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

by Douglas Stone

Feedback includes any information you get about yourself. In the broadest sense, it’s how we learn about ourselves from our experiences and from other people—how we learn from life.

Receiving feedback sits at the intersection of these two needs—our drive to learn and our longing for acceptance. These needs run deep, and the tension between them is not going away. But there’s a lot each of us can do to manage the tension—to reduce anxiety in the face of feedback and to learn in spite of the fear. We believe that the ability to receive feedback well is not an inborn trait but a skill that can be cultivated.

In the workplace, treating feedback not just as something to be endured, but something to be actively sought, can have a profound impact. Feedback-seeking behavior—as it’s called in the research literature—has been linked to higher job satisfaction, greater creativity on the job, faster adaptation in a new organization or role, and lower turnover. And seeking out negative feedback is associated with higher performance ratings.

The transformative impact of modeling is crucial at work as well. If you seek out coaching, your direct reports will seek out coaching. If you take responsibility for your mistakes, your peers will be encouraged to fess up as well; if you try out a suggestion from a coworker, they will be more open to trying out your suggestions.

Nothing affects the learning culture of an organization more than the skill with which its executive team receives feedback.

Truth Triggers are set off by the substance of the feedback itself—it’s somehow off, unhelpful, or simply untrue. In response, we feel indignant, wronged, and exasperated.

Relationship Triggers are tripped by the particular person who is giving us this gift of feedback. All feedback is colored by the relationship between giver and receiver, and we can have reactions based on what we believe about the giver (they’ve got no credibility on this topic!) or how we feel treated by the giver (after all I’ve done for you, I get this kind of petty criticism?). Our focus shifts from the feedback itself to the audacity of the person delivering it (are they malicious or just stupid?).

By contrast, Identity Triggers focus neither on the feedback nor on the person offering it. Identity triggers are all about us. Whether the feedback is right or wrong, wise or witless, something about it has caused our identity—our sense of who we are—to come undone. We feel overwhelmed, threatened, ashamed, or off balance. We’re suddenly unsure what to think about ourselves, and question what we stand for. When we’re in this state, the past can look damning and the future bleak. That’s the identity trigger talking, and once it gets tripped, a nuanced discussion of our strengths and weaknesses is not in the cards. We’re just trying to survive.

Our triggers are obstacles because they keep us from engaging skillfully in the conversation. Receiving feedback well is a process of sorting and filtering—of learning how the other person sees things; of trying on ideas that at first seem a poor fit; of experimenting. And of shelving or discarding the parts of the feedback that in the end seem off or not what you need right now.

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

2. RELATIONSHIP TRIGGERS: I CAN’T HEAR THIS FEEDBACK FROM YOU 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. Do they appreciate us? Are they delivering the feedback in a respectful manner (by e-mail? Are you kidding?). Are they blaming us when the real problem is them?

Don’t Switchtrack: Disentangle What from Who Relationship triggers produce hurt, suspicion, and sometimes anger. The way out is to disentangle the feedback from the relationship issues it triggers, and to discuss both, clearly and separately.

When they blame you, and it feels unfair, blaming them back is not the answer. To them, that will seem unfair, and worse, they’ll assume you’re making excuses. Instead, work to understand it this way: “What’s the dynamic between us and what are we each contributing to the problem?”

Our responses don’t always hinge on the skill of the giver or even on what is being said. Rather, they’re based on how we are hearing what’s said and which kind of feedback we think we are getting.

Yet the absence of appreciation can leave a gaping hole in any relationship—personal or professional. Sure, I want to know how to improve, but I also want to know that you see how hard I’m working, how much I’m trying, what I do that’s special. Without that, your coaching isn’t going to get through, because I’m listening for something else.

Second, appreciation has to come in a form the receiver values and hears clearly. Gary Chapman makes a similar point about love in his book The 5 Love Languages. Some of us take in love through words (“I love you”), while others hear it more clearly through acts of service, quality time, physical contact, or gifts. If I feel unloved, it could be because you don’t love me—or it could be because you’re expressing it in a way that I don’t take in.3

For some, a monthly paycheck is all the “attaboy” they need. For others, public recognition is meaningful, whether in the form of team e-mail, kudos at a meeting, or organizational awards. For some it’s promotion and titles—even if they earn the same or less pay. And for many of us, it’s the feeling we get from knowing we’re a trusted adviser or indispensable player. I know you appreciate me because we laugh a lot, or because you come to me first with tough challenges.

Third, meaningful appreciation has to be authentic. If employees start to sense that everyone receives appreciation for the smallest accomplishments—“thanks for coming to work today”—appreciation i...

In the course of your life, you’ll encounter people who are unusually skilled at giving you feedback. They’ll say things like, “Let me describe what I mean and you can ask me questions to see if I’m making sense.” But most givers aren’t this skilled, and so it falls to you as receiver to work to understand what’s under the label. The surest way of doing that is to spot the label in the first place.

