Feedback - since it’s normal to freak out, why aren’t they?
Monday, December 17th, 2007I love the most recent post on Ask a Manager. In it, Manager deftly mines the results of a Cornell study on incompetent people for excellent advice to managers. Bottom line: the incompetent are too incompetent to recognize their own shortcomings, so you must be explicit and specific with your feedback. I won’t repeat the rest of AaM’s post here. It’s excellent, short and well worth a read.
In fact, go read it now, then come right back. I want to tell you how to know when your feedback has hit the mark. After all, you don’t want to be heavy-handed or rude, and you do want to have an effect. Knowing about the normal response to feedback helps you gauge your own behavior. Knowing that you have to stick with it all the way through each of the responses below helps you not quit too soon.
(I’m indebted to the late Brendan Reddy and his partner, Chuck Phillips of Reddy-Phillips for the information that follows. Not only did they teach it in a seminar, they indavertently demonstrated it with each other right in front of us all, and had the good grace to laugh about it.) The person receiving the feedback responds in pretty much this order:
1. First, they reverse blame. The most famous public instance sounds like this “You should have spoken up sooner, Anita Hill.” Reversing blame means you use some sort of magical thinking to make the giver of feedback responsible for your behavior. In the world of work, it might be: “You didn’t tell me I was supposed to get that in this Thursday.”
2. They intellectualize or minimize the effect of their actions. “Well, how often does this happen, really?” “It’s no big deal.” “I don’t think anyone noticed.” “Studies show that .01% lead in drinking water is safe, so how big a deal is a momentary spike of 200? We caught it right away.”
3. They argue intent versus effect. “I didn’t mean to embarrass you in front of your boss and co-workers. I think that story about you and the diaper pail makes you sound more human.” Or, “That was your boss? Oh…I never meant to imply there was anything shady about that deal. You have to believe me.”
Of course they didn’t mean to – the fact is they did. Feedback is never about someone’s intent – they are the expert on that. It’s always about the effect they’ve had on you – and you are the expert on that. Validate their good intent, and separate it from the bad effect on you. Stick with it until you hear them say “I can see how that would have been embarrassing/might have ended your career here.”
4. They defend or agree with you. Which is the same thing. Defending goes like this: “That’s not what happened at all!” Agreeing sounds like this: “Yeah, I know. I always do that. I’m just not someone who can be on time.”
In either case, you get the feeling of elusiveness. There is no connection, no give and take. In the defensive reaction, there is rigidity or rejection and no interest in strengthening the relationship; in agreeing there is collapse and no interest in strengthening the relationship.
The situation would seem dire and you might give up right here if you didn’t know that the next predictable response to feedback is:
5. Listening/hearing. Listening always asks for more information or offers a paraphrase that shows they got it - really got it. And from that comes learning, a renegotiated agreement and a strengthened relationship.
I have this theory: I think when we get a strong reaction like any of the first four above, we begin to think we’re doing it wrong, and we stop. But that’s not necessarily so. Even when you’re doing it right, this is the path the brain takes on its way to learning. Who knew?

