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

by Douglas Stone

So feedback givers rarely share the raw observations behind their labels because they simply aren’t aware of them.

So you want to get a clear picture of both data and interpretation.

More assertive’ is a label. I don’t know where it’s going or where it comes from. In terms of where it comes from, I want to understand the data it’s based on—what Adrianna saw or heard—and how Adrianna is interpreting that information.”

He asks her how he would implement the advice if he decides to take

“Is this more or less urgent than what you needed yesterday?” and “Are there pieces of this that are more important than other pieces, and why?”

Whether we are delighted or devastated, we’re not in a curious state of mind.

You already have the skills for asking forward-looking questions; the trick is using them. It’s like pulling the rip cord on your parachute. It’s not hard to do; the key is remembering to do it when it matters.

Working to first understand their views doesn’t mean we pretend we don’t have life experiences or opinions. Instead, we need to understand their views even as we’re aware of our own.

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.

“Why do we see this differently? What data do you have that I don’t?”

Life would be a lot easier if we routinely asked that question about different data. But we don’t. Why? Because wrong spotting is so much more compelling than difference spotting.

We have to consciously and persistently choose to ask about their data and share our own.

Even when you are both looking at the same data, each of you can interpret them differently.

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.

Organizational culture, regional culture, and even family culture are all collections of implicit rules for “how we do things around here.” But everyone has their own individual set as well.

Feedback that isn’t making sense can suddenly fall into place when we understand the implicit rule underlying the interpretations. I assumed that asking questions at the company meeting showed engagement; I learn that it’s read

Difference spotting—understanding as specifically as you can exactly why you and they see things differently—is a crucial lens through which to take in feedback. You begin to better understand where the feedback comes from, what the advice is, how to implement it, and why you and the feedback giver see certain things differently.

We mean it more as a mindset: What makes sense about what they’re saying, what seems worth trying, how you can shift around the meaning in some way that gives them the benefit of the doubt in terms of how the feedback might be helpful.

Being transparent and honest about your reactions is not inconsistent with being open and curious, by the way. You can say what’s going on in your head: Wow. That’s upsetting to hear. I never would have imagined that.

You’re not cutting off the conversation with comments like this, but sharing your reactions and continuing to try to understand.

We figure that the better you understand the feedback, the more likely you are to find something in it that is useful, or at the very least to understand the ways in which you are being misunderstood, and why.

But what does that number mean? Is half a percent above the market average good or bad? Is double the expected profits good, or were the expected profits totally off to begin with? And what’s the relationship between the CEO’s performance and the profits? We can argue about that, can’t we?

And that’s as it should be. People who are skilled coaches or evaluators are valuable precisely because their gifts of judgment are strong.

It should be to make judgments thoughtfully, and once made, to have them be transparent and discussable.

and out of the loop. Paul: Let’s get specific. What does it mean that they’re feeling “disempowered and out of the loop”? Comment: Well done. Paul doesn’t defend with a comment like, “Well, we can’t include them in every decision.” Instead, he inquires, trying to dig under the label.

Paul: I’m not clear what you mean. What do you mean by messaging versus attitude? Comment: That’s good. If you don’t fully understand something, slow things down and ask.

The key is purpose and mindset. Paul is not looking to agree or disagree, defend or accept. He’s trying to understand. It’s not a problem-solving session, it’s an understanding session.

he listens for labels and works hard to look under them, and when he’s unsure about what Monisha means, he doesn’t let it slip by. He asks.

In fact, there is always a gap between the self we think we present and the way others see us. We may not recognize ourselves in others’ feedback, even when everyone else would agree that it’s the conventional wisdom about who we are and how we are.

Below, we’ll explore some of the things that others observe about us that we can’t—our blind spots—and then examine three “amplifiers,” systematic differences between how others tell the story of who we are versus how we tell that same story, which exacerbate the gaps on the map.

we circle on our map the things I am aware of and the things you are aware of, it turns out that my behavior is in your awareness and mostly not in my awareness. We all know this about human interactions, and yet somehow it comes as a surprise that our own behavior is largely invisible to us.

We convey a tremendous amount of information through facial expressions. But our own face is a blind spot.

It’s because most humans are so wonderfully good at reading other people’s faces.

We needed a way to assess feelings and motivations that didn’t rely solely on intentional communication. So we developed the ability to read nuances in faces and tone, and through this we formulate a “theory of mind”2 about those we interact with.

Tone of voice also conveys a surprising amount of information about our feelings. Others get meaning not just from what we say but how we say it. The precise percentage is impossible to determine (one study suggests 38 percent),5 but the point remains: Tone says a lot.

Tone, pitch, and cadence—what linguists call intonation contours—enhance or subvert meaning, and transmit rich information about the speaker’s emotions.

This little piece of our brain is dedicated to taking in language and reading tone and meaning.

When we ourselves speak, the STS turns off. We don’t hear our own voice, at least not the same way we hear everyone else. This explains why we are so often surprised when we get feedback based on how we said something. (“Tone? I’m not using some kind of tone!”) It also helps explain why our voice sounds so unfamiliar when we hear ourselves on an audio recording. When transmitted from a speaker, our own voice gets routed through our STS, and we suddenly hear ourselves the way others do. (“I sound like that?!”) We’ve been hearing ourselves every day of our lives, and yet we haven’t.

our “listening” STS brain doesn’t attend to the sound of our own voice in part because we are so absorbed in listening to our thoughts. Our attention can focus on only one thing at a time, so we focus on our intentions—figuring out how to say what we’re trying to say. Annabelle’s focus is on her thoughts

Surprisingly, even on e-mail, people try to read emotions and tone. Or more precisely, despite lacking access to the sender’s face and voice, we retain the desire to know their mood and intentions, so we gather what clues we can.

But situations are not tense. People are tense.

When something goes wrong and I am part of it, I will tend to attribute my actions to the situation; you will tend to attribute my actions to my character.10

It’s really an alternate way of telling the story. In

We judge ourselves by our intentions (arrow 2), while others judge us by our impacts (arrow 4). Given

But for those around us, our impact drives their story. Despite

“I’ve been working hard to be more patient [arrow 2, my intentions]. And yet it sounds like that’s not the impact I’m having [arrow 4]. That’s upsetting. Let’s figure out why.”

they should share the impact the behavior had on them: “I was upset and confused when you said it was your idea. I felt I deserved the credit for that idea.”

because they don’t realize that they’re doing so. Instead, discussing the impact of specific behaviors (and prohibiting them when appropriate) helps the offending party see themselves in the moment and begins to illuminate their blind spot.

If what you’re saying were true, other people would have told me. Since they haven’t, it must not be true. It’s just one more reason that seeing ourselves clearly is such a challenge.

make sure your next thought is I wonder if this feedback is sitting in my blind spot.