There is an old joke about a happy young optimist whose parents are trying to teach him to see the world more realistically. To that end, they decide to give him a large sack of horse dung for his birthday. “What did you get?” asks his grandmother, wrinkling her nose at the smell. “I don’t know,” cries the boy with delight as he excitedly digs through the dung. “But I think there’s a pony in here somewhere!” Receiving feedback can be like that. It’s not always pleasant. But there just might be a pony in there somewhere — 10: 294-298
feedback comes in three forms: appreciation (thanks), coaching (here’s a better way to do it), and evaluation (here’s where you stand). — 18: 353-354
Before I can take in coaching or appreciation, I need to know that I’m where I need to be, that this relationship is going to last. When evaluation is absent, we use coaching and appreciation to try to figure out where we stand. — 36: 592-594
Explicit disagreement is better than implicit misunderstanding. — 42: 704-705
“Let me describe what I mean and you can ask me questions to see if I’m making sense.” — 52: 803-803
So to clarify the feedback under the label we need to “be specific” about two things: (1) where the feedback is coming from, and (2) where the feedback is going. — 53: 818-820
Liz also tells Tom about a new policy she has adopted: “I don’t say yes or no to a request in the moment. Instead, I ask some sorting questions.” The questions she finds most helpful are these: “Is this more or less urgent than what you needed yesterday?” and “Are there pieces of this that are more important than other pieces, and why?” She then tells the requester: “I want to take a careful look at what’s on my plate before I get back to you.” This helps her override her impulse to say yes automatically, and helps make the workload and priorities a shared problem. — 58: 901-905
In some cases, they have access to the information but no interest. In most cases, they don’t even have access: — 63: 970-970
Mavis won’t make progress in deciphering the feedback until she asks this: “Why do we see this differently? What data do you have that I don’t?” Davis and Mavis each have pieces of the puzzle the other doesn’t and they can’t put the puzzle together until all the pieces are laid out on the table. — 63: 975-977
The “fix” is to separate intentions from impacts when feedback is discussed. When Annabelle gets the feedback that she’s difficult, she insists that she’s not difficult, saying in essence, “I have positive intentions and therefore positive impacts.” But she doesn’t actually realize what impacts she’s having. Instead, she should talk about intentions and impacts separately: “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. — 89: 1344-1348
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?” — 91: 1383-1384
Annabelle should assume that people will ultimately read her true attitude and feelings, whatever they are. So she has two choices. She can either (1) discuss her true feelings—explain why she is frustrated with her colleagues, where her expectations come from, and what would help; or (2) work hard to change her feelings—not how she comes across, but her genuine underlying feelings. — 95: 1457-1460
switchtrack conversation. — 103: 1543-1544
My autonomy map and your autonomy map will occasionally clash, raising questions about who gets to decide. That’s a negotiation, and an important set of conversations to have, clearly and explicitly. — 113: 1688-1690
simply realizing that we’re triggered not by the advice itself but by being told what to do will help us address the correct topic. We can have an explicit conversation about the appropriate boundaries of autonomy instead of a pointless argument about whether your suggested grammatical changes to my e-mail make sense. — 113: 1692-1695
David finds Cheng’s reaction puzzling. In his mind, he is suggesting a small adjustment to Cheng’s behavior that would pay big dividends. It has nothing to do with “who Cheng really is.” What he’s recommending is superficial—that’s the point. David wonders whether Cheng’s “this is who I am” mantra is really just a way to insulate himself from criticism. — 114: 1708-1711
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. — 115: 1719-1722
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.” — 117: 1759-1761
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? — 119: 1777-1779