on effective feedback
the skill of feedback is foundational for succeeding at multiplayer. endeavors with consequential impact are multiplayer. this is true whether you’re building a family, a taco stand, a school, an open source project, or a generational company.
the actions of the people around you affect the reality you live in. with customers, the shared reality is the problem: the pain they feel, the solution you offer, and whether it helps. with collaborators, it is the work: whether each person’s effort moves it closer to the goal. with a partner, it is the household: the home you share, the resources you manage, and the family you are building together.
feedback is a tool to optimize the shared reality. when exchanged well, people understand how their actions are landing. they learn how to adjust. good things become more repeatable. the shared world becomes more prosperous. through this, trust is built and information flows more freely. when it is not, people are left to guess how their actions are landing. information gets lost, the learning rate suffers, and the same mistakes repeat.
what makes feedback effective#
effective feedback gives the receiver something to optimize against. it is grounded in reality. it has a gradient which defines what better looks like. it includes information about how an action affected something which matters. effective feedback is uncertain when it doesn’t know. it increases the receiver's agency.
effective feedback compresses learning. it closes the gap between reality and what you imagined reality to be. it gets you closer to your goal faster.
the feedback exchange looks something like this
an action is taken → the action has an effect → shared interpretation generated → possible adjustment
the role of the feedback deliverer#
as the deliverer, your job is to distill the message into something that is clear and interpretable. your job is to explain the action and how it affected something that matters and provide some definition of what better looks like.
the more clear, specific, and honest the information is, the more likely it is to lead to an improvement of the shared reality, irrespective of the skill level of your counterparty.
positive examples#
When you sent the screen recording of where onboarding broke helped us understand exactly what we were missing. Before that, we knew you were stuck, but not why. Your recording showed us the exact moment trust dropped, which helped us fix the right thing instead of guessing.
this names the action (sending the screen recording), it makes clear the effect (it elevated our understanding about where trust dropped), and it gives a gradient which helps define what better is (things which lead to less guessing).
examples of failure modes#
poor specificity#
worse
That meeting felt weird.
I think you did a great job with that presentation.
I didn’t like the direction.
better
When we kept switching topics without deciding anything, I had a hard time figuring out what I owned.
When I listened to your presentation, I understood the company we are building in a way I didn’t before.
When the conversation started turning into blame, I started feeling defensive instead of open.
these examples are missing information about the effect of the action. they also obscure the gradient to optimize against. what felt weird about the meeting? which part of the presentation was great? what did you not like about the direction? how do i know i’m doing better or worse at the thing?
prescriptive#
worse
I think you need to be less intense when presenting
You need to be more strategic.
You should speak up more in meetings.
better:
I noticed the customer stopped asking questions after you mentioned the generational importance of our product. I think we might have lost them there.
In the roadmap discussion, you listed features but didn’t connect them to the customer segment we’re trying to win. That made it harder for me to choose.
In the roadmap meeting, you had meaningful concerns about launch risk. When you shared them after decisions were made, the team lost the chance to use them.
these examples bake an action, its effect, an interpretation, and a proposed adjustment all into one step while leaving out some important details. these away an opportunity to debug the shared reality together before coming up with an adjustment. what if the deliverer missed something in reaching their conclusion? they hide the gradient of what better looks like in the deliverer’s judgment.
having the determination of “what direction is better” encoded in the judgment of a person takes away an opportunity for the receiver to test reality themselves. this human judgment evaluation can also become a bottleneck.
character assumptions#
worse:
You’re careless.
You’re not trying hard enough.
You never communicate clearly.
better:
A few errors made it into the final version, which made me less confident in the handoff.
When I reviewed your work, I noticed some important details were missing. This made me concerned that there were mistakes in the parts I couldn’t check deeply.
