Receiving Feedback, Problem #2
Last month, we talked about Problem #1 with Receiving Feedback, which was that it’s really tough to reject bad feedback without coming across like you’re unteachable and defensive and priggish. My proposed solution to that problem was to essentially draw a distinction between receiving feedback and acting on feedback. In my personal school of leadership and team development coaching, we ought to graciously and eagerly receive all feedback, but we needn’t act on all feedback. If you missed that post and want the details, here’s the link.
This month, the topic to be discussed is… (Cue the header, Kronk!)
Problem #2 with receiving feedback:
What are you actually supposed to do with feedback, once you’ve received it?
This question is a little tricky because, as a reminder from last post, not all feedback is good feedback and not everyone will give you feedback for the right reasons. This means that some of the feedback you receive will be in fact very BAD feedback that you should NOT internalize. But how do you tell? How do you tell apart good feedback and bad feedback? How can you discern what feedback to internalize and what feedback to reject?
Here are two answers that I don’t inherently recommend and the one answer that I do recommend.
Method #1 (Questionable): Discern good versus bad feedback based on personal whim.
This is the easiest method for distinguishing good versus bad feedback. If you like the feedback and see that it fits you or could help you, you take it. If you dislike the feedback and feel that it’s nonsense or ridiculous, you reject it.
This simple and casual method is most effective when you’re getting lectured by someone like your weird aunt that you haven’t seen since you were 13 years old. (She tells you to travel more while you’re still young? Sure, makes sense. She tells you to also start bathing in a mix of Himalayan mud and organic peanut butter every week for health reasons? Errr, no thank you, Aunty Gertrude, time to take your meds.)
Granted, I don’t inherently recommend this method in the workplace, because distinguishing good versus bad feedback based on personal whim is a little, uhhh... Well, I’m not entirelyyy sure how good it’s going to be for your reputation if your every rejection to feedback is, “Nah, I'm not doing that. Why? Because I don’t wanna. Duh.”
(Just kidding, I do know. It’s not good for your reputation. Don’t do it.)
Method #2 (Questionable): Discern good versus bad feedback using filters.
For PR and personal integrity reasons, I think most of us tend to try to find a method that’s slightly more fair and objective. One way to do that is by using popularized filters like the following:
“Don’t take feedback from someone you wouldn’t trade lives with.” (Filter based on speaker ethos.)
“If you hear it once, it’s an anecdote. If you hear it repeatedly, it’s a pattern.” (Filter based on frequency.)
“Take what’s useful; discard the rest.” (Filter based on functionality.)
By applying a filter, you can point to something outside of yourself to sort through feedback. You’re no longer letting subjectivity sway your analysis. You’re seemingly committed to accepting both positive and hard realities.
…right?
Well, kind of. Ish. Except for the fact that, at the end of the day, you’re still the one picking the filter. This means, you’re still the one deciding what feedback to accept and reject - just now by proxy, rather than directly. Don’t want feedback from a certain person? Apply the speaker ethos filter. Don’t want one-off feedback? Apply the frequency filter. Don’t want feedback that you don’t know how to implement? Apply the functionality filter.
Boom. Complete neutrality acquired…
(*cough*)
To clarify, my point here is not that filters are bad. Like with all wisdom, I think there’s a right time and place to apply them. My point is that even filters are ultimately only a half percent more fair and objective than your personal whims. Both systems ultimately boil down to you, individually determining if feedback is good or bad. You think about the feedback. You choose the filter. You execute a decision.
Which works fine, for as long as you’re correct.
But... Er… No offense…
We as humans drastically underestimate how frequently our perception (of self, others, the world at large) can be flawed, biased, and misinformed. Research has shown this repeatedly, in embarrassing colors. Heck, I can’t even recall the quadratic formula off the top of my head, or give you a single Latin name for any jellyfish, or correctly identify every country in Asia. Why would I assume that I have all of the critical knowledge I need in order to determine whether feedback should be accepted or rejected?
Method # 3 (Recommended): Give up the ego. Go on a quest. Remember that multiple perceptions can be simultaneously valid.
Before I get into my actual recommendation for what to do with feedback once you’ve received it, I’m going to pose another question. What is the overall purpose of feedback in the first place? I’ve got three proposals.
