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

by Douglas Stone

Hunyee is making a specific request. She’s not saying, “Quit being so critical,” or “I need you to back off.” These requests would reflect how she’s feeling, but they are unlikely to help, for two reasons. First, they set up the terms of a fight. She’s giving her mother feedback but tripping all her truth, relationship, and identity triggers at the same time. Her mother will be likely to argue about whether it’s “true” that she’s critical, or switchtrack because she feels unappreciated. She’ll be distracted as she wrestles with whether she’s a “good mother” and a “good person.” And second, the request is too general. “Back off” and “Quit criticizing” are too vague, especially since Hunyee’s mother may not be aware of her behavior in the first place. Remember that some of this is habitual behavior that’s probably in a blind spot, and as such needs more than just a label. So when setting boundaries, be specific about three things:

If you’re not going to change, you still have a “duty to mitigate.” That means you need to do what you can, within reason, to reduce the impacts of your actions (or inaction) on others.

The decision to take or not take the medication is Larry’s; the consequences of that decision are shared.

The idea isn’t to shut down discussion, but to open it up and to problem solve about how to minimize the cost of your decision not to change.

So Steve has set his boundary—I really don’t think I can change—and he’s worked with his brother to reduce the impact on Mark. This allows them to move on from the fantasy future of a changed Steve and to enjoy who each of them is now.

When turning down feedback, use “and” to be appreciative, and firm. Be specific about: The request The time frame The consequences Their assent If you’re not changing, work to mitigate the impact on others. Ask about the impact Coach them to deal with the unchanged you Problem solve together

But we can recognize some keyframes—stages and moments in the conversation that can serve as landmarks. If you can identify the conversation keyframes, you can do your own ‘tweening.

What is the purpose of the conversation? What kind of feedback would I like, and what kind is my giver trying to give?

Is the feedback negotiable or final, a friendly suggestion or a command? Body: A two-way exchange of information, requiring you to master four main skills: listening, asserting, managing the conversation process, and problem solving. Close: Here we clarify commitments, action steps, benchmarks, procedural contracts, and follow-up.

CLARIFY PURPOSE, CHECK STATUS Below are three questions that will help you and your giver get aligned. 1. Is This Feedback? If So, What Kind?

If it is feedback, is it evaluation, coaching, or appreciation? You won’t always know, and your giver won’t either. So, ask yourself this: What kind

Also ask yourself this: What is your giver’s purpose? What do they think you need? Listen for the real underlying issue. Their feedback might sound like forward-looking coaching for you (“You’d be better off if you didn’t work so much. . . . ”) when what they really want you to hear is a deeper concern about how they’re feeling (“Your relentless pace is having a negative impact on the team”).

It’s often unclear whether feedback is a suggestion or a command. When your boss says that you should wear a tie to the event, is he giving you some helpful career advice (“You can always take a tie off”), or is he issuing an order (“Wear a tie or you’re fired”)? You may or may not choose to comply, but you’ll certainly want to know which category the feedback falls into.

3. Is This Final or Negotiable? If the feedback is an evaluation, determine its status: Is it final or provisional? If your performance rating is final, it’s important to know that up front. If it’s provisional, then you may be able to influence the final outcome. Often, receivers waste time trying to influence a decision that has already been made and cannot be reversed. If it’s a done deal, spend your time understanding it and talking about effective ways to handle the consequences going forward.

“Can we take a minute to step back so that I’m clear on our purposes? I want to be sure I’m on the same page as you.” If they level an accusation that strikes you as off base and are in a stubborn “I’m right” frame, reframe the issue as a difference between you: “I want to hear your perspective on this, and then I’ll share my view, and we can figure out where and why our views are different.” The opening is important because it sets the conversation’s tone and trajectory. MIT researchers have found a correlation between skilled interaction during the first five minutes of a negotiation and good outcomes.

Remember, correcting course up front is about process, not substance. You’re not telling the feedback giver what they can or can’t say; you’re working to clarify the mutual purpose of the conversation and suggesting a two-way exploration.

