On Giving and Receiving Feedback

The feedback conversation is one of the most consistently handled poorly in professional settings. Both directions: feedback given too softly to be useful, feedback received as an attack rather than information.

I've been on both sides of this enough times to have some views.

The problem with soft feedback is not that it is kind. Kindness in difficult conversations is good. The problem is when kindness is used to avoid specificity, and the result is feedback that the recipient cannot act on.

"Your communication could be stronger" is not feedback. It is a category. Feedback is: "In the last two architecture reviews, you presented your conclusions without the supporting analysis. The stakeholders in the room couldn't evaluate whether your recommendation was sound. I need you to include the trade-off analysis in the presentation itself, not just in your head."

The second version is uncomfortable to give. It is also the version that produces change.

On receiving feedback: the instinctive response to criticism is to defend. To explain why the situation was more complicated, why the other party misunderstood something, why the same choice would be made again. This is almost always the wrong first move.

The more productive first move is curiosity. What is the experience the other person had that prompted this feedback? What were they hoping for that didn't happen? Is this a pattern they've observed or a single instance?

None of this requires agreeing with the feedback. You can be curious about the experience someone had and conclude, after considering it carefully, that the feedback reflects a misunderstanding or a different set of priorities. But the curious response produces better information than the defensive one.

The feedback I've found most useful over the years has often been the most uncomfortable to receive. Not because criticism is inherently valuable, but because the feedback that is comfortable to give — generic, positive, easy — tends to be low-information. The feedback that requires courage from the giver tends to be specific, accurate, and about something that matters.

There is a version of professional life where you surround yourself with people who only tell you what you are doing well. It feels comfortable. It is not how you get better.

One thing I try to do that I found in an article years ago and haven't let go of: when I receive feedback that stings, I give myself 24 hours before responding substantively. The initial sting is often emotional. The 24-hour version of the same feedback is usually more informative and easier to evaluate on its merits.

This is harder to do in live conversation, but even then — acknowledging the feedback, saying you'll think about it, and following up — is better than the defensive response generated in the moment.