In college, I started a student newspaper on my campus which afforded me the opportunity to attend conferences at which renowned journalists came to speak and offer advice to us fledging writers.
One piece of advice I distinctly remember issued in an address to the attendees was this (paraphrased to capture the main points and tone in which it was delivered): No one cares what you have to say about some national issue. Stop writing about national issues. Write about what’s happening on your campus: changes in the cafeteria, controversial courses being offered, student government. Write about what you know. That’s what you’re an expert about. That’s something those of us who are no longer on campus can’t write about well. You have the advantage.
To that end, I’m currently navigating some feedback and the whirlwind of emotions, self-doubt, and self-loathing that stemmed from it. I’m also going through the ICE-EC cohort. So, I’m stitching those things together because it’s what I know. Hopefully, it’s also interesting to some and helpful to others.
Reviewing Feedback
With Dan, the glass isn’t just half empty: if it’s got any liquid in it at all, it’s the wrong liquid.
This is “feedback” delivered to me several months back.
After the last 3 days with my cohort, I pulled out the feedback document that was given to me several months ago along with my notes from the conversation to review what had been said about me and how I could apply what I’ve learned to it. I was also looking for that particular quote given a couple models shared in the cohort.
Value Judgements are Not Feedback
I’ve got the word “feedback” in quotes above because that statement isn’t feedback: it’s a value judgement. I make this distinction thanks to a wonderful conversation I had with Esther Derby1 a year or two ago. I described an issue with receiving generalized feedback without specifics and the challenge that poses with trying to understand how to address that feedback.
Upon describing an example of what I was calling “generalized feedback,” Esther interjected and said, “That’s not feedback. That’s a value judgement.” She’s right. (She’s also worth a follow on LinkedIn if nothing else.)
In this particular case, the value judgement is actually sort of funny, right? I mean, it’s something Scrubs fans might expect Dr. Cox to deliver to JD or House, M.D. fans might expect Dr. House to say to…well…anyone. We’d expect those characters to offer such biting criticism because the writers of those sitcoms know it’s a line that sticks2.
Also, we know these characters are loveably flawed assholes and this line fits their characters. These two characters say things we all may be thinking or want to say but never do because only a narcissistic asshole would ever utter such words to another human and we’re not narcissistic assholes. These words have no purpose other than to tear down. So, we laugh because it provides insight into the world and maybe even ourselves: it might even make us uncomfortable. Nevertheless, we find it funny.
But, I ask you: does this feedback pass the test of the three filters we should consider before offering feedback?
Is it kind? No. As discussed above, it is not kind with regard to the specific feedback I shared. In general, no value judgement - especially value judgements offered as negative or critical feedback - will be kind.
Is it true? No. A value judgement first labels a person as being a specific way. In the specific case, it’s labeling me as negative. I may do or say some negative things. I may even have a proclivity to do or say some negative things in certain contexts, but that doesn’t make me a negative person. None of us are always and everywhere in any context the same. A value judgement, because it’s a person’s opinion cannot, by definition, be true. It’s not fact; it’s opinion.
Is it helpful? No. A value judgement provides data about how someone or some group has perceived you, but it offers no specifics about why they hold that perception. It’s good to know your behaviors elicit a reaction in others to be sure. Offering the perception without offering what caused it puts the recipient in a position to evaluate literally everything they do trying to analyze what’s causing that perception. That over-analysis can actually lead to exacerbating the problem or perhaps even creating other problems when the recipient walks around on eggshells.
Value judgements are not helpful; they are not kind; they are not true. Here’s some advice about value judgements: keep them to yourself. Even better: change your mindset so you don’t think them in the first place.
That mindset change is something I’m working on for myself. I slip from time to time, but at least now I catch it and quickly correct myself. I look forward to the day when I don’t slip and don’t have to correct. Evolutionary change…right?
Revelations: Making Sense of My Feedback
Revelation #1: OH, So THAT’s what they were talking about!
In my cohort, we had a three all-day deep dive sessions on several topics the past three days. We discussed two models that, when put together with things I know to be true about how I’ve shown up, completely made sense of the empty glass feedback. I understood.
Kantor Four-Player Model of Conversation
This entry is already getting long (by today’s standards of “long”), so I’m not going to describe it. Here’s a pdf that describes it.
In class, the instructor, Antoinette, had all of us think of a recent interaction or team we’d been on and place a sticky note on the mode of conversation that each of us stood in. I was the sole sticky note of roughly 20 that stood in the “Opposer” stance.
Antoinette called that out and reminded us that without opposition, we don’t get to the right place. Also, with a single opposer, that person might be labeled critical, attacking, or, more colloquially, an asshole3. To which I quickly responded, “Welcome to my world.”
