Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well

by Douglas Stone

The term “feed-back” was coined in the 1860s during the Industrial Revolution to describe the way that outputs of energy, momentum, or signals are returned to their point of origin in a mechanical system.

It doesn’t matter how much authority or power a feedback giver has; the receivers are in control of what they do and don’t let in, how they make sense of what they’re hearing, and whether they choose to change.

Receiving feedback sits at the intersection of these two needs—our drive to learn and our longing for acceptance.

Broadly, feedback comes in three forms: appreciation (thanks), coaching (here’s a better way to do it), and evaluation (here’s where you stand).

Our perception of feedback is inevitably influenced (and sometimes tainted) by who is giving it to us. We can be triggered by something about the giver—their (lack of) credibility, (un)trustworthiness, or (questionable) motives. We can likewise be triggered by how we feel treated by that person.

Those who handle feedback more fruitfully have an identity story with a different assumption at its core. These folks see themselves as ever evolving, ever growing. They have what is called a “growth” identity.

Coaching is aimed at trying to help someone learn, grow, or change. The focus is on helping the person improve, whether it involves a skill, an idea, knowledge, a particular practice, or that person’s appearance or personality.

Evaluations are always in some respect comparisons, implicitly or explicitly, against others or against a particular set of standards.

sometimes, evaluations contain judgments that go beyond the assessment itself: Not only didn’t you qualify in the backstroke, but you were naïve to think you would, and so, once again, you’ve fallen short of your potential. The judgment that you are naïve or falling short is not based on the assessment—the outcome of the race. It’s an additional layer of opinion on top of it. And it is the bullwhip of negative judgment—from ourselves or others—that produces much of our anxiety around feedback.

Surprisingly, reassurance—“You can do this” and “I believe in you”—also falls into the category of additional judgments, but on the positive side.

We are anxious about being assessed and judged, but at the same time, we need an “evaluative floor” on which to stand, reassuring us that we are good enough so far. Before I can take in coaching or appreciation, I need to know that I’m where I need to be, that this relationship is going to last.

When evaluation is absent, we use coaching and appreciation to try to figure out where we stand.

reminds us that the giver has only partial control over how the balance between coaching and evaluation is received.

All too often, feedback that is offered as coaching is heard as evaluation. (“You’re telling me how to improve, but really, you’re saying you’re not sure I’m cut out for this.”)

Remember: Explicit disagreement is better than implicit misunderstanding. Explicit disagreement leads to clarity, and is the first step in each of you getting your differing needs met.

The evaluation conversation needs to take place first. When a professor hands back a graded paper, the student will first turn to the last page to check their grade. Only then can they take in the instructor’s margin notes. We can’t focus on how to improve until we know where we stand.

difference between feedback that is coaching, which aims at advice, and feedback that is evaluation, which clarifies consequences.

Even when we have access to the same data, we tend to notice different things. We are all moving along the same sidewalk, but the historian may notice the brickwork, the jogger the impact on her knees, and the fellow in the wheelchair the areas that are less accessible.

One of the primary reasons we interpret data differently is that we have different rules in our heads about how things should be. But we don’t think of them as our rules. We think of them as the rules.

Yet the fact remains that we can often benefit from the insight of newcomers or outsiders unencumbered by knowledge of “the way things are done.” They might ask just the right “naïve” question, or offer a unique perspective.

New ideas often come from those without traditional credibility, who are freer to think outside the box precisely because they don’t know there is a box.

History abounds with examples of battles won thanks to the insight of a junior corporal with a deft suggestion.

Systems thinking corrects for the skew of any single perspective.

Accepting that we’re not perfect also means giving up the idea that being perfect is a viable way to escape negative feedback.

If you have a fixed mindset, every situation you encounter is a referendum on whether you have the smarts or ability that you think (or hope) you have. “Fixed” kids do fine when the puzzles are easy. But when they start to struggle, they hear the puzzle whispering to them: Not enough puzzle smarts. You are not up to this task. They become discouraged, impatient, embarrassed. Better to quit than to continue to face what they lack.

whether they got each question right or wrong, and the correct answers for the questions they missed. The fixed-mindset students paid close attention to whether they got each question right or wrong, but lost interest when informed what the right answer was. The growth-mindset folks, in contrast, listened closely to the right answers. They didn’t ignore the evaluation, but they were also hungry for coaching—how

Wow, hugely significant

After a setback at school, growth-identity kids said they planned to study more or study differently the next time, while kids with fixed mindsets were more likely to say that they “felt dumb, would study less the next time, and seriously consider cheating.” Perhaps driven by humiliation, people with a fixed mindset are also more likely to lie to others about their performance and withdraw after failure. They give up earlier, letting setbacks become settling points.

even feedback offered as pure coaching can reasonably be heard as evaluation.

A strong second-score identity can help you deal with even the most challenging life events.

Sarcasm is always inconsistent with true inquiry

Feedback can be accurate, timely, perceptive, and beautifully conveyed, but if it involves too many ideas to keep track of, too many decisions to sort through, too many changes to make, it’s simply too much. Our capacity to attend to change is a limited resource. Hence, less is more (more or less).

That’s hard to do when the person evaluating you is also the person who coaches you.

Teacher

Good coaching requires different parameters to work well. Those who are improving need frequent, close-to-real-time suggestions, and the chance to practice small corrections or improvements along the way.

at its core, coaching is a relationship, not a meeting.

As we’ve discussed, there are at least two problems in mixing coaching with evaluation. First, on the receiving end, my attention will be drawn to the evaluation, which drowns out the coaching.

The second concern is that, if I am going to be open to coaching, I need to feel safe.

modeling is the most powerful thing you can do as an individual leader to improve the culture.

Regardless of context or the company you keep, you are the most important person in your own learning.