[HN Gopher] How to deliver constructive feedback in difficult si...
___________________________________________________________________
How to deliver constructive feedback in difficult situations (2019)
Author : ff7f00
Score : 171 points
Date : 2021-08-22 16:11 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (productivityhub.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (productivityhub.org)
| willjp wrote:
| > great communication isn't just about what you say, it's about
| what other people hear
|
| This is very smart.
| kubanczyk wrote:
| I don't know if conscious, but prima facie it is a direct
| complement of the famous thought:
|
| " _The most important thing in communication is to hear what
| isn't being said._ "
|
| Peter Drucker, interview with Bill Moyers (1989)
| dejongh wrote:
| Good topic. Needs more focus.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| These methods for NVC are useful because (a) they decouple
| analysis from emotions, and (b) they protect the target from
| feeling attacked, so it is possible for the target to receive the
| analysis instead of going into defensive mode.
|
| Daniel Dennett takes the paradigm further by adding a prequel,
| which is to clearly articulate the other person's logic and state
| of mind empathically first, before going into the analysis. Done
| well, this enhances possibilities for cooperation because it
| elevates the status of the receiver through respect, even when,
| or especially when the parties views are not aligned.
|
| https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...
| camillomiller wrote:
| This in turn feels quite manipulative, though.
| kubanczyk wrote:
| As much as it _is_ manipulative _per se_ , and might likely
| seem unnatural ("false"/"calculated"), it's at the same time
| quite effective. This form of communication accomplishes its
| stated goals, and being a natural, ummm, bloke is not it.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Could you clarify which aspect of it is manipulative?
|
| The commenter's advice is emphasized quite a bit in
| negotiations books/courses. If you want the other person to
| listen to you, it really does help if you can summarize his
| stance _in his voice_ - such that he will say "This guy gets
| what I'm trying to say."
|
| Probably the majority of heated discussions I've witnessed is
| where they are talking past one another, and as a 3rd party
| observer it's very clear neither side understands where the
| other party is coming from, and they waste most of the time
| addressing things the other person isn't saying.
|
| NVC is less explicit about it, but the principle is there:
|
| "So it sounds like you're frustrated because the script takes
| an hour to run and you believe it can run in 10 minutes, thus
| saving you some time?"
|
| (Feeling: Frustrated, Needs: Competence and efficiency,
| Observation: Takes an hour to run)
| PradeetPatel wrote:
| On the contrary, I see it as good leadership. One could argue
| that getting a group of people aligned on a single objective
| manipulation, but knowing the right words to say to elicit
| actions from them is the hallmark of a good leader.
| MonadIsPronad wrote:
| Yep, I was reading the examples thinking "god, I'd really
| hate someone talking to me like that". It feels very
| "corporate training speak" or something, very smarmy and
| false.
| lmilcin wrote:
| The best advice I can give is to start investing into it early
| on.
|
| For example, I try to make sure my team understand that I have
| _always_ team 's best interest in mind, that I am first to admit
| if I make a mistake and that I am always ready to evaluate my
| position as new information comes.
|
| It goes really a long way to help in a difficult situation but it
| also prevents a lot of difficult situations from happening in the
| first place.
|
| It also tends to make other team members and management to be on
| your side which may help in a lot of situations (but not always,
| not with the most stubborn people).
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| In my own life, I have spent many, many years, dealing with some
| of the most difficult people on Earth. Many, who have yet to
| learn the tools of nonviolent (as in "Not picking up a chair, and
| breaking it over your head" nonviolent) feedback.
|
| There's something to be said for trying to confront someone that
| could break you in two, has severe psych issues, and Bic-pen-ink
| tattoos. It sort of helps you to focus on outcomes.
|
| In my experience, starting by laying out a platform of common
| goals and achievements is always a great icebreaker.
|
| i.e.
|
| ME: _" We've really made a lot of progress on the fundraising,
| but we still have to get the registration packets done, and the
| catering menus finished, in time for the conference."_
|
| I've found that ignoring personal insults and blamethrowing is
| useful.
