One gives constructive feedback only if they really care and do not mind spending some time explaining why you think there are flaws that need to be corrected.
Several of the managers in companies have the habit of saying "well done" to top performers with top rating during performance review & have nothing constructive to say. Does that mean they have nothing to improve in current position & they should just vacate the place so their direct report can take his/her place?
As Mark says in the article, it is the difficult path. To take a stance, have a point of view & explain why it is so. The easier option is to say "great work" & just run away. I am learning this more often in areas that are new to me - say in appreciating designs & colors that I am not so good at in web design & so on.
He is missing the point that mostly, people set themselves up for getting feedback, or not. Especially in a leadership position, one can actively create a feedback culture or a "yes men" culture. I'd even venture to say that good leaders can be identified by looking at how well they encourage and use feedback.
On a related note, if his rate is only 70 to 30 with regards to people who receive his feedback constructively, there is still room for improvement. From reading the article, it seems to me he might be little blunt every now and then.
On the latter point, I think you also need to cultivate some sort of trust relationship. People need to care about your feedback, and truly believe that your view might be better than the view they were holding. Just giving blunt feedback is an easy skill that everyone on Reddit has, so I think people are pretty used to tuning it out, especially if you give them any reason to attribute it to you just being grumpy/biased/jerkish.
One part of this, imo, is that the feedback-giver has to accept that they might also be wrong, and be open to admitting that their feedback was misguided or a matter of opinion if it turns out to be. That helps people to believe that it's not just the feedback-giver trying to impose their personal opinions, but actually well-considered advice.
I saw Mark speak and give startups feedback at an event in Phoenix, Arizona just last month. He does exactly as the article lays out. His talk was interesting, and not the usual Silicon Valley advice. For example, he likes to invest in single founder companies.
I saw him give feedback to three companies. One of them, a company that sold tech to restaurants, he bluntly told to start over. He said he didn't want to get in a big debate about it. They were overly nice, and tried to arrive at a happy middle ground, but Mark would not let them. 'No, it will fail.' he told them over and over. The guy is definitely on the abrasive side, but I'd also put him in the class of smart money.
5 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 26.6 ms ] threadSeveral of the managers in companies have the habit of saying "well done" to top performers with top rating during performance review & have nothing constructive to say. Does that mean they have nothing to improve in current position & they should just vacate the place so their direct report can take his/her place?
As Mark says in the article, it is the difficult path. To take a stance, have a point of view & explain why it is so. The easier option is to say "great work" & just run away. I am learning this more often in areas that are new to me - say in appreciating designs & colors that I am not so good at in web design & so on.
On a related note, if his rate is only 70 to 30 with regards to people who receive his feedback constructively, there is still room for improvement. From reading the article, it seems to me he might be little blunt every now and then.
One part of this, imo, is that the feedback-giver has to accept that they might also be wrong, and be open to admitting that their feedback was misguided or a matter of opinion if it turns out to be. That helps people to believe that it's not just the feedback-giver trying to impose their personal opinions, but actually well-considered advice.
I saw him give feedback to three companies. One of them, a company that sold tech to restaurants, he bluntly told to start over. He said he didn't want to get in a big debate about it. They were overly nice, and tried to arrive at a happy middle ground, but Mark would not let them. 'No, it will fail.' he told them over and over. The guy is definitely on the abrasive side, but I'd also put him in the class of smart money.