New research from Stanford Graduate School of Business suggests that employees want their leaders to respond to feedback, but not too quickly. The studies found that when bosses change their behavior rapidly after receiving feedback, they may be seen as insincere or inauthentic, even if the changes are made with good intentions.
“People want these changes to happen, but when the changes happen too quickly, people find fault in the leader making them,” said Francis Flynn, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Flynn conducted the research alongside Danbee Chon, assistant professor at University of South Florida Muma College of Business and former postdoctoral fellow at Stanford GSB, and Ovul Sezer, assistant professor at Cornell SC Johnson College of Business.
Chon added: “The fact that proactively improving in response to feedback – but doing so too quickly – could result in perceptions of inauthenticity puts leaders in a difficult, double-bind situation.”
Flynn noted that he first became aware of this paradox while coaching executives who were concerned about appearing “a little bit phony” if they changed their workplace behavior suddenly following evaluations. The research supports this intuition. While previous advice has emphasized prompt responses to employee feedback, Flynn and his colleagues demonstrated through several studies that quick behavioral shifts—especially those seen as difficult—may undermine trust and respect among employees.
This effect is described as an “authenticity penalty.” If employees feel their boss’s response was insincere or rushed, they may become less willing to offer feedback in the future. “If people feel like their feedback has been taken seriously before, they’re more motivated to offer it again,” Flynn said. “But if they think that the reaction they got the last time around was insincere, why would they feel motivated to contribute more feedback later?”
One study focused on doctoral students at research universities who were asked how they would react if advisors implemented suggested leadership improvements either rapidly or gradually. Students tended to describe rapid changes with words like “disingenuous” and “duplicitous,” while gradual changes were called “thoughtful” and “genuine.”
Another study involved participants rating a fictitious manager named Taylor who responded to leadership assessment feedback by attempting challenging tasks such as coaching others. Again, gradual changes were viewed as more authentic than rapid ones.
A third study tested whether people judge leaders differently based on how hard a change appears. Participants evaluated a manager named Mark who attempted either an easy or difficult behavioral change at different speeds. When Mark made an easy change quickly, he was considered responsive; for difficult changes done quickly, participants judged him less authentic and less responsive.
The researchers concluded that employees often believe genuine change takes time and effort. As Chon explained: “Leaders thinking about how to enact change may want to consider that how they judge their own sense of authenticity may not be how their employees evaluate these behavior changes.”
Flynn advised leaders trying to make positive changes should communicate openly about the difficulty involved: “People don’t know what you’re going through to effect change,” he said. “They’re just using time as a proxy for effort or some investment of other personal resources.”
He added: “If there’s one thing this research shows… it’s that you’re not going to get the benefit of the doubt.”
The original story was published by Stanford Graduate School of Business.