|
| BIG BUTCH: _" Well, you were so busy riding your high horse,
| trying to impress Cathy, that you never checked on my team."_
|
| ME: _" You're right. I should have checked in to see if you could
| use help. So here we are, and I need your help to deliver the
| packets to Joe's committee. How can we get this done?"_
|
| Note how I sidestepped horses and Cathy? She'd probably be
| crushed that I ignored her, but she was irrelevant to the
| conversation.
|
| Also, it always helps to give them some authority and "upper
| hand."
|
| Then, there is the firing conversation:
|
| ME: _" I'm afraid that I can't work with your team, any longer.
| I've found that I can't be productive in our work. I'll need to
| find someone else to work with."_
|
| There's really no need for "constructive feedback," since The Die
| Is Cast. If they want that, I am happy to give it, but the main
| subject needs to be made clear and unambiguous. The relationship
| is at an end. The time for negotiations and bargaining is over.
|
| I've learned that "weasel words" can be incredibly self-
| destructive. They leave the appearance of "gaps" that aren't
| actually there. They are dishonest, and paint me as a coward;
| which can be taken as weakness. If the decision has been made,
| then I can't allow it to be second-guessed or misinterpreted.
| Plain vernacular is worth its weight in gold.
|
| If I need to have a couple of bruisers with billy clubs
| available, then I can have them file in quietly, after we're
| settled.
|
| I think that treating people with _respect_ , at all times, is
| really, really important. Choosing the venue (like not
| confronting them in front of others) can go a long way towards
| helping to reach my goals.
|
| Everyone deserves respect; even those that refuse to give me
| respect.
| muntzy wrote:
| On the topic I often recommend the great book _Hard
| Conversations_ , and another by the same authors _Thanks for the
| Feedback_. They give a detailed breakdown of how communication
| actually works so that my overly technical brain can apply it.
| sdoering wrote:
| After searching a while for the first title I tried the second
| one (as the plural authors made me question my results).
|
| Did you mean: "Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What
| Matters Most" by Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen, et al.? and:
| "Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving
| Feedback Well" by the same authors?
| BeetleB wrote:
| Not the original commenter. Difficult Conversations is a
| great book for understanding the dynamics of communications.
| It has a lot of overlap with the NVC book, but it's very poor
| in terms of giving actionable advice. The NVC book has the
| opposite problem: Great in terms of giving actionable advice,
| but poor in explaining the "why" behind the advice.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Willing to take a shot at a quick tldr?
| soared wrote:
| Radical Candor is a very common recommendation along these
| lines as well.
| camillomiller wrote:
| I think the observation vs evaluation examples are sloppy (yes,
| that's an evaluation).
|
| I understand this is not a general assessment of the value of
| observations over evaluations outside of the framework of NVC.
| Most of the examples would be perceived - at least by me - as
| impersonal and dishonest. Voicing observations such as "you were
| ten minutes late this morning" to someone who's knowingly been
| late already before could be easily perceived as passive
| aggressive. Passive aggressivity is, I believe, the most subtly
| violent form of communication, and it really leads to nothing
| useful or constructive.
|
| Most of the examples read as passive aggressive to me, because
| you're renouncing to a very direct evaluation that doesn't
| require a specific knowledge framework and present instead your
| interlocutor with an emotionless remark about their actions.
| BeetleB wrote:
| I think you're being needlessly downvoted. Sorry.
|
| > Voicing observations such as "you were ten minutes late this
| morning" to someone who's knowingly been late already before
| could be easily perceived as passive aggressive.
|
| I can see your concern, because it's not clear from the
| article. It _is_ passive aggressive if you leave it at that.
| NVC does not recommend leaving at that - you have to state all
| 3: Observation, Need and Feeling[1] - and the book explicitly
| calls out what happens if you omit any one. In that sense, your
| position is in line with the NVC book.
