Great Article @prostoalex.
In our company, we make the Feedback process easily done by using Happierco (www.happierco.com) to keep track of everything than to performance management. And there's always a room to improve the process.
I mean great if it works for you, but the happierco website gives me impressions of dystopian micromanagement on the management end, and performative happiness on the receiving end.
It might be worth asking why they don't want to hear it. Do they feel attacked? Are they suffering from imposter syndrome, and any feedback sets them down a path of low self-esteem? Do they simply not trust that their team has faith in them and is trying to build up a higher level of skills? Or is it actually a flaw, where they think they are right and everyone else is wrong... so you need to address that before you can hit any other points in your feedback.
Almost all communication, and really almost everything in business, go better when everyone thinks about how people on the receiving end will take it. Which is almost always about empathy for their perspective, and understanding the personal drivers and goals of your team.
Let's put aside my own failings of sensitivity and similar. I acknowledge them and that they are a barrier to criticising other people.
If they have rejected what you say then in many cases they don't want to explain why because that gets at the very reason they are rejecting it.
"I wrote it" isn't a valid reason for rejecting an offer of a code review.
"We're using this tech" even though the boss-man mandating it doesn't understand its cost or benefits. He just read an article on XSLT and we have to use it.
"If you run this script every night it'll report those errors in the morning and you can fix them before they hit the customer. Response: "no", and no system was put in place to prevent them.
All real examples. There is no obvious reason for many rejections, and I suspect a lot of the time that's because there is no good reason. If there is, tell me! then I can understand better. But that's rare.
Reasons for human behavior aren't always good reasons... but they are reasons. If you are putting a judgment on their reasons, that in itself is a barrier to good teamwork. Their reasons might be bad, and might stem from their own personality flaws. But they are still the root cause of the problems, so you need to deal with them no matter how silly you may feel they are.
Sometimes people don't even know their own reasons, or don't realize what they are doing. This is where the squishy/warm fuzzy conversations help, as you can talk about what people are really feeling about the team and the work. Analytical folk aren't always good at such conversations, but think of every conversation with your co-workers as if it were a retrospective on your working relationship with them, and it will help.
So let us go through one of your example -- the boss mandates using a tech because he read an article. And you find it to be a bad choice for valid, analytical reasons. So you likely are approaching him with a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, and he may be responding with an underlying attitude of "Screw you, I'm your boss.", because he has a strong ego and you challenged it. So you both are annoyed and ungiving. Instead, maybe go in with a different approach of asking to understand why that tech helps the business, and truly listen to the answers, then compare/contrast your preferred tech with the reasons given. Then the conversation isn't about "Tech X is wrong", it is about underlying reasons and business needs. Which will be less likely to trigger defensive reactions from the boss.
Ultimately, you cannot change other people. But you can change your own approach to other people.
> But they are still the root cause of the problems, so you need to deal with them no matter how silly you may feel they are
I simply cannot disagree. I just do not know how.
> Analytical folk aren't always good at such conversations, but think [...] and it will help
I'll chew over that carefully, thanks.
> So let us go through one of your example...
that was a particularly nasty example for me to give because there was no solution. He would not listen to what I had to say. He thought XSLT was a sort of magic. The cost is still hitting the company years later as they transition away from it. Over that and a related issue, I resigned. Sometimes you must take it on the chin.
I appreciate what you say, and the decent intent behind it and as mentioned will chew it over. Thank you.
Nothing works unless the person on the receiving end thinks you really care about them as a person. If you actually care about the person you are giving feedback to it doesn't matter what you say or do as any approach works (from mere grunting to hours long love-ins). If you don't care then nothing works - that is unless you are one of those rare people who can fake it well.
Not a bad article, but I still want to bring something up that I find problematic with a lot of communication advice.
How to actually act on it in a real situation? How do you remember and apply all these rules when you feel like the timing is off, when you're talking to the person who you know only works here because of weird circumstances and cares more about the opinion of the coworker next to them who always mocks corporate lingo? How do you deliver your delicate feedback in a situation where you both know you own the other guy? This stuff is IMO the thing that seperates the really good talkers from the rest of us - and I was never really able to catch up with such articles who seem to assume a limited number of conditions to adhere to; like an "advice giving robot" to steal their phrase. How do you improve in being an advice giving human?
I try to offer Appreciation when I see something great, or something helped me. I make a point of that.
But I'm reluctant to offer Coaching or Evaluation, and never unsolicited, or on a public forum. I find it difficult to not come across as a dick, and frankly that's how I read anyone else's unsolicited feedback.
As an alternative idealistic view: you have all this awesome knowledge that you have built up over a lifetime that you are now hoarding. No one is perfect and some of your advice might be wrong or otherwise unhelpful; but sharing knowledge and advice allows others to achieve great things that they might have struggled with alone.
What is worse: risking someone thinking you are a dick or allowing someone to needlessly suffer through their problems?
There's sometimes a status/power component associated with feedback. I used to work with someone who tended to make a variety of subtle power plays -- dominating or "guiding" discussions when not the designated leader of the meeting, for example. I noticed that he often gave unsolicited advice, and although it was typically prefaced nicely with "would you mind if I offered some feedback?" I think it tended to also serve as a sort of power/status display. I.e., "I'm an authority on this subject, and in some way superior or more knowledgable than you."
