Excellent article indeed. Practical and to the point. When will the "How to give feedback" part will be released? it was mentioned that it is going to be the weekend's premium article.
OK respond to the email from this article (or any article), so I get your email address. I'll confirm with that your premium subscription, and will send you the draft of the 2 remaining articles on the topic.
16. Dissociate identity from behaviour: The most important takeaway from this article. When you give children feedback, separate the behaviour from the "self". If adults can be vulnerable to feedback then imagine how vulnerable children are before they have even had a chance to fully develop their sense of self.
I think it's fascinating that you used unhelpful positive feedback as an example, when I had completely the opposite in mind (unhelpful negative feedback).
You are of course correct that encouraging people to have an unrealistic or unhelpful positive self-image can be just as much of a problem as a negative one.
I can still remember starting medical school at Uni and listening to a talk from one of the 3rd year students. His point was that whilst we may have been big fish in a small pond at school, we were now very much small fish in a big pond i.e everyone in the room is intelligent and hard working. Not being one of the "top students" was something most of us were going to have to adjust to, and that can be difficult for people whose sense of self is strongly tied to academic achievement. I imagine that Stamford Business school students face a similar issue.
Very good column on an important topic. And maybe, sometimes for some: Feedback receptivity is a measure of perception. Feedback processing is a measure of personal awareness. Feedback utilization is a measure of its worth within one's own personal place (state) and capability. And feedback's response is a measure of one's character (maturity) and social (behavior) intellect.
In regard to number 16: It maybe the most critical suggestion to understand and practice. Removing one's ego (identity) from the human interaction among team or colleague frameworks improves objectivity. In developing a 'feedback viewpoint' it can be helpful to always separate yourself from your position and production (paper, speech, performance). If the feedback framework forces the topic under review to be something outside oneself (a thing) then mercy, kindness or internal consideration is not (or less important) needed for one to consume the fruit of feedback, no matter its fineness or rawness. If one can do this, in some measure, one's attitude with behavior, and its response, is transformed as a measure of one's openness to realities gifts.
Th mechanics of social interactions (manners) is often left to the vagaries of life. Viewing manners, in this case feedback, as a serious device for achieving friction-less harmony and mutual learning toward benefit. It simply becomes a 'measure' of subjective optimization.
Thanks for sharing your insights about feedback! Though I no longer give feedback to colleagues, your 18 tools are very relevant to family and friends (as others have pointed out). And besides, I find your writing style appealing and your sense of humour worthy of a very charismatic asparagus!
I tell myself I'm quite funny in the right situations. I want to try to push more of that in my writing. If you have tips, send my way. In the meantime, your feedback is appreciated to encourage me to do more of that. Thanks!
Hey Tomas! Curious about your cited research. The first paragraph points to research that has been officially 'debunked' - notes at the bottom of the HBR article: "*Authors' Note: The journal that published this study has since expressed concern about the data. We first became aware of this research in Kim Cameron's book, Positive Leadership. Like many others, we were distressed to learn of the incorrect data in the Heaphy and Losada research and we immediately ceased our citations upon learning that the study wasn't correct. But we do believe the basic assumption and premise that leaders should provide more positive than negative feedback is correct."
And then the research cited in your second paragraph actually points out the debunking.
I'm happy with the rabbit hole I went down because I learned a tonne, but thought you should be aware in case your readers took the first paragraph as truth, when it really isn't. Or at least isn't backed by that particular research.
All that aside, super helpful and timely. As someone with ADHD who suffers from rejection-sensitive dysphoria I'm always looking for more information about receiving feedback, so this was helpful in many ways. Thanks!
I had the same concern while writing the article, so I went deep down the same rabbit hole and reached the same conclusions, so I rewrote the sections.
I thought the article was consistent with this, but you seem to suggest it's not. Can you help me understand specifically where you think the mistake is, so I can correct it?
Note that the research that was debunked is not what I quote in the 1st paragraph—the better performance of those who receive criticism—but rather the research around the ratio of good to bad pieces of feedback.
Hah ya I went back and forth on it too. I totally see your point - the authors point to data gathered by their consultancy that suggest "those who've received the most negative comments were the ones to improve the most".
First, I'm not sure that points to climbing any ladders (unless I missed a direct reference to that metric, which is TOTALLY possible because I'm sort of doing this off the side of my desk today)
Second, I don't think you made a mistake - I'm probably just being semantic about how I see "data suggesting" and "research showing" as different beasts.
And then finally, I think there's likely real empirical studies out there that point to performance / criticism relationships. Rather than referencing a somewhat buried anecdote (in an article mostly referencing another source that's been retracted by the publishing journal) you might have pointed to other research instead.
I was hoping to find something specific on the performance/criticism relationship from the authors of that HBR article in their wealth of published scholarly articles, but didn't come up with anything on a quick pass. Too bad too... I bet there's something there.
But again, you're not wrong. It just took me some digging to find it - and really, who does that? I'm not trying to be a troll, I promise. I think my brain assumed the primary research source in the article was meant to back up your claim, and when I saw it was invalid I wanted to make sure your readers caught the nuance. Not that most people even dive in the way I can sometimes. Ugh. I probably made it all worse. Do people usually click reference links or am I just a huge nerd?