|
| A more complete NVC approach is:
|
| > You were ten minutes late this morning. I was annoyed at
| having to wait for you and lose productivity. Could you explain
| why you were late?
|
| And no, I should never assume you _know_ you were late, or how
| late you were. Because I may well be wrong to begin with (my
| clock is wrong, got you confused with someone else, etc).
| Without stating this fact, you would be confused.
|
| Or in this conversation we may discover that your watch was
| off, and the simple correction is to fix your watch. Or you may
| know you were 10 minutes late, but you also know that others
| tend to be 15 minutes late and you may want to bring up with me
| that I hold them to the same standard as I'm holding you. If
| any of these is true, the conversation is tougher if I don't
| mention that you were late by 10 minutes.
|
| > Most of the examples read as passive aggressive to me,
| because you're renouncing to a very direct evaluation that
| doesn't require a specific knowledge framework and present
| instead your interlocutor with an emotionless remark about
| their actions.
|
| Definitely true if you merely make the observation.
|
| _Edit_ : Another commenter raised a very good point. One of
| the benefits is to make the observation (without judgment)
| clear in your own head. It's quite easy to have your brain
| quickly jump to "lazy" or "tardy" - particularly for repeat
| offenders. And if you do that, it becomes equally easy to
| vocalize it, which would be a very big mistake.
|
| In most cases, there is no good reason to make that judgment.
| If someone is always late, it's quite fine to fire him because
| he cannot be on time, without having to portray him as a
| "tardy" person. You and your business have your needs and he
| couldn't meet them. _What_ he is need not enter into the
| discussion or narrative.
|
| [1] In this case there is also a fourth: Request
| spawarotti wrote:
| > You were ten minutes late this morning. I was annoyed at
| having to wait for you and lose productivity. Could you
| explain why you were late?
|
| Honestly, this sounds even worse to me than just the
| observation. IMO a good test is "Would I say this to my boss?
| If not, then probably I shouldn't say it at all.". I would
| not say this to my boss. Not even close.
|
| How about instead:
|
| "Hey, I noticed you were a little bit late, which is unusual
| for you. Is everything OK?"
|
| And if the pattern continues:
|
| "Hey, I noticed you were a bit late in the last couple of
| meetings. I think it is somewhat important to be on time. Is
| there anything I can do to help you avoid being late next
| time?"
| pmichaud wrote:
| I think some missing context here is that the "observation"
| phase of an NVC communication:
|
| 1. Is in large part for you, the speaker. It forces you to get
| clear about what you really know to be true. I'm surprised at
| how often I'm trying to communicate some reaction I'm having,
| and it's really hard to even say what triggered it. In the
| process of figuring that out I get a lot of clarity about hat I
| was expecting or hoping for, what was missing, what the other
| person actually did, and just by virtue of the reflection,
| often some "free" insight into what they might have been
| thinking.
|
| 2. Is always followed by a feeling, need, or request (or some
| combo of those). This, I think is the key to making it not
| passive aggressive. If I start with "I need for you to not be
| late anymore," it's a bit disorienting in the conversation for
| the other person. What caused you to say that? Why now?
| Providing an objective observation as context for the rest of
| what you say allows both people to be on the same page about
| what the subject even is. Being late is a bit of a trivial
| example, but just like making the observation alone leaves a
| lot of work on the listener to infer what you expect to happen
| as a result of the observation, making the request alone leaves
| a lot work on the listener to infer what generated the request
| in the first place, ie. what you think has been happening, what
| matters to you, etc.
|
| I think the strongest move is actually: observation, then
| impact, then request. Like:
|
| > Hey, you were ten minutes late this morning. We had to push
| back the client meeting because you weren't there, and I'm
| afraid we looked disorganized and untrustworthy as a result. I
| need you to be on time from now on.
|
| It's quite direct that way.
