GM585 Unit 4 Feedback Scenario Response Example

The Same Sourcing Error Three Times: A Unit 4 Feedback Scenario Response for a Tax Associate

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GM585: Mentoring and Coaching

Unit 4 Feedback Scenario Response

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The accounting firm, the associate, the returns and every date are composite and illustrative; the research cited is real.

The Scenario

Jordan is a first-year tax associate at Tanner Pryce, a regional accounting firm. In the last month, three multistate corporate returns Jordan prepared came back from the reviewer with the same error. On each, Jordan sourced receipts from services to the state where the work was performed, which is the cost of performance method, for states that now use market-based sourcing, where receipts are sourced to where the customer receives the benefit. The reviewer's notes on all three say the same thing. Jordan also missed two internal deadlines for first drafts, one by two days and one by four.

I am Jordan's manager. Jordan is well liked, careful with numbers and quiet in team meetings. The next multistate return Jordan is preparing is due to the reviewer on Thursday.

The Conversation as It Would Be Delivered

Purpose. "Jordan, thanks for coming in. I want to talk about the state apportionment on the last three returns, and I want you to leave with one thing to do differently on the Halvern return due Thursday. This should take about fifteen minutes."

The pattern. "Here's what I've seen. On the Brightwater, Coastal and Delmar returns, the reviewer flagged the same thing. Service receipts were sourced to the state where our client's team did the work, which is cost of performance. For three of the states on those returns, the rule is now market-based sourcing, so the receipts go to where the client's customers get the benefit. I have the three review notes here if you want to look at them. On the Delmar return, it moved about $1.2 million of receipts out of a state where they belonged, which would have understated that state's tax. The reviewer caught it each time, so no return went out wrong. Separately, the first drafts for Coastal and Delmar came in two and four days after the internal dates."

The question. "How do you see what happened on those three returns?"

I would stop there and listen. If Jordan explains that the prior-year workpapers used cost of performance and that the template rolled forward, I would ask, "What did you check when you rolled it forward?" If Jordan says the deadlines slipped because of the rework, I would ask what the rework took.

One specific change. "Here's what I'd like you to do on Halvern. Before you finalize the sales factor, check each state's current sourcing rule for services in the firm's state rules database, and write the rule next to each state in the apportionment workpaper. If you aren't sure about a state, flag it for me by Tuesday afternoon, and I'll go through it with you. That one step would have caught all three."

A date to look together. "Let's look at the Halvern apportionment workpaper together on Wednesday at ten, before it goes to the reviewer. On the deadlines, if you see on Monday that Thursday is at risk, tell me Monday, and we'll sort out what moves. Does that work?"

The spoken part runs to about three hundred words, short enough to deliver in two or three minutes and leave most of the fifteen for Jordan. It is meant to be delivered as written, with room to listen after the question.

The conversation names one rule, one step and one date, since people act more readily on one concrete change than on a list of everything that went wrong.

The Reasoning Behind the Order

Purpose first, in one sentence. Opening with the topic and the outcome avoids a long warm-up that Jordan would spend waiting for the criticism. It also tells Jordan the meeting is about a task, the apportionment step, rather than about Jordan as a person.

The pattern from the returns, not from impressions. Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi's meta-analysis of feedback research found that in over a third of the studies, feedback lowered performance rather than raising it (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Their explanation was that feedback which draws attention to the self, to a person's ability or worth, pulls effort away from the task. I describe what was on the returns, the method used and the rule that applied, and I do not say Jordan is careless or needs to pay more attention. I mention the reviewer catching every error so that the stakes are clear but not overstated.

The question before the solution. Asking how Jordan sees it gives Jordan a chance to explain, and it often reveals the cause. If the template rolled forward a prior-year method, the fix is a check at rollforward, and Jordan may suggest it before I do.

One specific change. I ask for one step, on one return, with a clear way to get help. Feedback that offers a concrete next action is easier to use than feedback that only describes the problem. The deadline issue gets a separate and simpler request, an early warning, because combining it with the technical error would make the conversation feel like a list of failures.

A date to look together. Meeting on Wednesday before the reviewer sees the return gives Jordan a chance to succeed before being judged again, and it shows I am interested in the next return, not only the last three. Andrea Ellinger, Alexander Ellinger and Scott Keller found that employees whose supervisors behaved as coaches reported higher satisfaction and were rated higher on performance (Ellinger et al., 2003). Following up on the next piece of work is one of the plainest coaching behaviors a manager has.

Anticipating How Jordan May Hear It

Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen describe three triggers that block people from taking in feedback: truth triggers, when the feedback seems wrong; relationship triggers, when the reaction is to the person giving it; and identity triggers, when the feedback threatens how people see themselves (Stone & Heen, 2014).

A truth trigger is possible if Jordan believes the prior-year method was correct. Bringing the three review notes and naming the sourcing rule makes the feedback checkable. If Jordan disagrees on a particular state, we can look up the rule together.

A relationship trigger is less likely, since Jordan and I work well together, but Jordan may wonder why I am raising it rather than the reviewer. I would say that the reviewer told me because the pattern repeated, and that my role is to help it stop.

An identity trigger is the most likely. Jordan takes pride in being careful with numbers, and three errors in a row may feel like evidence of not being good at the job. That is why the conversation stays on a method and a step, and why it ends with a plan and a date rather than a judgment. If Jordan seems shaken, I would add that the sourcing rules changed in several states in recent years and that experienced preparers miss it too, which is true and puts the error in proportion.

References

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1078

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). Thanks for the feedback: The science and art of receiving feedback well. Viking.