them as potentiallyright, and ask questions about what others think. Instead of saying "You didn't answer three of the board's questions," say "I think there were three times when you didn't answer the board's questions (and give the examples). Do you remember that any differently?" For this to work, you have to be genuinely curious as to the other person's view, and be open to missing something in some way. You also need to be consistent - these are not "tools" to be used when it's convenient or comfortable to do so.

How would you react if someone gave you feedback in this

Honest, Fair Feedback.

You want it. Everyone does.

Only trouble is, the more you need it, the less likely you are to get it.

Why? Research shows that 98% of us do one or more of these three things when we have a difficult message to convey - and we think we're doing "the right thing":

-We Ease In: We try to make our point without being obvious about it. This can come out as:

Leading questions: "How do you think your presentation went?" (while privately thinking it was a disaster) or "Don't you think it would be better to..." (while privately thinking it would be foolish to do anything else).

Or in statements that only partially share what we're thinking: "You might want to consider another strategy." (while privately thinking that the current strategy has at least three major problems, and is costing the team its reputation)

-We Censor: We simply don't say what we're thinking at all.

-We "Data Dump": We just say what we're thinking. Plain and simple. If we're thinking the presentation was a disaster, we say it. If we think it would be foolish to do anything but what we think should be done, we say that.

The problem? No matter which option we choose, we approach difficult conversations believing we're right. People who disagree with us are wrong. We understand the situation - those who see it differently don't. We have pure motives - those who disagree don't. And to make matters worse, we're usually unaware that we're thinking this way.

This way of thinking and these strategies dramatically limit the amount of useful feedback we get and give - they also generate defensiveness. Judge for yourself - how do you respond when people approach you like this?

Changing the way you think and changing the way you act creates a more productive option.

Here's what this new option looks like:

1. Try to keep your assumptions specific and linked to hard data - instead of thinking "that presentation was a disaster," think "she didn't answer three of the board's questions, she yelled at Ted and Mary, she said she forgot to collect the cost data. I'm very concerned." How? A key question to ask yourself, or to ask others: "What did this person say or do that led me to believe this about them?"

2. Be Transparent and Curious. Share your views, treat them as potentiallyright, and ask questions about what others think. Instead of saying "You didn't answer three of the board's questions," say "I think there were three times when you didn't answer the board's questions (and give the examples). Do you remember that any differently?" For this to work, you have to be genuinely curious as to the other person's view, and be open to missing something in some way. You also need to be consistent - these are not "tools" to be used when it's convenient or comfortable to do so.

How would you react if someone gave you feedback in this w

it would be foolish to do anything else).

Or in statements that only partially share what we're thinking: "You might want to consider another strategy." (while privately thinking that the current strategy has at least three major problems, and is costing the team its reputation)

-We Censor: We simply don't say what we're thinking at all.

-We "Data Dump": We just say what we're thinking. Plain and simple. If we're thinking the presentation was a disaster, we say it. If we think it would be foolish to do anything but what we think should be done, we say that.

The problem? No matter which option we choose, we approach difficult conversations believing we're right. People who disagree with us are wrong. We understand the situation - those who see it differently don't. We have pure motives - those who disagree don't. And to make matters worse, we're usually unaware that we're thinking this way.

This way of thinking and these strategies dramatically limit the amount of useful feedback we get and give - they also generate defensiveness. Judge for yourself - how do you respond when people approach you like this?

Changing the way you think and changing the way you act creates a more productive option.

Here's what this new option looks like:

1. Try to keep your assumptions specific and linked to hard data - instead of thinking "that presentation was a disaster," think "she didn't answer three of the board's questions, she yelled at Ted and Mary, she said she forgot to collect the cost data. I'm very concerned." How? A key question to ask yourself, or to ask others: "What did this person say or do that led me to believe this about them?"

2. Be Transparent and Curious. Share your views, treat them as potentiallyright, and ask questions about what others think. Instead of saying "You didn't answer three of the board's questions," say "I think there were three times when you didn't answer the board's questions (and give the examples). Do you remember that any differently?" For this to work, you have to be genuinely curious as to the other person's view, and be open to missing something in some way. You also need to be consistent - these are not "tools" to be used when it's convenient or comfortable to do so.

How would you react if someone gave you feedback in this

The problem? No matter which option we choose, we approach difficult conversations believing we're right. People who disagree with us are wrong. We understand the situation - those who see it differently don't. We have pure motives - those who disagree don't. And to make matters worse, we're usually unaware that we're thinking this way.

This way of thinking and these strategies dramatically limit the amount of useful feedback we get and give - they also generate defensiveness. Judge for yourself - how do you respond when people approach you like this?

Changing the way you think and changing the way you act creates a more productive option.

Here's what this new option looks like:

1. Try to keep your assumptions specific and linked to hard data - instead of thinking "that presentation was a disaster," think "she didn't answer three of the board's questions, she yelled at Ted and Mary, she said she forgot to collect the cost data. I'm very concerned." How? A key question to ask yourself, or to ask others: "What did this person say or do that led me to believe this about them?"

2. Be Transparent and Curious. Share your views, treat them as potentiallyright, and ask questions about what others think. Instead of saying "You didn't answer three of the board's questions," say "I think there were three times when you didn't answer the board's questions (and give the examples). Do you remember that any differently?" For this to work, you have to be genuinely curious as to the other person's view, and be open to missing something in some way. You also need to be consistent - these are not "tools" to be used when it's convenient or comfortable to do so.

How would you react if someone gave you feedback in this

ou think and changing the way you act creates a more productive option.

Here's what this new option looks like:

1. Try to keep your assumptions specific and linked to hard data - instead of thinking "that presentation was a disaster," think "she didn't answer three of the board's questions, she yelled at Ted and Mary, she said she forgot to collect the cost data. I'm very concerned." How? A key question to ask yourself, or to ask others: "What did this person say or do that led me to believe this about them?"

2. Be Transparent and Curious. Share your views, treat them as potentiallyright, and ask questions about what others think. Instead of saying "You didn't answer three of the board's questions," say "I think there were three times when you didn't answer the board's questions (and give the examples). Do you remember that any differently?" For this to work, you have to be genuinely curious as to the other person's view, and be open to missing something in some way. You also need to be consistent - these are not "tools" to be used when it's convenient or comfortable to do so.

How would you react if someone gave you feedback in this

them as potentiallyright, and ask questions about what others think. Instead of saying "You didn't answer three of the board's questions," say "I think there were three times when you didn't answer the board's questions (and give the examples). Do you remember that any differently?" For this to work, you have to be genuinely curious as to the other person's view, and be open to missing something in some way. You also need to be consistent - these are not "tools" to be used when it's convenient or comfortable to do so.

How would you react if someone gave you feedback in this way?

For us and our clients, thinking and acting this way has a few key benefits:

-It greatly reduces defensiveness - yours and others'.

-It significantly increases learning: you both get the specific, candid feedback you want, and can make specific, powerful changes if you wish.

-Because you're being genuinely curious, and saying what you're thinking, there's an important additional side-effect of all this: increased trust and higher quality relationships.

What are your reactions to all this? Please come to the Mutual Learning Action Group and share them.

© 2005 Matt Beane