|
| Also much like the observation step triggering useful self-
| reflection, the impact step requires you to know why the
| request matters to you at all. Like if there was no client
| meeting, what do you care if the other person was 10 minutes
| late? Maybe you still care, but you need to reflect enough to
| actually understand why, so that you can say it.
| ryeguy_24 wrote:
| I very rarely focus on the person but rather on the output. I try
| hard to deliver feedback genuinely, respectfully, and with an
| interest in elevating our collective work product. I try to offer
| advice or potential resources for the improvement that needs to
| happen. In addition, if I ever had a similar issue with my own
| work product, I definitely share the story and what I did to
| improve it.
|
| What not to do? Make snarky comments, laugh, put down, say
| "dude...". Things my current boss does. :)
| [deleted]
| epicureanideal wrote:
| (By the way, I'm writing this from a place of exhaustion and
| disappointment with the industry, rather than just knee jerk
| negativity.)
|
| Although I do think it's worthwhile to try to think and
| communicate as clearly as possible, over the years I've learned
| in this industry that 90% or more of coworkers and managers are
| not going to put the same effort into it. You can do everything
| right and the majority of the time it won't matter. The only
| thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships with management
| is to just do whatever they want even when it is leading the
| company to ruin, never voice your objections, etc.
|
| There is no common goal with most managers because they don't
| usually care about the success of the company, just their own
| personal success. And with most coworkers, few want to do things
| better more than they want to just have an easy ride.
|
| If anyone is aware of an environment where meritocracy exists in
| this industry I'd love to know about it. Where, where can I find
| a company that cares about making money by providing value?
| (Obviously some attention is paid to this to make enough money to
| keep the company going, but it's second to the higher goal of
| accumulating their personal status and wealth, and there is
| misalignment between that and actually delivering value due to
| usually poor leadership at the top and poor investor oversight.)
|
| Maybe it's all just a consequence of capital concentration. There
| are plenty of companies that could be out competed but
| competitors just won't be funded, except if they are run by other
| connected people who don't have the talent to out compete the
| existing ones.
| afarrell wrote:
| > The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships
| with management is to just do whatever they want even when it
| is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections,
| etc.
|
| This is correct but the implication is that a good career means
| having the courage to accept the risk of poor relationships
| with management and to be willing to end an unhealthy
| relationship.
| nooorofe wrote:
| > The only thing that (almost) guarantees good relationships
| with management is to just do whatever they want even when it
| is leading the company to ruin, never voice your objections,
| etc.
|
| That is not my experience. When management asks to do
| something, it doesn't mean it likes any outcome. I am not
| calling to oppose any decision, but usually there are ways to
| express concerns. "High risk" for example is language they may
| understand. I've found that managers many times more confused
| and disoriented than you may expect. Sometimes asking questions
| discovers, that there are missing parts in the plan. But it is
| not easy, even to start questioning you need to have reputation
| (ex. guy that make things done). Finding right forum ("small
| group discussion") is another way to communicate concerns.
|
| >they don't usually care about the success of the company, just
| their own personal success
|
| Well, people who put "success of the company" at highest
| priority usually not become manages. Many times managers are
| blind, because they have to follow orders (directions). Hearing
| from subject matter expert that the direction doesn't make
| sense not helping to their mental state.
|
| My general position: I prefer to warn about potential bad
| outcome of decision without refusing to follow orders.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| > Well, people who put "success of the company" at highest
| priority usually not become manages.
|
| Right, that's exactly the situation I'm complaining about.
| (That seems to indicate some kind of problem with aligning
| incentives in companies, because in theory from top to bottom
| we would want to achieve alignment of rewards and career
| success with actions that lead to company success.)
|
| I generally agree with everything you wrote.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| "Sandwich Technique"
|
| All you ever need to know.
| chenmike wrote:
| It's generally agreed that the Sandwich Technique is
| manipulative and condescending. If the purpose of a
| meeting/conversation is to deliver negative feedback, your
| reports/teammates will almost certainly be able to figure that
| out. If you're using this technique, I'd highly recommend
| spending some time figuring out if people actually appreciate
| this aspect of the conversations you're having with them.