To answer that question, we start with an observation: If we strip back the label, we find that feedback has both a past and a future. There’s a looking-back component (“here’s what I noticed”), and a looking-forward component (“here’s what you need to do”). The usual feedback labels don’t tell us much in either direction. So to clarify the feedback under

what she sees. It is said that all advice is autobiographical, and this, in part, is what is meant. We interpret what we see based on our own life experiences, assumptions, preferences, priorities, and implicit rules about how things work and how one should be. I understand your life through the lens of my life; my advice for you is based on me.

When Receiving Evaluation: Clarify Consequences and Expectations It’s not easy to clarify advice, and it can be even tougher to clarify the consequences and expectations that follow from an evaluation. Why? Because we’re still vibrating from the impact of the evaluation itself. Whether we are delighted or devastated, we’re not in a curious state of mind.

Yet it’s particularly important to understand the forward-looking part of feedback when it’s evaluation. What does this mean for me? What will happen next, what is expected of me? Given where I stand, what should I do now?

We don’t notice what we don’t notice, so we don’t notice that we don’t notice.

But if friction develops in the relationship—when the infatuation of new love fades, the stakes rise, or humidity sets in—biases shift. Now your giver begins to focus on the things you messed up while ignoring those you got right. Your “willingness to take risks” is now seen as “risky,” your “firm hand on the tiller” is now regarded as an unwillingness to let go. Others seek data that confirm their preexisting view of us, whether that view is good or bad. It’s human nature.3

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. Everyone at

Sometimes you will get to the point of fully understanding where a giver’s feedback comes from and what it is they’re suggesting, and you will simply disagree with it. In fact, now that you really do understand it, their feedback might seem even further off target or more unfair than before.

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.

To understand your feedback, discuss where it is: Coming from: their data and interpretations Going to: advice, consequences, expectations

Ask: What’s different about The data we are looking at Our interpretations and implicit rules

But get this: 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.

University College London researcher Sophie Scott speculates that 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.

AMPLIFIER 1: EMOTIONAL MATH Emotions play a huge role in the gap between how others see us and how we assume we are seen. We subtract certain emotions from the equation: “That emotion is not really who I am.” But others count it double: “That emotion is exactly who you are.”

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

The third amplifier has already been hinted at on the Gap Map: We judge ourselves by our intentions (arrow 2), while others judge us by our impacts (arrow 4). Given that even good intentions can result in negative impacts, this contributes to the gap in the story you tell about me versus the story I know is “true.”

have good intentions—I’m trying to help, to guide, even to coach. I assume my good intentions lead to good impacts—they feel helped, guided, and appreciate my efforts to help them grow. Hence, people must know I’m a good person. But for those around us, our impact drives their story. Despite my best intentions, I may have a negative impact on you; you feel bossed around and micromanaged. You then assume that I’m acting purposefully, or at least that I know I’m being bossy and don’t care enough not to be. And if I have negative or negligent intentions I must be a bad person.

Now you give me feedback that I’m bossy and controlling, and I’m shocked and bewildered. I discard it because it doesn’t match who I am. It’s wrong. And you conclude that I’m either oblivious to who I am or so defensive that I refuse to acknowledge what everyone knows is true.

The “fix” is to separate intentions from impacts when fee...

“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.”

Feedback givers also confuse impacts and intentions.

When you notice yourself wondering What was their agenda? and What’s wrong with them?, make sure your next thought is I wonder if this feedback is sitting in my blind spot.

Instead, ask (the feedback giver, not your nine-year-old): “What do you see me doing, or failing to do, that is getting in my own way?”

Summary: SOME KEY IDEAS We all have blind spots because we: can’t see our own leaky faces can’t hear our tone of voice are unaware of even big patterns of behavior Blind spots are amplified by: Emotional Math: We discount our emotions, while others count them double. Attribution: We attribute our failure to the situation, while others attribute it to our character. Impact-Intent Gap: We judge ourselves by our intentions, while others judge us by our impact on them. To see ourselves and our blind spots we need help from others. Invite others to be an honest mirror to help you see yourself in the moment. Ask: How am I getting in my own way?

There are people we admire so much that their actions and advice take on a golden glow. Our default assumption is that their input is wise, thoughtful, deep—just the thing we need to hear. We hang on their every word and strive to emulate them. Their feedback comes preapproved.

What We Think About Them Skill or Judgment: How, when, or where they gave the feedback. Credibility: They don’t know what they’re talking about. Trust: Their motives are suspect.

There are three moves that can help us manage relationship triggers and avoid switchtracking. First, we need to be able to spot the two topics on the table (the original feedback and the relationship concern). Next, we need to give each topic its own conversation track (and get both people on the same track at the same time). Third, we need to help givers be clearer about their original feedback, especially when the feedback itself relates to the relationship.

The template for signposting is this: “I see two related but separate topics for us to discuss. They are both important. Let’s discuss each topic fully but separately, giving each topic its own track. After we’ve finished discussing the first topic, we’ll swing back around and discuss the second one.”

So when you receive coaching, a question to ask yourself is this: Is this about helping me grow and improve, or is this the giver’s way of raising an important relationship issue that has been upsetting them?

Feedback is often expressed as “This is how you are, and that’s the problem.” But in relationships, “This is how you are” really means “This is how you are in relationship to how I am.” It’s