Bottom line though - the content you presented was super useful and obviously based in reality. Definitely wasn't implying otherwise. And the rabbit hole sure was a fun one. TIL how scholarly article retractions work 🤷♂️ haha
And third, our own research shows, it helps leaders overcome serious weaknesses. The key word here is serious. Our firm provides 360-degree feedback to leaders. We have observed among the 50,000 or so leaders we have in our database that those who’ve received the most negative comments were the ones who, in absolute terms, improved the most. Specifically, our aggregate data show that three-fourths of those receiving the lowest leadership effectiveness scores who made an effort to improve, rose on average 33 percentile points in their rankings after a year. That is, they were able to move from the 23rd percentile (the middle of the worst) to the 56th percentile (or square in the middle of the pack).
So it's their research, with 50k ppl, on HBR, which seems reasonably sturdy.
And then they refer to "in their rankings after a year". I had interpreted that as "going up the ranks", but I realize they probably mean "rankings on how good leaders they are".
Please don't apologize. I LOVE being challenged on what I write. I don't take it negatively at all. I can't possibly get everything right, and I count on you and those like you to help improve the articles. Just last week I corrected something on plastics based on reader feedback (in a premium article).
On the eight day of Christmas my truelove sent to me eight maids a-milking
I wonder what percentage of the world’s population don’t know where milk comes from.
The thought for today is about Disconnection and how it relates to the problems of the world. Disconnection from the origins of the things we consume, but also disconnection from other people. Disconnection between leaders and their followers, between the old and the young, between people in the same community.
Disconnection between actions and consequences so that there is no feedback loop to modify our actions in the future. Disconnection between reason and emotion as we strive for rational thinking.
As with most things in life, disconnection isn’t necessarily bad, but I think it is important to be aware of it, question it and keep some balance.
Thomas, I forgot an answer to a question. I know you already replied in twitter a while ago but I can’t find the answer. What software do you use to plot your graphs?
Excellent article indeed. Practical and to the point. When will the "How to give feedback" part will be released? it was mentioned that it is going to be the weekend's premium article.
Sorry, it's written, but I had to push it given the demand on COVID. Wait one more week! :)
Glad you're enjoying it. In fact, there are 2 more articles on the topic (already written): how to give feedback and how to do it tactfully.
Where’s the “how to give feedback” article? I have employee annual reviews next week and I’ve been waiting for this :)
OK respond to the email from this article (or any article), so I get your email address. I'll confirm with that your premium subscription, and will send you the draft of the 2 remaining articles on the topic.
16. Dissociate identity from behaviour: The most important takeaway from this article. When you give children feedback, separate the behaviour from the "self". If adults can be vulnerable to feedback then imagine how vulnerable children are before they have even had a chance to fully develop their sense of self.
Huge! At the core of feedback to kids indeed. You're not intelligent, you worked hard.
I think it's fascinating that you used unhelpful positive feedback as an example, when I had completely the opposite in mind (unhelpful negative feedback).
You are of course correct that encouraging people to have an unrealistic or unhelpful positive self-image can be just as much of a problem as a negative one.
I can still remember starting medical school at Uni and listening to a talk from one of the 3rd year students. His point was that whilst we may have been big fish in a small pond at school, we were now very much small fish in a big pond i.e everyone in the room is intelligent and hard working. Not being one of the "top students" was something most of us were going to have to adjust to, and that can be difficult for people whose sense of self is strongly tied to academic achievement. I imagine that Stamford Business school students face a similar issue.
Very good column on an important topic. And maybe, sometimes for some: Feedback receptivity is a measure of perception. Feedback processing is a measure of personal awareness. Feedback utilization is a measure of its worth within one's own personal place (state) and capability. And feedback's response is a measure of one's character (maturity) and social (behavior) intellect.
In regard to number 16: It maybe the most critical suggestion to understand and practice. Removing one's ego (identity) from the human interaction among team or colleague frameworks improves objectivity. In developing a 'feedback viewpoint' it can be helpful to always separate yourself from your position and production (paper, speech, performance). If the feedback framework forces the topic under review to be something outside oneself (a thing) then mercy, kindness or internal consideration is not (or less important) needed for one to consume the fruit of feedback, no matter its fineness or rawness. If one can do this, in some measure, one's attitude with behavior, and its response, is transformed as a measure of one's openness to realities gifts.
Th mechanics of social interactions (manners) is often left to the vagaries of life. Viewing manners, in this case feedback, as a serious device for achieving friction-less harmony and mutual learning toward benefit. It simply becomes a 'measure' of subjective optimization.
Thanks again for your article and work!
Thank you for your thoughtful comment!
And I agree that 16 is probably the most important.
Thank YOU for reading!
I have been unable to locate the how to give feedback article. HaveI somehow missed it or has it not been published
I had to push it back one week due to Omicron. It's written and waiting!