| BeetleB wrote:
| I've yet to find someone who like receiving those sandwiches.
| Only those who give it tend to like it. I work with a nice
| person who gives feedback in sandwiches. The upshot is no one
| believes his praise even when given without a sandwich. Beware.
| burnished wrote:
| I think the sandwich technique is flawed. Probably not worse
| than many alternatives, mind, but in my mind it only serves to
| highlight the criticism. When I notice it I laugh because,
| well, its the sandwich technique, and this person is trying to
| be nice when what I need is for them to be critical. I think it
| has its place where you are giving feedback to many people
| sequentially to help ensure no one is going to get accidentally
| picked on. Like when teaching, you don't want to have only
| negative things to say to the slow student (whose work in
| comparison will appear even worse).
|
| The 'non violent communication' stuff feels useful as a pattern
| of conversation when you need to strengthen and clarify your
| own communication. It helps lead to statements that can't be
| quibbled with or creatively re-interpreted. Have you ever
| noticed some one making a big deal out of an offhand remark
| that wasn't really core to your point anyway? Sandwich
| technique can't help with that, but the meat of the article
| does.
|
| Anyway, thanks for the spring board! Hope you enjoy the
| soliloquy.
| kleer001 wrote:
| Ah , non-violent communication, a great tool.
|
| I've copied an excellent summary by @BeetleB
|
| To add to the above:
|
| 1. Observations should be specific, not generic ("you are lazy"
| vs "you have not accomplished any of the tasks you've been
| assigned"). They should also be objective - third party witnesses
| should have consensus. We can agree that you've not accomplished
| your tasks for the week. We will likely disagree on whether that
| means you're lazy.
|
| 2. Feelings are internal and should not involve someone else. "I
| feel cheated" is really just saying "I believe I've been cheated"
| - it's accurately portraying your inner narrative (which may be
| OK), but it is not portraying your feelings. Instead, you may
| feel sad, depressed, upset, nervous, whatever. Another way to
| think of it: Feelings are always legitimate - they are never
| wrong. The narrative in your head, though, may well be wrong. If
| someone can reasonably dispute it (assuming he/she is not a
| jerk), then it probably was a narrative and not a feeling.
|
| 3. Needs: This, in my experience, is easy for tech people to
| state. If you think someone cheated you out of money, you
| probably need things like integrity, honesty, security, etc. If
| your report at work seems unreliable to you, you probably need
| consistency, peace of mind, etc.
|
| 4. This is making a request. A request is not a demand or a
| command (so yes, NVC is not appropriate/relevant in contexts
| where orders make sense). If the person declines your request and
| you're upset a fair amount by it, you probably were not sincere
| in making the requests. And finally, your request should also be
| precise. Not "Could you rephrase that in a respectful manner",
| but "Could you rephrase that and address me as Mister instead of
| Dude?"
|
| A few other tidbits from the book (also in Crucial
| Conversations): You are not responsible for other's feelings.
| Relieve yourself of that burden/guilt. However, if you want to
| take things to the next step and have better relations with
| people around you, do care about their feelings and use
| techniques to have them feel better - but out of empathy and not
| out of responsibility or guilt.
|
| In general, the book is about realizing that you have a choice in
| most things - even things like whether you want to earn money to
| feed your kids. Likewise, it's about eliminating the language of
| obligation from your internal dialogues. This may be offputting
| to people who have a strong sense of obligation.
|
| The above is likely about 90% of the book. The rest of the book
| are specific, concrete strategies related to the above.
|
| ----
|
| Personally I've been studying this stuff for years yet still
| haven't been able to use it in real life. Not for want of trying
| or of opportunities. It's damn hard when the other person isn't
| playing along or interested in being understood or heard, when
| they just want to vent at you about you.
| soared wrote:
| The only times I've actually been able to use this kind of
| stuff is when explicitly telling a person I work with, "Hey, I
| want to start improving myself and our processes. Can we set up
| some time for talking about feedback?"
