How to communicate effectively in graduate advising

Incoming graduate students may be used to receiving feedback on their written work passively, without requirements for following up and improving their work (Boud and Molloy 2013). Indeed, graduate research supervision is one of the few situations in higher education where multiple loops of feedback comments and revision are the norm, which reflects that learning to critically evaluate and improve one’s own work is a central skill in becoming a scientist. For feedback to be effective, the student needs to (1) know the relevant standards, (2) compare those standards to their own work, and (3) take action to close the gap between the two (Sadler 1989). The advisor’s task is not only to provide comments on the student’s work but also to ensure that the student follows up on them and to monitor the effect; the advisor thus learns from the response and, if necessary, adapts the way feedback is provided (Boud and Molloy 2013).

Students may need guidance to become active learners who take responsibility for understanding what is required of them and whether their work meets the expectations within their scientific field (Boud and Molloy 2013). Once students understand the standards of the discipline and the reasons why they should adhere to them, they are likely to agree that it is much better to get constructively critical comments early on than to get them later, for example at their defense, when it may be too late to address them. As graduate advisors, we are also role models in how to invite and learn from feedback.

Feedback is a process that involves both positive and negative emotions (Molloy et al. 2012). Feedback, along with other forms of recognition, comes in five flavors (Napper and Newton 2014; Temple 2016), as illustrated in Fig. 1: (1) Unconditional positive feedback, or acceptance; (2) conditional positive feedback, or approval; (3) conditional negative feedback, or disapproval; (4) unconditional negative feedback, or rejection; and (5) no feedback, or discount. Indeed, graduate advisors may think that if they say nothing, it indicates that all is well and that the student is on the right track. However, a student may feel ignored, slighted, or rejected by a lack of communication and may interpret it as not being considered worthy of the advisor’s attention.

There is a direct link between feedback types and the goal of developing the student’s competence and confidence in doing research (see companion paper): confidence does not result from competence alone but from the combination of competence and self-esteem. Conditional feedback, which is specific to the student’s work, helps build competence, whereas unconditional feedback either builds (positive) or undermines (negative) self-esteem (Napper and Newton 2014; Fig. 1).

Advisors spend a lot of time and energy on providing feedback, for example on draft versions of presentations, reports, and manuscripts. The majority of this feedback is often negative conditional: marking up text for improvement, though meant constructively, signals to students that their work was not good enough. Sometimes students will take conditional negative feedback personally and feel rejected (“I’m inadequate”), which undermines their self-esteem. This can be avoided by framing critical remarks as positive suggestions: focus on what is wanted rather than what is not wanted. For instance, one might say “You can help readers follow your argument by breaking up this long and complex sentence into several short sentences”, rather than saying “This sentence is much too long”. This positive way is most likely to be effective and can be further enhanced by topping it up with some authentic positive, conditional or unconditional recognition.

It is important to balance conditional negative feedback by authentic positive, conditional or unconditional feedback, or it may come across as destructive and fault-finding. The “feedback sandwich” (Docheff 1990) provides an easy-to-remember formula: start with something positive (bread), provide conditional negative feedback (nutritious filling), end with something positive (more bread), and adapt the ratio of bread to filling to the student’s present ability to digest criticism. It is important to keep the positive feedback authentic and personalized to the individual (Napper and Newton 2014): students may sense rather accurately whether the positive comments are authentic or just a formula. This is communicated largely through nonverbal communication.

Some details in wording can make a big difference in helping students learn from feedback. For instance, the word “but” implies criticism, and it effectively negates what was said before. We can turn the connotation from criticism to praise by replacing “but” with “and” (Hyland and Hyland 2001). Another strategy is to make positive conditional feedback personal and negative conditional feedback impersonal. Instead of saying “The manuscript is much improved, but you need to work on your grammar and style”, it is better to say “You did a great job on this revision, I like how you developed the story line. [Pause]. I think the next step would be to review grammar and style. [Specific comments]”. The last sentence applied two additional strategies (Hyland and Hyland 2001): turning the criticism into a suggestion, and phrasing it as a personal view instead of a fact.