This got some laughs along with some additional information Antoinette shared: You need to be careful, however, because there is such a thing as being a stuck Opposer and that’s also a problem.
Hold this thought.
Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
In the preamble to introducing this model to the cohort, Kevin, another of the instructors, said that there is a philosophy held by some that the way to improve is to focus on what’s wrong or what’s broken.
Kevin offered his perspective that focusing on people’s weaknesses doesn’t make fertile ground for effective and lasting change. What if, he offered, there was a way to get people, teams, and organizations to improve by instead focusing on what they’re really good at? What if we started from their strengths and built upon those?
After hearing that preamble and going through the exercise to learn how to use it with our clients, I saw how much better an approach this model and going through an exercise like this will be with people, teams, and organizations I coach.
Also, hold this thought.
Putting Revelation #1 Together
Part 1: I’ve been the asshole who opposes everything (in hopes of helping people get to the “right” place).
Part 2: I’ve been the asshole focusing on what’s wrong (in an attempt to help them improve).
Part 1 + Part 2 = With Dan, the glass isn’t just half empty: if it’s got any liquid in it at all, it’s the wrong liquid.
Yep, checks out. I’ve acted like an asshole. I get it. But…dang if my heart wasn’t in the right place. Also, it’s really a few minor changes that would get substantially different results. I wish I had known.
Revelation #2: How I Hope I will Give Such Feedback in the Future
Imagine this conversation:
Feedback Giver (FG): Dan, I’ve had conversations with a broad group of people and what I’m hearing is they feel like you’re too often being critical of them by pointing out what they’re doing wrong or what needs to improve. What do you think about that? How do you see it?
Dan: Wow. I’m devastated they feel I’m being critical of them. I genuinely love these people and think they’re making tremendous progress. In fact, I tell them so often; I’m confused why they feel I’m so critical. I certainly point to things I see are wrong or need improvement, but they’re paying me to help them get better and I feel like I wouldn’t be doing my job if I withheld those things from them.
FG: Yes. I hear what you’re saying and understand why it makes sense that you’d be offering observations about what’s wrong in an effort to help them improve. It does seem unfortunate that they’d be offended when you’re doing the job you think they’ve asked you to do. I do wonder: do you think there might be a way you could adjust so that you can help them improve without focusing on what’s wrong?
Dan: I don’t think that’s possible. How can I help them improve without pointing to what needs improving?
FG: I have some ideas and some models I’d be happy to share with you. Perhaps you’d find them useful. Would you be interested in learning about those?
Dan: Yes, absolutely. If you’ve got a better way, I’d love to hear about it.
FG: I don’t know if it’s “better,” but perhaps it might work better in this context. I’m curious to see what you think after hearing about it and I’d be glad to make time to walk you through it. I have Wednesday from 3:00-5:00pm. Does that work for you?
…
There’s a lot going on in that hypothetical conversation. A few key points:
There’s no accusation about what I am, only observations about what I do and how that makes others feel.
It exposes what might be a gap in my thinking which I, myself, open up. I’m not told I have this gap.
It makes the problem our problem, not my problem, and we’re solving it together. (See another excellent Liz Fosslien drawing I saved below.)
An approach like this can help the other person grow without decimating the other person. This conversation is kind, it’s helpful, and the observations are true. What a winning combination.
I need to get better at approaching feedback in this way myself, so I’m not sitting here saying I’m perfect. In fact, I’m relatively certain I suck at it, but improving rapidly because my eyes have been opened and I’m conscious of it.
Maybe someone out there reading this has better ideas…what are they? Or perhaps I’ve completely missed the point and I’m way off base. What am I missing? What would you do differently? What are your thoughts?
I have been given feedback in the past that when I credit people with their ideas, like when I say something and then cite the book whence the idea came and the author who wrote it, I am intimidating both because of my ability to retain such information and the breath of content I’ve consumed. I like to give credit where it’s due. There is a book published with my content and ideas that are attributed to another human from one of my very first jobs. I will never forget how it feels to have someone else credited for my work and, therefore, I have my own ethics that I refuse to cite others’ work without giving the credit to the person whose ideas I’m using. In this instance, I recognize there may be some who feel I’m “name dropping” given Esther’s status, but my intention is to give her credit - and, frankly, my thanks for graciously offering her time to chat with me.
Good book to read: Chip & Dan Heath’s Made to Stick. In this case, the quote sticks because it takes a concept we’re all familiar with - the proverbial glass half full and glass half empty - and then builds on it in a way that is quite memorable and demonstrative.
To be clear: this is my language not Antoinette’s. I’m using it in order to tie to all the other instances throughout the entry.