|
| And then like once a month you do a feedback meeting, but the
| first one is talking about nvc/radical candor/etc and how the
| future meetings should go.
|
| This has only ever worked for me with people at the same level
| as me but on a different team (account managers, where I'm
| their technical AM) and literally never has worked with a
| superior. I think my managers don't like someone else
| suggesting a management/feedback style for them.
| loopz wrote:
| Your intent and persistence is enough. A team-game's outcome
| is dependent on the entire team. In a team-game, you alone
| can't do the change alone. Expect real change to take about a
| decade, and mostly driven by other people than yourself.
|
| Focus on what is in your control and on the longer plays.
| baxtr wrote:
| _> However, if you want to take things to the next step and
| have better relations with people around you, do care about
| their feelings and use techniques to have them feel better -
| but out of empathy and not out of responsibility or guilt._
|
| This might be a very stupid question... Aren't responsibility
| and guilt and empathy somehow very intertwined? At least you're
| probably empathetic if you feel guilt or responsibility, right?
| burnished wrote:
| Have you ever righted a fallen bicycle? It wasn't your
| responsibility, you probably didn't feel bad or guilty, maybe
| you just wanted things to be right/nice. I think that might
| be the emotional tenor under discussion. Being in an
| emotional state where you take action because you have some
| investment in the outcome and not because you are trying to
| soothe a negative emotion.
| BeetleB wrote:
| They are somewhat orthogonal. You can have guilt with or
| without empathy. You definitely can have empathy without
| guilt.
|
| If I give charity to a beggar, it is not because I feel
| guilty. I just want the help out the guy and I hope his
| condition improves. If I don't give charity to him, I don't
| feel guilty.
|
| Guilt and responsibility often arise from cultural
| constructs, and indeed they partly exist to compel people who
| are _not_ having empathy to act. Often it 's a case of "You
| are a bad person for not giving money to that beggar" and so
| I give money to avoid being a "bad" person. NVC eschews the
| notion of "good" person and "bad" person, and encourages you
| to remove it from your internal dialogue. Give the guy money
| because _you_ want to, not because of how others may perceive
| it.
| pmichaud wrote:
| It's not a stupid question.
|
| One thing to say here is that empathy is basically putting
| yourself in another person's shoes. Often when you do that
| you also find room in your heart to forgive them, ie. when
| you see the way their behavior makes sense from the inside,
| most of the time there's less blame and more "that makes
| sense, if I look at it that way."
|
| And I guess you're right that by having a policy of caring
| about people's feelings and acting on that care, you're
| "taking responsibility" in a broad sense. But there is a
| difference between acting out of obligation or coersion vs
| acting out intrinsic care or even out of even-handed
| consequentialist reasoning (ie. "what communication will
| cause the outcome I want?").
|
| There's a lot to say about what that difference is, but--just
| in terms of outcome--"empathizing" out of obligation almost
| never works. It's because that obligation is kind of lurking
| within our motivations and comes through in various ways that
| disrupt the process of actually, really, understanding what's
| going on with the other person. Plus it disrupts
| communicating that understanding in a way that comes through
| to them.
|
| If there's unspoken blame and contempt in the interaction,
| it'll almost always come through and make the communication
| fraught.
| jdsampayo wrote:
| Maybe add a 2019 on the title?
|
| Feels strange to read on the title header: PRODUCTIVITY TIPS AND
| APPS by PRODUCTIVITY HUB like if it was an original article from
| the website but at the very end there is the note 'All Rights
| Reserved for Dave Bailey' without any link to the original
| source:
|
| https://medium.dave-bailey.com/the-essential-guide-to-diffic...
|
| which is taken from Dave Bailey website (https://www.dave-
| bailey.com/go)
| punnerud wrote:
| The link should be changed. You can email Dang and the HN team
| on: hn@ycombinator.com
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-22 23:00 UTC)