Listening includes asking clarifying questions, paraphrasing the giver’s view, and acknowledging their feelings. Asserting is a mix of sharing, advocating, and expressing—in essence, talking. Don’t confuse asserting with “asserting truth” or with being certain. You can be assertive about your point of view even as you are aware that it’s your point of view and not necessarily the entire story; you can be assertive about your ambivalence; you can be assertive about feeling doubt. We’re using the term “asserting” because it captures a sense of leaning in, of sticking up for yourself, though without being combative. The third skill involves process moves—hinges that turn the conversation in a more productive direction. You are acting as your own referee, stepping outside the conversation, noticing where you and the giver are stuck, and suggesting a better direction, topic, or process.

Listening may be the most challenging skill involved in receiving feedback, but it also has the biggest payoff.

Our internal voice is often fairly quiet, especially when we’re absorbed in what someone is saying. But when we disagree with what they’re saying, or feel emotional, our internal voice gets louder and demands more of our attention. And when we’re listening to ourselves, we can’t also listen to others.

In fact, in some subjects who watched unfair players receive shocks, the part of the brain connected to pleasure and revenge lit up instead.5 The bottom line? We are wired for empathy, but only toward those who we believe are behaving well. What does this have to do with feedback? When we are receiving feedback that feels unfair or off base, when we feel underappreciated or poorly treated, our empathy and curiosity may be neurologically turned off. So listening during a tough feedback conversation won’t come naturally. Even those of us who are generous listeners in other contexts may have trouble finding curiosity when we’re feeling triggered.

when we’re triggered, we don’t think just anything, we think specific and predictable things. Knowing that gives us some traction on the challenge

Talk to your internal voice. Acknowledge and appreciate it (they’re your own thoughts, after all). Remind it that understanding doesn’t equal agreeing.

Negotiate it toward real curiosity. And finally, give it an assignment: I need you to be intensely curious about what they’re saying. Help me dig in and understand.

What’s right about what they’re saying? Why is it that they see...

You are listening to understand. The first order of business is archeological: You’re digging under labels, clarifying contours, and filling in pieces you didn’t initially see. You’re assembling all the relevant evidence and background to make sense of the size and shape of the feedback from the giver’s perspective.

If understanding is purpose one, letting the giver know you understand (or, just as important, that you want to understand) is purpose two.

interrupting periodically (to ensure that you understand the giver, rather than to assert your contrasting view) can be a sign that you are listening well.6 So jump in: “Before you go further, can you just say more about what you mean by ‘unprofessional’? I want to be sure I’m tracking what you’re describing. . . .” Clarifying as you go can be helpful to both of you.

Sarcasm is always inconsistent with true inquiry (“No, no, I love getting eviscerating feedback from you. Do you have more?”), as are questions that cross-examine (“But isn’t it true that . . . ?” “If so, how do you explain . . . ?”).

Replace hot inquiry like this: “Do you actually think that what you’re saying is consistent or fair?” with a thoughtful assertion like this: “What you’re suggesting seems inconsistent with the criteria you’ve used for others in my position. That doesn’t seem fair to me.” You can then circle back to listening: “Are there aspects of this that I’m missing?”

Assert what you have to assert. It makes listening easier and more effective.

But feedback is not simply a thing the giver hands you and you receive. The two of you are building a puzzle—together. They have some of the pieces, and you have some of the pieces. When you don’t assert, you are withholding your pieces. Without your point of view and feelings the giver is unaware of whether what they’re saying is helpful, on target, or in line with your experiences. There’s no problem solving, no adjusting, and no indication of whether you understand the feedback, how you might use it, or why trying it out is more challenging or risky than they assume. Your assertions will often be in response to the giver’s feedback, but not always. You might be asked to begin a performance review with a self-assessment. But at some point, by definition, you will be getting feedback and you will have things to say in response.

most often left out is your data, your interpretations, and your feelings. As long as you’ve made that shift, you can assert anything that’s important to you. With both sets of puzzle pieces on the table, you can begin to see where the two of you see things the same and differently, and why.