Students who are new to a field or task (Enthusiastic Beginners; see companion paper) have yet to learn things that are likely are second nature to their advisor. This includes making connections between textbook knowledge and the specific context of a research project, learning about disciplinary standards, learning how to do things and why they are done in a specific way, or learning how to solve open-ended problems and develop new skills independently. Students who are new to a task often over-estimate their own skill level (Kruger and Dunning 1999), which may indicate that they do not fully understand what is expected.

Each graduate student’s learning journey is different, and what may seem self-evident to the expert may be a significant piece of learning for the novice. Enthusiastic Beginners may be encouraged to keep a log of their significant learning experiences, reflecting on their personal “aha” moments: it does not matter how big or small they are, the only criterion is that they are meaningful for the student. To ensure that the experience is fully processed, Worksheet D (Supplementary Material) provides a template that follows the sequence of Kolb’s experiential learning model (Kolb 2014): Experience, Reflection, Analysis, and Action Plan. In our experience, inviting students to periodically share a synthesis of their reflections can help the advisor to better understand each student’s individual learning journey, celebrate their initial achievements, ensure that significant learning is occurring and appropriately processed, and gauge when a student is ready for more information.

Worksheet D (Supplementary Material) provides a template for supporting a student who is stuck in the Discouraged Learner stage. When a learner gets stuck, this is often related to a discount of a problem at one of four levels (Mellor and Schiff 1975; Macefield and Mellor 2006) that match the four elements of the experiential learning cycle (Napper and Newton 2014): the existence of a problem (Experience), its personal significance (Reflection), its solvability (Analysis), or the personal capacity to solve the problem (Action Plan). To overcome the obstacle, it is useful to work through the four levels sequentially: before the existence of a problem and its personal significance are acknowledged, discussions about possible solutions and one’s personal capacity to act on them tend to be fruitless.

We have often observed that students in the Discouraged Learner stage will blame themselves for their apparent failure to overcome a challenge; they may feel ashamed and literally vanish. The key is for them to realize that their emotional experience is part of the process of learning, and it is not “just them” (see companion paper). Once they have identified the real problem and understood how it is affecting them, they will often manage to come up with possible solutions for a way forward.

The key challenge for the advisor is to let students work through the problem themselves and not provide suggestions or answers. The first step is to create the conditions where the student can open up about their emotional experience; for example by sharing the learning model or by stating simple observations of the student’s behavior in encouraging nonjudgmental ways, as illustrated in Case Study 1 (Box 1). Then, the advisor listens patiently and asks open questions as required (active listening; Johnson 2014). Before moving to solutions, the advisor ascertains that the student has named what is really going on for them, what the root problem is, why it is important, and how it is affecting the student personally. Then, the advisor invites the student to list several possible solutions, after which the advisor may add some more from their own experience or imagination—it does not matter whether these are feasible or not, the point is to show that there are alternative options. Finally, the student chooses which way to go, and the advisor helps break it down into small manageable steps. The advisor asks the student to identify the next small step and commit to it and to a deadline, then follows up on it and offers authentic praise and appreciation when the student has completed it.

We can only invite students to open up about their challenges; we cannot require them to do so. If a Discouraged Learner seems uneasy to discuss an issue with their main advisor, the advisor may suggest that the student speak with another person, such as a committee member or graduate coordinator. Finally, a student experiencing a crisis situation may need to be referred to professional counseling services.

Once graduate students have developed the necessary skills to perform a task, the next step is for them to develop the confidence that they can do the task independently and trust their own judgment (Cautious Performers). Doing the thinking for them, by providing detailed, specific feedback on their work, for example, is counter-productive at this stage. The advisor can help students develop their own judgment by asking learning questions that invite students to state their own thoughts (Worksheet D in the Supplementary Material). The advisor thus refrains from commenting on a student’s work but may comment on the student’s own evaluation.

While Self-reliant Achievers require little supervision, they do need to feel appreciated for their work (Blanchard et al. 1985). Inviting them to identify their strengths and successful strategies can help build confidence and turn previous learning experiences into important resources for future learning (Jackson and McKergow 2007; Kluger and Nir 2009).

