Critical Feedback: Four Approaches and One Twist
Published on MayĀ 2, 2024, filed under management, misc (feed). (Share this on Mastodon orĀ Bluesky?)
Feedback is important so that we can learn and improve. Critical feedback is important to expose, validate, and address areas of growth and development.
In my worldālike you, I canāt offer any othersā, there are four general approaches to critical feedback:
Approach | Timing | Type | Effect |
---|---|---|---|
Direct feedback | Short-term | Constructive | Valuing the relationship; allowing both sides to learn |
Indirect feedback (behind the back) | Short-term | Destructive | Escalating; breaching trust; threatening relationship |
Deferred feedbackĀ * | Mid- or long-term | Neutral | Guarding the relationship |
Withheld feedback | Never | Neutral or destructive | Questioning or devaluing the relationship; depriving the other (and oneself) of a chance to learn |
This overview is simplified, but I think it covers the main scenarios.
What we want in a feedback culture is direct feedback: Itās not delayed, its spirit is constructive, and everyone can learn.
What we observe much of the time, I can only speculate: It depends on the individual and the organization. My guess is that withheld feedback, neutral flavor, is by far the most common. People have their thoughts but donāt share them, without any particular intentions.
The Twist
What makes this interesting to sketch and speculate on?
In all cases, we are responsible for the (non-)delivery of the feedback. Not the other person. Ourselves.
This should be obvious for two reasons:
The recipient may be ignorant of (or unclear about) whatever it is weāre critical about. Itās unjust to put it on them if nothing improves.
The recipient may have good reasons for what weāre critical about. Itās unjust to put our own ignorance on them.
Here is again why this is important:
Itās our responsibility where relationship and outcomes go. Not the otherās.Ā ā If we provide direct feedback, both can improve. If we go behind them, both likely tank. If we wait to give feedback, or perhaps never end up doing so, we canāt act surprised if nothing changes.
Itās our choice. Constructive, neutral, destructive. To learnātogetherā, or not to learn.
Four approaches, one twist, one view, on critical feedback.
* This is a different feedback type to me as it comes with a conscious decision not to provide feedback at the time. If feedback is shared, deferred feedback should, given itās protective and deliberate nature, morph into direct feedback, though itās possible it may be given indirectly and therefore end up being destructive.
ā Itās more complicated than that: The other is also responsible for the relationship. However, too often, this āthe other is also responsibleā seems to confuse rather than illuminate us. I believe itās less ambiguous and more effective to be be clear about and assume our own responsibility.
About Me
Iām Jens (long: Jens Oliver Meiert), and Iām a web developer, manager, and author. Iāve been working as a technical lead and engineering manager for companies youāve never heard of and companies you use every day, Iām an occasional contributor to web standards (like HTML, CSS, WCAG), and I write and review books for OāReilly and Frontend Dogma.
I love trying things, not only in web development and engineering management, but also in other areas like philosophy. Here on meiert.com I share some of my experiences and views. (I value you being critical, interpreting charitably, and giving feedback.)