the desperate need for a rejuvenated management approach. How could we make it happen together like the Chilean people recently modeled?
People who support unfair feedbacks, in spite of objections, sometimes argue that to alter unfair assessments may result in getting soft. However feedbacks built on shared criteria, and completed with ethical guidelines literally offer more opportunities for growth and productivity.
The reason we have poor feedbacks may be because we have yet to collaborate as innovators on how feedbacks can be crafted in intelligence-fair ways. Approaches, that rate accurately, with people as capital and agreed-upon quality as a target. Assessments should be tools for growth, and offer prompts for higher motivation as well as achievemnt.
These shared criteria should guide the feedbacks and approaches in all instances. Until that happens, intelligent fair assessments are not possible, and innovative development will be stunted. .
Questions that make feedback or evaluation more intelligence-fair, based on how brainpower works to improve performance:
1). Did feedback show areas that were strong, and suggest insights to stoke weaker areas?
2). Is feedback unbiased – so that it was offered based on the ideas rather than hidden agendas?
3). Was there opportunity for person being graded to respond and exchange ideas?
4. Was feedback transparent so that recipient and donor could agree on outcomes?
5. Did all feedback equal evidence to show why feedback was high or low related to a person's talents?
6. Were conflicts of interest removed so that low grade to one did not equal high grade to another?
7. Were criteria amplified to show clearly what was being evaluated, and then how it was graded?
8. Did feedback illustrate a supportive leadership to help promote the ideas at the end?
9. Did specific prompts encourage affirmations of ideas, as well as show improvement areas?
10. Would folks who vulnerably posted their innovations, know how others rated them?