Framing Feedback Giving as Advice Giving Yields More Critical and Actionable Input

Jaewon  Yoon; Hayley  Blunden; Ariella  Kristal; A.V.  Whillans

Working Paper | HBS Working Paper Series | 2019

Framing Feedback Giving as Advice Giving Yields More Critical and Actionable Input

by Jaewon Yoon, Hayley Blunden, Ariella Kristal and A.V. Whillans

Abstract

When looking to improve workplace performance, people often seek third-party input by asking for feedback. However, we propose that asking for feedback might not be the most effective way of soliciting critical and actionable input. We offer a simple yet powerful alternative: ask for advice instead. Across four experiments (N=1,438), including a field experiment, we show that people offer more critical and actionable input when they are asked to provide advice (versus feedback)—even when they are asked to provide comments on identical output. When asked to provide feedback (versus advice), givers focus too much on evaluating the recipient, which undermines their ability to generate constructive (i.e. critical and actionable) input. Our findings suggest that framing feedback provision as advice provision may be a promising way of soliciting constructive third-party input.

Keywords: feedback; advice; personal development; evaluative mindset; Performance Improvement; Personal Development and Career;

Language: English

Format: Print

23 pages

Read Now

Citation:

Yoon, Jaewon, Hayley Blunden, Ariella Kristal, and A.V. Whillans. "Framing Feedback Giving as Advice Giving Yields More Critical and Actionable Input." Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 20-021, August 2019.

Supplemental Information

AdviceFeedback_SOM

The policies of most governments focus on improving material prosperity. Yet, wealth only weakly predicts well-being. It is therefore important to understand whether factors other than money shape the happiness of nations. Here, we construct a data set of 79 countries (N = 220,000) and explore whether differences in the prioritization of time (leisure) vs. money (work) explain cross-country differences in happiness. Consistent with our predictions, countries whose citizens value leisure more than work report higher subjective well-being at the country and individual level. These effects hold in high and low GDP countries. Critically, we find evidence for a novel mechanism: people who value leisure over work are less negatively impacted by financial instability. Moving beyond individual welfare, the value that nations place on leisure vs. work fundamentally shapes happiness.

There is a growing debate about whether high-income individuals are more or less generous when income inequality is high. We advance this ongoing conversation by analysing a large and comprehensive data set with approximately one million respondents from 140 countries. In this data set, higher-income individuals who live in countries with greater income inequality are less likely to donate money to charity and are more likely to volunteer than their lower-income counterparts. Higher-income individuals who feel financially insecure or show distrust of others are especially unlikely to donate money to charity under high income inequality. These moderators do not influence rates of volunteering. Together, these results advance the debate regarding whether and when inequality shapes prosocial behaviour.

Over the last two decades, global wealth has risen. Yet, material affluence has not translated into time affluence. Instead, most people today report feeling persistently “time poor”—like they have too many things to do and not enough time to do them. This is critical because time poverty is linked to lower well-being, physical health, and productivity. For example, in our analysis of 2.5 million Americans, subjective feelings of time poverty had a stronger negative effect on well-being than being unemployed. However, individuals, organisations, and policymakers often overlook the pernicious effects of time poverty. Billions of dollars are spent each year to alleviate material poverty, while time poverty is often ignored or exacerbated. In this Perspective, we discuss the organisational, institutional, and psychological factors that explain why time poverty is often under appreciated. We argue that scientists, policymakers, and organisational leaders need to devote more attention and resources toward understanding and reducing time poverty to promote psychological and economic well-being.

Faculty & Research

Framing Feedback Giving as Advice Giving Yields More Critical and Actionable Input

Abstract

Citation:

Supplemental Information

About the Authors

More from these Authors