I had trouble understanding the ask and the deadline from your message. I want to help but do not know how to proceed.
just like the prescriptive examples, these assume a conclusion. the conclusion is about the receiver’s character and identity. this framing is likely to put the receiver into a defensive state which is a distraction from focusing on improvement.
people can improve. give them the opportunity to surprise you and see what happens!
overclaiming#
worse
When you explained the pricing change to the customer, you confused them and lost their trust.
better
When you explained the pricing change to the customer, I noticed they stopped asking questions and the conversation got shorter. I think they might have been confused? I wondered if we lost some trust there.
along with the problems of the prescriptive failure mode, this example confidently states with certainty where certainty is not possible. a sharp receiver might read this is carelessness and remember this when future conclusions are made.
the role of the receiver#
as receiver, you have received a gift, the gift of information. you can use it to optimize the shared reality. your job is to acknowledge the information, clarify it, and work through figuring out what to adjust. your job is to be curious.
happy path#
deliverer
In the roadmap discussion, you listed features but didn’t connect them to the customer segment we’re trying to win. That made it harder for me to choose.
receiver
I see, I understand. Thanks for bringing this up. Can we role-play here together and iterate on some ways to see whether I can make this better?
failure modes#
sometimes feedback comes in messy forms. it is likely the deliverer tried to distill, but maybe they didn’t know how or were overwhelmed. maybe they wanted permission before they decided it was safe to share feedback. feedback is information. here are some examples of turning it into signal.
failure mode: poor specificity#
deliverer
That meeting felt weird.
receiver
Thanks for bringing this up. I want to see how we can make this better. What was the gap? Was it maybe the structure? Tone? Decision we reached? Something else?
here we pose a question with some scaffolding to let the deliverer build on. the goal with the scaffolding is to provide just enough to help but not so much that it’s restrictive.
failure mode: prescriptive#
deliverer
You need to be more strategic.
in this case, your goal is to separate the layers
- the action taken
- the effect it had
- the second order effects
- the adjustment
receiver
I see, I understand. I want to improve. I want to separate a few things: what you saw me do, what effect it had, what you made of it, and how serious the pattern feels to you.
again, the role of the receiver is to build scaffolding.
failure mode: character assumptions#
deliverer
You never communicate clearly.
when receiving feedback in this form, it is important to put your ego aside. remember, you are being brought information. you can turn it into something useful.
here are some questions to ask
Can you point to one recent moment where this showed up?
What did that make harder for you?
What effect did this have on you?
a possible response scenario
Receiver: I hear you. It sounds like there’s a pattern you’re frustrated by. I want to debug this together. Let’s start with the action and its effect.
Deliverer: I mean, the action is that you don’t communicate clearly. That’s the whole thing.
Receiver: Can you provide an example?
Deliverer: I don’t want to have to produce a perfect example. This happens all the time.
Receiver: Maybe let’s start with the action, when I fail to communicate poorly, how does it affect you.
Deliverer: In yesterday’s meeting when you came in, said a few things then left, and were unreachable for the rest of the day, that shows you never communicate clearly.
Receiver: Ok, how did that affect you.
Deliverer: I literally spent hours parsing over your words trying to reverse engineer what you said.
Receiver: I see, this does not sound ideal.
Deliverer: Yes, I agree.
there’s an opportunity here: to see something that may have been hard for the other person to say directly.
failure mode: taste war#
deliverer
This feels too playful. It needs to be more premium.
feedback needs shared goals. without shared goals, feedback becomes a fight over preferences and taste.
in this case, it is useful to elevate from a discussion about details (should the text be red or black?) to a discussion about goals (what do we want people to feel when they look at this?)
conclusion#
feedback is a tool to improve shared reality. effective feedback says how an action affected something which matters and tells the receiver which direction better is. when exchanging feedback, the role of the deliver is to provide something clean. the role of the receiver is to find the nugget of information even if the delivery is messy.
these things are easier said than done. the costs are high, but the rewards are great. these are the ingredients for a team that’s built to win.
may your feedback be effective and the realities you share with other people be prosperous.