Positive recognition, such as praise or appreciation, is a powerful motivator that is surprisingly undervalued. This is true for learners at all stages, and indeed, we have observed that students are often shocked to learn that their advisors are also human beings who have a need for recognition. There is an important distinction between praise (e.g., “Well done!”) and appreciation (e.g., “You have stated your objectives very clearly”). Praise implies judgment and is often unspecific, so that it provides little useful information for repeating what was done well and for generalizing to other situations. Appreciation expresses a positive awareness about an aspect of a person or of what someone has done (Kline 2009). Personal, specific, truthful, and sincere appreciation helps students to recognize and own their specific achievements. This can support students in becoming less dependent on recognition from others (Case Study 1). One participant of a graduate student workshop, once aware of the issue, decided deliberately to wean themself off the need for constant praise to adapt to the professional world within and beyond academia.

Why would we rather say nothing than offer praise or appreciation if positive recognition is so useful? We are taught to follow rules in how we give and receive recognition (Table 1) that are passed on as cultural norms (Steiner 1971, 2003). For instance, we may hesitate to give praise to peers or superiors to avoid “putting ourselves above them”. Other cultures may have different norms, often involving the requirement for “saving face” in relationships and showing respect for authority (Dimitrov 2009). Becoming aware of cultural norms and their potential negative impact is the first step to changing our behavior and becoming more effective through offering and accepting sincere appreciation.

In our experience, “people are not their behaviors” is a useful presupposition for effective communication. Sometimes, when we become thoroughly frustrated with each other, this notion is hard to accept for advisors and for graduate students alike. Labeling people, or challenging the person instead of challenging their behavior, leads to ineffective communication. If we accept that humans have the fundamental ability to learn, then it follows that people cannot be defined by their behaviors, because transformative learning (Mezirow 1997; see companion paper) will affect behavior. Also, how we make sense of a situation has a lot to do with our prior experiences, and an advisor and a student may experience and interpret the same situation very differently.

On a basic level, the perspective on the world—i.e., the set of assumptions through which we understand our experiences and which shape and limit our expectations, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings (Mezirow 1997)—can be characterized by four life positions (Berne 1962) as described in Fig. 1. Clearly, we will experience the same situation differently from each of these different positions.

Consider how you might respond if a graduate student bursts into tears. Figure 1 illustrates the four positions you could take, based on your attitudes toward yourself and toward the student (Ernst 1971; Napper and Newton 2014): do you consider the student to be capable (“You’re OK”) or not capable (“You’re not OK”) of working through whatever caused their emotional upset? Do you consider yourself to be capable (“I’m OK”) or not capable (“I’m not OK”) of responding to the situation and supporting the student in working through it? In such a situation, it is crucial to consciously move to an “I’m OK, you’re OK” position and assume that both are fundamentally capable of dealing with the situation and addressing the underlying issue—if not right now then at the next meeting.

The four positions have different emotional qualities and tend to result in different behaviors that are related to the basic ways by which humans respond to a perceived threat (Ernst 1971; Fig. 2). Unlike “Fight” (“I’m OK, you’re not OK”), “Flee” (“I’m not OK, you’re OK), and “Freeze” (“I’m not OK, you’re not OK”), only “Flow”-type behavior (“I’m OK, you’re OK”) is productive. Staying in any of the other positions may eventually lead to problems, such as open conflict, drop-out, or mental health issues.

While we may have a tendency to take one of the positions more often than others, we are likely to move between them more often than we realize, even during the course of a conversation. Switches between Fight and Flee are common (e.g., passive-aggressive behavior), and expecting to be in Flow all the time would be unrealistic. Indeed, each position has its use in situations where the relationship has become unhealthy (Heiller and Sills 2010). Recognizing which of the four positions we are in at any specific moment may thus provide useful information about what is going on and provide a clue for how to get back into a constructive Flow position (Worksheet E in the Supplementary Material): (1) When I’m finding myself in Fight, this may indicate that something does not work for me and I perceive the need to establish a boundary. Can I name it and voice it in a constructive, nonconfrontational manner? (2) When I’m finding myself in Flee, this may indicate that I’m feeling vulnerable or unsafe, and I perceive a need to protect myself. Can I voice this in a constructive, assertive manner? (3) When I’m finding myself stuck in Freeze, this may indicate that we have reached a dead end and that it is time to acknowledge and accept the situation as it is. From there, new options will likely emerge. (4) Once back in Flow, I keep assessing the situation on an ongoing basis and focus on the common goals: how can we use the dynamic tension between desired outcomes and current reality to move forward (Emerald 2009)?