The first is that someone is just trying to tear you down and belittle you. (Not that I encourage skepticism, but I don’t want to understate the severity of recognizing this as a potential reason why you’re getting feedback. The reason I made it so clear so early in my last post on feedback that feedback should be rejected at times is because “feedback” is often a tool picked up by manipulative abusers to levy constant criticisms against victims, crippling and dismantling them under the disguise of “helpfulness” or “development”. I’m all for humility, but humility does not mean you need to take in everything everyone says to you, always. Especially if you’re a minority in the workplace, knowledge about this kind of issue is power. Be safe!)
The second is that someone will give you feedback just to try to get you to change how you’re doing something. (For example, I’ve probably given my poor, loving, supportive, yet hen-pecked-to-death husband feedback on how to load the dishes into the dishwasher, ad nauseam. Teehee.) In those cases, a simplified “accept or reject” method (like a personal whim or filter) is typically fine, because what’s being changed is just behavioral. (If my husband rejects my dishwasher-loading feedback, then I either have to redo it or live with it, both of which may be annoying but neither of which are severely consequential.) For any workplace behavior that is severe enough to be consequential (e.g. an employee stealing from the company, workplace violence, a direct report who is literally not doing their job, etc), then purely providing feedback isn’t going to be the route you’ll want to take to amend the issue anyway.
The rest of the time (and for the bulk of most cases, in my experience), constructive feedback is meant as an addendum or edit to how you’re viewing something. Because we as humans are flawed, biased, and misinformed at times, we often need someone to correct our perception of ourselves, others, and the world at large. “Hey, you don’t think ABC is a problem, but it is,” or, “Hi, you might not know how you come across to others, so I’m going to tell you,” or, “Er, you may think you’re X, but you’re actually Y.” These proposed changes to perception are significantly more important than a proposed change to behavior because behavior flows from perception. Behaviors are symptomatic; your perception is the root cause.
As an example… You could try to tell a power-hungry, bully-like leader to quit doing everything that makes him a power-hungry, bully-like leader. “Stop yelling during team meetings! Assign tasks fairly. Don’t pit us against each other. Use a neutral tone and body language. Quit hazing newbies with needless grunt work.” But that’s a bit like snipping off every leaf from a massive oak tree with kiddie scissors. Even if you convince him to fix some behaviors, he’ll either introduce new bad behaviors or reprint the-same-but-slightly-nuanced-so-as-to-avoid-accountability bad behaviors. Much, much more effective if you can convince the power-hungry, bully-like leader that he is, in fact, a power-hungry, bully-like leader. Doing so would be like felling the oak from the trunk and digging up the roots.
This is why, by and large, feedback tends to be focused on perception.
Give Up the Ego. My guess is that, right now, you might be thinking of someone who could use a solid dose of perception revisions. (We all know someone lol.) But if you pause to flip the script, you might also realize the bad news for us. If what I’m saying is true, then someone coming to us with feedback is them essentially telling us that we’re either ignorant or wrong. Or BOTH. Not just that we were behaviorally irritating or inconveniencing. But that our perception itself is flawed. That the way we look at the world is incorrect. That, in a specific area, we shouldn’t trust our own take on reality.
Is there any wonder that we tend to get defensive around feedback? I’ve been in conflicts before where I pretty quickly understand that I’m the party in the wrong. But guess who often wants to keep that sucker going for as long as possible, just to avoid admitting it? Meee lol. (Y’all, pray for my close friends and family LOL.) This is almost always what happens with feedback too. Even if you can tell that the feedback is correct, now you have to swallow your pride and accept that your perception was faulty. That’s a tough ask, even if the feedback were to come from a trusted friend. If it came from an unfamiliar or disliked party? Goooood night.
Feedback is almost always meant as an addendum or edit to your perception of yourself, others, or the world at large.
I think, because we feel this pressure on our egos, we tend to turn our response to feedback into an oversimplified binary decision: “accept or reject”. At least I do. I usually want to figure out my next step, with haste. Accept and take the blow or reject and feel self-secure again?
Go on a Quest. Unfortunately, I think this swift, binary decision misses the potential benefit of feedback entirely. If the whole point of receiving feedback is to help us improve our perception, then - rather than getting caught up in agreement or disagreement with a specific edit - shouldn’t we use this as an opportunity to initiate a grand ole “perception-analysis” journey?