If you say, “That advice is wrong,” the giver will simply respond by explaining again why it’s right. If you say, “I disagree with that advice,” the giver can’t argue with the fact that you happen to have an opinion on the matter. You do. All that is left is to figure out why you see it differently. You might say this: “We had a different approach in the last place I worked, and we had fewer problems than we do here.”

Relationship Mistakes The big relationship assertion pitfall is switchtracking. You can avoid that by noticing that there are two topics, and giving each topic its own track. Pitfall: “You’re a self-centered jerk.” Better: “I’m feeling underappreciated, so it’s hard for me to focus on your feedback. I think we need to discuss how I’m feeling, as well as the feedback itself.”

The second signals willingness to take responsibility for your contribution, while pointing out that you are not in this alone.

Pitfall: “It’s true. I’m hopeless.” Better: “I’m surprised by all this and it’s a lot to take in. I want to take some time to think about it and digest what you’ve said. Let’s come back to it tomorrow.”

When you’re feeling overwhelmed, it’s unlikely that you will represent your views in a clear or balanced way. In your effort to regain some balance, you may take far more than your share of the responsibility for a problem, or simply project amplified hopelessness and insecurity. Better to be open about the fact that you’re surprised by the feedback and want time to figure out what it means for you. A second common pitfall occurs when your internal voice is hard at work keeping the feedback out: Pitfall: “That’s ridiculous. I’m not that kind of person.” Better: “That’s upsetting to hear, because it’s not how I see myself or who I want to be.”

They were not only in the conversation, they were also actively and explicitly managing the conversation. Supercommunicators had an exceptional ability to observe the discussion, diagnose where it was going wrong, and make explicit process interventions to correct it. It was as though they were functioning in two roles at once: They weren’t just players in the game, they were also referees.

Each contains an observation about some aspect of the process that is stuck or off track. And each contains a suggestion for how to move forward or an invitation to problem solving. The second is that they all sound slightly awkward—not how regular people talk. And paradoxically, that’s one of the reasons these kinds of interventions can be so powerful. A

You are pausing the action of the conversation to step back and consider how it’s going and how you might correct course. These moves can short-circuit an escalating cycle of frustration or disagreement, and they give both people a chance to make a purposive choice about how to go forward together.

To most people’s surprise, being good at problem solving is not just a matter of being “clever” or even “creative.” There are specific skills—questions to ask, ways to approach things—that make a difference.

Finding possibilities requires two things: attentive listening for the interests behind the feedback, and the ability to generate options that address those interests. This can transform your feedback conversations from arguments about whether the giver’s ideas are “the right way to go” to explorations of what they’re trying to accomplish and how to get there.

Positions are what people say they want or demand. Interests are the underlying “needs, desires, fears, and concerns” that the stated position intends to satisfy.7 Often interests can be met by a variety of options, some different from what anyone sees at the outset.

Listening for the underlying interests gives you more room to maneuver.

When you’re at an impasse—when what a giver suggests is difficult for you or even unacceptable—ask about the underlying interests behind the suggestion.

To solve the real problem, you have to understand the real interests. And to understand the real interests, you have to dig behind the stated positions and identify which bucket the interests fall into.

It’s useful to be explicit about what you’re trying to accomplish. You can name the different interests and invite the other person to think with you about ways of meeting them.

Even when the conversation goes well, we often skip a crucial last step: figuring out what we’ve agreed to and what to do next. If we’re not explicit, we often end up disappointed by the lack of progress, or confused about the other person’s lofty expectations. Both giver and receiver wonder why they spent so much time on the matter to begin with, when nothing ever changes.

Rather than finding solutions in these cases we should often be looking for strategies—new ways of working around each other’s foibles and failures, forgetfulness, or fiery tempers. At the end of the conversation, articulate the ideas you’ve generated for how to accommodate each other more successfully, and again, make sure you each know exactly what you’re agreeing to.

(2) “Unfair” is stated as a truth rather than as your perception.