Rather than analyzing the behavior of others, it is advisable to check that we are ourselves communicating from a Flow position. Otherwise, a student is likely to respond to a mismatch between the explicit, verbal message and a possibly contradictory, nonverbal (hidden) message. There are many reasons why someone may not be in Flow, and it is helpful to learn to understand ourselves: How do I recognize when I’m not in Flow? What may trigger me to move out of Flow? What position am I likely to go to? What strategies could help me move back into Flow? To move to a Flow position, I may remind myself what I like about a student and reflect on the student’s particular strengths before focusing on their specific challenges. Note that if I find myself consistently unable to take an “I’m OK, you’re OK” (Flow) position regarding a student, it may be time to actively end the supervisory relationship as it will likely not benefit the student.

It is often helpful to pay attention to body language and learn to recognize the signs of Fight, Flee, or Freeze (Fig. 2) in our students (Case Study 2); which of the three positions a student is in at any given moment is less important. The key is that they are not in Flow, so after checking that we’re in Flow ourselves, we may then focus on helping the student find a way back to a Flow position, as constructive collaboration is only possible from there. The Functional Fluency model (Temple 2004, 2015) provides several options for communicating effectively from a Flow position. The model offers a behavioral map with a menu for choosing how to interact in a way that is mutually beneficial.

The Functional Fluency model (Temple 2004, 2015) is a model of human social behavior that can help us stay in Flow, or to find a way back there. The three basic categories of the model, which further divide into five elements, involve social responsibility, reality assessment, and self-actualization (Fig. 3). This makes the model relevant to both everyday and professional communication.

The “Accounting” element (Fig. 3, center) is an internal cognitive activity. The value-free way in which we use energy for Accounting is alert, aware, rational, and evaluative. Accounting is the term for the way in which we are constantly assessing the reality of our situation, though we are not necessarily aware of this. Being attuned to our inner and outer reality in the moment, we take a huge range of things into account to help us decide both what to do next and how to do it; whether to choose positive modes for responding rather than negative modes for reacting.

The “Being in Charge’” elements (Fig 3, top) refer to the two ways that we use energy on others’ behalf (and on our own) when we are in a role that carries social responsibility and authority. The “Guiding and Directing” element can be “Structuring” (positive: inspiring, well-organized, firm) or “Dominating” (negative: bossy, fault-finding, punitive). The “Looking after People” element can be “Nurturing” (positive: accepting, understanding, compassionate) or “Marshmallowing” (negative: overindulgent, inconsistent, smothering), making four “Being in Charge” modes to choose from.

The “Being Myself” elements (Fig 3, bottom) refer to the two ways that we use energy on our own behalf when we are not in a role with social responsibility. The “Relating to Others” element can be “Cooperative” (positive: friendly, assertive, considerate) or “Compliant/Resistant” (negative: anxious, rebellious, submissive). The “Doing my own Thing” element can be “Spontaneous” (positive: creative, expressive, zestful) or “Immature” (negative: egocentric, reckless, selfish). There are thus four “Being Myself” modes to choose from.

Functional Fluency is the term for healthy and positive ways of communicating using an appropriate blend of the five positive behavioral modes (Fig. 3) to respond effectively to different situations in real life, as illustrated with Case Study 2 (Box 2). On a bad day, and especially when we are not in Flow, we may slip into using the negative modes. That is when old habits can trip us up and we react rather than respond, which is often counter-productive. Many times, we are not aware that this reaction has more to do with the past than the present.

We can increase the effectiveness of Structuring and Nurturing by combining them in appropriate balance depending on the situation. As advisors, we may think that our main task is Structuring. However, if we do not balance Structuring with Nurturing, our behavior is likely to be perceived as Dominating, which undermines self-esteem. Likewise, Nurturing without appropriate Structuring can easily have a counter-productive effect of Marshmallowing, which impedes competence building (Fig. 3). Communicating with Cooperative and Spontaneous modes can help bridge the power gap and encourage students to take responsibility (Case Study 2). This may help them find a way back into a Flow position (Fig. 2).