Like, if someone told me that I’m a bad listener, I might be a little stunned (especially since my day job hinges on my ability to actively listen). For the sake of my ego, I’m probably likely to reject the feedback in my gut. But really, I think that the wisest, most humble, and most intelligent response is to just get curious about the feedback. Sure, maybe I disagree with it at first. But where is it coming from? How did that perception of me come to exist? What did I do? Do other people share the same perception? What might I be missing?
I’m not trying to ask questions that are leading - in the sense that I’m not trying to figure out if the feedback is right or wrong. I’m just trying to understand what the heck is happening lol. Instead of looking at feedback like a judge with a gavel, I’m trying to look at it like a detective with a magnifying glass, sleuthing around for clues on what truth is. I won’t look just at the scene of the crime. I’ll look everywhere in town. What is the story behind why this feedback ended up on my doorstep? Who are the involved parties? Do I have other clues that might tip me off as to what reality is?
In my last post, I noted that you should never give a response to feedback immediately. I made that point for this reason. Going on a grand ole “perception-analysis” journey takes time. (Well, also, it’s just so, so, so hard to keep the defensive guns from firing when your ego feels under attack lol, so planning to not give any response at all will only help you.) On a very practical level, this grand ole “perception-analysis” journey could include:
reading trusted articles about the feedback topic to understand how it’s discussed popularly
asking the feedback-giver to share the full story behind the feedback, if he or she is comfortable with doing so
seeking out a diverse span of counsel about the matter (again, not for self-confirmation but for exploration purposes)
paying more attention to the feedback topic in your own life
genuinely seeing if you can play the Devil’s Advocate and succeed in developing a robust and satisfying argument against yourself
journalling out your feelings so you can more clearly determine if you’re getting your knickers in a knot just because your ego is bruised
talking to a coach, wink wink nudge nudge
Yes, technically, all of this information is still being filtered through you, who has an imperfect perception of yourself, others, and the world. So does that mean it’s possible for a blindspot issue to still sneak past your perception in this method, despite doing all of these tasks? Sure. But is it way less likely, the more outside information you gather to incorporate into your perception-analysis? Hard yes.
Also, to note: in this method, you may not learn anything new about yourself. You very well could go through all of this work and decide, “Yup, that person’s feedback is bunk; I’m good.” But I guarantee you: in this method, you will learn a lot about something. Perhaps about the feedback giver. Perhaps about the cultural dynamics on your team and how feedback is developed and communicated. Perhaps about how others process things differently from you. No matter what it is, learning more will do nothing but strengthen your leadership.
Remember That Multiple Perceptions Can Be Simultaneously Valid. Last but not least, I think another ego-freeing truth to remember is that it is very, very possible for multiple perceptions to be simultaneously valid. For example, a leader might have a super fun and engaging and personal leadership style. In the same team, he might have some direct reports who love his style and some direct reports who want to just be left alone to do their work without feeling the pressure to constantly socialize. Is anyone strictly right or wrong for feeling how they feel about their leader? Of course not. Is that leader strictly a good leader or a bad leader? Of course not. Then, if that leader was told by one of his direct reports that she finds him overly personal and wants him to be less intrusive, does that leader need to listen to her full-send? Not inherently, I’d say - because her comment may end up being purely one perspective that could exist alongside the perspectives of others who love their leader’s friendly and gregarious style. We just don’t know enough information yet.
The only way that that leader will find out what’s truly happening is to drop the ego and go on a quest to learn more. Maybe he’ll find that he is actually a bit too friendly with his team. But maybe the right next step is to simply adjust his leadership to be more individualized: friendly with those who want him to be friendly and reserved with those who want him to be reserved. Maybe the right next step is to realize that this specific direct report has been disgruntled for a long time, about a particular and unrelated incident that happened last quarter. Who knows? There are a lot of possibilities.
One piece of feedback only tells a fraction of the story. The leader’s responsibility is to diligently work on unearthing as much of a full and accurate depiction of reality as possible.
Getting feedback gets everyone’s hackles raised. I’ll be the first to admit that my ego often needs a hefty prescription of Ozempic. Hopefully, this post shows you the importance of not giving trigger-happy defensive responses to feedback - but teaches you how to squeeze out the most of the feedback you’re given while keeping you clear-headed, curious, and confident.
Obviously, each case can be super different too. If you want to talk about yours in detail, I’d love to chat.
Until next time!
Hey, Megan here! I love hearing from you. If you have any thoughts about this blog post, if you found anything funny or thought-provoking, or if you just want to let me know you were here, please drop me a comment below!