Thanks for sharing your insights about feedback! Though I no longer give feedback to colleagues, your 18 tools are very relevant to family and friends (as others have pointed out). And besides, I find your writing style appealing and your sense of humour worthy of a very charismatic asparagus!
Hahahaha thanks!
I tell myself I'm quite funny in the right situations. I want to try to push more of that in my writing. If you have tips, send my way. In the meantime, your feedback is appreciated to encourage me to do more of that. Thanks!
Hey Tomas! Curious about your cited research. The first paragraph points to research that has been officially 'debunked' - notes at the bottom of the HBR article: "*Authors' Note: The journal that published this study has since expressed concern about the data. We first became aware of this research in Kim Cameron's book, Positive Leadership. Like many others, we were distressed to learn of the incorrect data in the Heaphy and Losada research and we immediately ceased our citations upon learning that the study wasn't correct. But we do believe the basic assumption and premise that leaders should provide more positive than negative feedback is correct."
And then the research cited in your second paragraph actually points out the debunking.
I'm happy with the rabbit hole I went down because I learned a tonne, but thought you should be aware in case your readers took the first paragraph as truth, when it really isn't. Or at least isn't backed by that particular research.
All that aside, super helpful and timely. As someone with ADHD who suffers from rejection-sensitive dysphoria I'm always looking for more information about receiving feedback, so this was helpful in many ways. Thanks!
Yes, thank you! Love that you go so deep!
I had the same concern while writing the article, so I went deep down the same rabbit hole and reached the same conclusions, so I rewrote the sections.
I thought the article was consistent with this, but you seem to suggest it's not. Can you help me understand specifically where you think the mistake is, so I can correct it?
Note that the research that was debunked is not what I quote in the 1st paragraph—the better performance of those who receive criticism—but rather the research around the ratio of good to bad pieces of feedback.
Hah ya I went back and forth on it too. I totally see your point - the authors point to data gathered by their consultancy that suggest "those who've received the most negative comments were the ones to improve the most".
First, I'm not sure that points to climbing any ladders (unless I missed a direct reference to that metric, which is TOTALLY possible because I'm sort of doing this off the side of my desk today)
Second, I don't think you made a mistake - I'm probably just being semantic about how I see "data suggesting" and "research showing" as different beasts.
And then finally, I think there's likely real empirical studies out there that point to performance / criticism relationships. Rather than referencing a somewhat buried anecdote (in an article mostly referencing another source that's been retracted by the publishing journal) you might have pointed to other research instead.
I was hoping to find something specific on the performance/criticism relationship from the authors of that HBR article in their wealth of published scholarly articles, but didn't come up with anything on a quick pass. Too bad too... I bet there's something there.
But again, you're not wrong. It just took me some digging to find it - and really, who does that? I'm not trying to be a troll, I promise. I think my brain assumed the primary research source in the article was meant to back up your claim, and when I saw it was invalid I wanted to make sure your readers caught the nuance. Not that most people even dive in the way I can sometimes. Ugh. I probably made it all worse. Do people usually click reference links or am I just a huge nerd?
Bottom line though - the content you presented was super useful and obviously based in reality. Definitely wasn't implying otherwise. And the rabbit hole sure was a fun one. TIL how scholarly article retractions work 🤷♂️ haha
Hey! This is the 1st passage:
And third, our own research shows, it helps leaders overcome serious weaknesses. The key word here is serious. Our firm provides 360-degree feedback to leaders. We have observed among the 50,000 or so leaders we have in our database that those who’ve received the most negative comments were the ones who, in absolute terms, improved the most. Specifically, our aggregate data show that three-fourths of those receiving the lowest leadership effectiveness scores who made an effort to improve, rose on average 33 percentile points in their rankings after a year. That is, they were able to move from the 23rd percentile (the middle of the worst) to the 56th percentile (or square in the middle of the pack).
So it's their research, with 50k ppl, on HBR, which seems reasonably sturdy.
And then they refer to "in their rankings after a year". I had interpreted that as "going up the ranks", but I realize they probably mean "rankings on how good leaders they are".
Please don't apologize. I LOVE being challenged on what I write. I don't take it negatively at all. I can't possibly get everything right, and I count on you and those like you to help improve the articles. Just last week I corrected something on plastics based on reader feedback (in a premium article).
Keep doing it!
you clearly propose what others think disorderly
On the eight day of Christmas my truelove sent to me eight maids a-milking
I wonder what percentage of the world’s population don’t know where milk comes from.
The thought for today is about Disconnection and how it relates to the problems of the world. Disconnection from the origins of the things we consume, but also disconnection from other people. Disconnection between leaders and their followers, between the old and the young, between people in the same community.
Disconnection between actions and consequences so that there is no feedback loop to modify our actions in the future. Disconnection between reason and emotion as we strive for rational thinking.
As with most things in life, disconnection isn’t necessarily bad, but I think it is important to be aware of it, question it and keep some balance.
Thomas, I forgot an answer to a question. I know you already replied in twitter a while ago but I can’t find the answer. What software do you use to plot your graphs?
Powerpoint!