In summary, it is not only what we say that matters, but how we say it. Authentic, congruent communication that encourages students and inspires them to learn, to be creative, and to succeed is only possible from a Flow position (Fig. 2). From there, using our Accounting facility we can choose to communicate with a blend of Structuring, Nurturing, Cooperative, and Spontaneous behaviors appropriate to the situation (Fig. 3). Dominating with criticism, threats, or warnings and a lack of empathy and encouragement may leave students feeling discouraged or persecuted, and this may keep them from focusing on their work. Marshmallowing with too much help and attention and a lack of clear expectations and inspiration lets students off the hook. This leaves them dependent and they may feel discouraged or helpless. As a result, Dominating and Marshmallowing may fuel conflict.

We may think that our conflicts are unique and that they result from personal incompatibilities. However, we have observed that many conflicts between advisors and graduate students share a common pattern, and are often triggered by typical situations that are part of the advising process. Recognizing the pattern is a big step toward stepping out of the unproductive and emotionally taxing dynamics known as the “Drama Triangle”. The Drama Triangle (Karpman 1969, 2014; Fig. 4, bottom) is a model of the counter-productive interactions between people in conflict, where each person moves between the three roles of Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer.

Dominating behaviors (Fig. 3) by the advisor invite the student into a Victim position, where the student perceives the advisor as Persecutor, whereas Marshmallowing behaviors often accompany Rescuing. Case Study 3 (Box 3) provides an example with the theme of “feedback gone wrong” that, based on our experience, may be observed daily in many departments. Typical characteristics of such Drama Triangle dynamics are the frequent switching of positions, which happens without the awareness of the participants, and high emotional intensity. Indeed, paying attention to our emotions, our bodily sensations and the other person’s nonverbal communication may be the best ways to spot this type of conflict and bring it into awareness. It is not helpful to analyze the dynamics themselves, but rather to recognize them and to actively step out of the pattern, using positive modes of behavior (Fig. 3). Often, we will only be able to do so after the fact, when we have regained our composure.

Let’s shift focus from the Drama Triangle as the problem to its proposed antidote, “Empowerment Dynamics” (Emerald 2009). Empowerment Dynamics provides a model for effective collaboration where we flexibly and consciously move between the roles of Creator, Challenger, and Coach (Fig. 4, top), as illustrated in the continuation of Case Study 3 (Box 4). This involves shifting from a Victim orientation (focused on problems and based on anxiety) to a Creator orientation, where we focus on where we want to go and reconnect with our passion. The dynamic tension between our current reality assessment and the desired outcomes helps propel us forward to take the next small steps in the right direction (Emerald 2009; Worksheet F in the Supplementary Material).

Note that if a Discouraged Learner hits a roadblock, it is no good trying to focus on the vision before the student has identified the real problem and acknowledged how it affects them (see Worksheet D in the Supplementary Material). This requires active listening in a nonjudgmental environment where the student feels safe to open up.

It is helpful in this context to distinguish between our here-and-now fears and our fantasized, dire predictions of what may happen to us in the future. The fears are real, and naming them can help shift energy from anxiety toward passion (Thomson 1983). Fear, once it has been named, can signal to us what we need, such as more information to assess risk. When we are anxious we often construct predictions that are typically based on flawed assumptions. Hence, it is often helpful to acknowledge our fear, assess the reality of our predictions, and do some risk assessment using Accounting mode. Doing so means facing considerable uncertainty, as we cannot anticipate the future. However, by focusing on our vision and desired outcomes, we use our energy to move toward them, thus maximizing our ability to achieve our goals.

The following description, reproduced with permission from an email written by a mentee, sums it up very well. Note the initial discount of the significance of the problem (Mellor and Schiff 1975), indicated by the word “unimportant” (quotation marks added below): “The meeting was helpful because initially I was feeling a little lost and was not able to concentrate on my work. When I shared this, I felt much relieved and it was great that you listened to these ‘unimportant’ things carefully. […] Your motivational words, asking whether and how I can adapt to this situation, and our discussion on how I can move forward such as going to the conference and looking for a post-doc helped me to think about and look forward—because earlier I was not thinking about these things but was thinking about the tough time I am going through. As well, I knew that the revision of the manuscript would be a little tough but when I talked with you, I felt that it is going to be easy: I got inspired again”.