And I had/have quite mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I felt that this person was generally trying to be helpful and improve the situation around them. And feedback/advice can certainly serve that end. Who doesn't want to know how to improve their overall performance, right?
But on the other, to the extent that the power dynamic above was actually in play, unsolicited feedback of this sort only rubbed people the wrong way. Perhaps I was reading too much into it, but thinking back to certain times in my past where I've been the advice giver, I do think there are occasions where my motivations were suspect, where, at the time I thought I was genuinely trying to help someone, but which in retrospect were mostly superiority displays.
I don't have any concrete conclusions to draw from this; just something the article stirred up. I welcome your feedback. ;)
Sometimes the difference is doing it publicly versus privately.
Hey, I noticed in the meeting, you did this, have you thought about trying this?
As someone in consulting for a long period of time, i find people think I'm more genuine if I provide it privately, that way it doesn't come across as a power play.
20 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 49.5 ms ] threadMaybe disclose that you work for them, too.
I'm never-endingly amazed at the degree people don't want to hear. I greatly value the company of those that do, and return the favour.
Almost all communication, and really almost everything in business, go better when everyone thinks about how people on the receiving end will take it. Which is almost always about empathy for their perspective, and understanding the personal drivers and goals of your team.
If they have rejected what you say then in many cases they don't want to explain why because that gets at the very reason they are rejecting it.
"I wrote it" isn't a valid reason for rejecting an offer of a code review.
"We're using this tech" even though the boss-man mandating it doesn't understand its cost or benefits. He just read an article on XSLT and we have to use it.
"If you run this script every night it'll report those errors in the morning and you can fix them before they hit the customer. Response: "no", and no system was put in place to prevent them.
All real examples. There is no obvious reason for many rejections, and I suspect a lot of the time that's because there is no good reason. If there is, tell me! then I can understand better. But that's rare.
(Another rambly answer I'm afraid)
Sometimes people don't even know their own reasons, or don't realize what they are doing. This is where the squishy/warm fuzzy conversations help, as you can talk about what people are really feeling about the team and the work. Analytical folk aren't always good at such conversations, but think of every conversation with your co-workers as if it were a retrospective on your working relationship with them, and it will help.
So let us go through one of your example -- the boss mandates using a tech because he read an article. And you find it to be a bad choice for valid, analytical reasons. So you likely are approaching him with a "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude, and he may be responding with an underlying attitude of "Screw you, I'm your boss.", because he has a strong ego and you challenged it. So you both are annoyed and ungiving. Instead, maybe go in with a different approach of asking to understand why that tech helps the business, and truly listen to the answers, then compare/contrast your preferred tech with the reasons given. Then the conversation isn't about "Tech X is wrong", it is about underlying reasons and business needs. Which will be less likely to trigger defensive reactions from the boss.
Ultimately, you cannot change other people. But you can change your own approach to other people.
I simply cannot disagree. I just do not know how.
> Analytical folk aren't always good at such conversations, but think [...] and it will help
I'll chew over that carefully, thanks.
> So let us go through one of your example...
that was a particularly nasty example for me to give because there was no solution. He would not listen to what I had to say. He thought XSLT was a sort of magic. The cost is still hitting the company years later as they transition away from it. Over that and a related issue, I resigned. Sometimes you must take it on the chin.
I appreciate what you say, and the decent intent behind it and as mentioned will chew it over. Thank you.
The word for advice (Ratschlag) literally contains the word for blow or hit (Schlag).
How to actually act on it in a real situation? How do you remember and apply all these rules when you feel like the timing is off, when you're talking to the person who you know only works here because of weird circumstances and cares more about the opinion of the coworker next to them who always mocks corporate lingo? How do you deliver your delicate feedback in a situation where you both know you own the other guy? This stuff is IMO the thing that seperates the really good talkers from the rest of us - and I was never really able to catch up with such articles who seem to assume a limited number of conditions to adhere to; like an "advice giving robot" to steal their phrase. How do you improve in being an advice giving human?
Don’t get me wrong here but in my experience the people who haven’t drank the koolaid can often see the forest through the trees far more clearly.
But I'm reluctant to offer Coaching or Evaluation, and never unsolicited, or on a public forum. I find it difficult to not come across as a dick, and frankly that's how I read anyone else's unsolicited feedback.
What is worse: risking someone thinking you are a dick or allowing someone to needlessly suffer through their problems?
And I had/have quite mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I felt that this person was generally trying to be helpful and improve the situation around them. And feedback/advice can certainly serve that end. Who doesn't want to know how to improve their overall performance, right?
But on the other, to the extent that the power dynamic above was actually in play, unsolicited feedback of this sort only rubbed people the wrong way. Perhaps I was reading too much into it, but thinking back to certain times in my past where I've been the advice giver, I do think there are occasions where my motivations were suspect, where, at the time I thought I was genuinely trying to help someone, but which in retrospect were mostly superiority displays.
I don't have any concrete conclusions to draw from this; just something the article stirred up. I welcome your feedback. ;)
Hey, I noticed in the meeting, you did this, have you thought about trying this?
As someone in consulting for a long period of time, i find people think I'm more genuine if I provide it privately, that way it doesn't come across as a power play.