Healthy Feedback

All feedback is positive

When Sumeet joined Thoughtworks, he had the opportunity to work with
Patrick Kua. Pat helped Sumeet see through one of the biggest myths about
feedback — the notion that feedback can be either positive or negative. Sumeet
remembers Pat saying, “All feedback is positive.” Kua listed the only two
goals for sharing feedback.

• Strengthen confidence: Reinforce what someone does well so they know
  which behaviours to repeat; a.k.a. praise.
• Improve effectiveness: Identify what the other person could do
  differently to perform better at their job or engage better with others; a.k.a.
  criticism.

Pat argued that both these goals are positive. If you are communicating to
achieve some other goal, perhaps you aren’t sharing feedback. Thinking of all
feedback as positive changed our perspective towards it. Indeed, that mindset
makes it easier to accept feedback.

Radical candor

We have found Kim Scott’s “Radical Candor” framework an excellent summary
of how we approach feedback. Radical candour happens when we care
personally about our coworkers and when we can challenge them directly
about their work and interactions. Further down in the article, we’ll
explain how to use this approach.

While we suggest you read the book to understand Radical Candor in its
entirety, Kim Scott also describes anti-patterns to avoid.

• Obnoxious aggression. Challenging directly without showing personal
  care.
• Ruinous empathy. Caring without challenging directly.
• Manipulative insincerity. Neither caring nor challenging directly.

Figure 1: The Radical Candor approach

As you can imagine, we prefer radical candour.

A peer sport

Teams at Thoughtworks comprise people at varying levels of seniority and
positional authority. When sharing feedback, though, we treat each other as
peers. On occasion it’s difficult to look past grades and job titles, but
in principle, anyone can strengthen another colleague’s confidence or
improve their effectiveness.

The principle of feedback as a peer sport places a heavy onus on senior
colleagues to be open to feedback and to seek it out. Indeed, as ex-Navy SEAL
Team Six commander says,

The most important words a leader can say are, “I screwed that
up”.

— Dave Cooper

Allied practices such as retrospectives and after-action reviews help this
team dynamic by fostering a spirit of reflection, psychological safety and
collective improvement.

A telemetry signal

We like to think of teams as social systems. Much like software systems,
which need telemetry to know how they’re behaving, teams need telemetry too.
Feedback is one such telemetry signal.

A service without logs and metrics can appear healthy until it fails.
Similarly, a team without feedback can appear harmonious until a deadline,
conflict, or reorganisation exposes the problems everyone had noticed but
nobody had named. Like telemetry signals for software, we see continuous,
peer-to-peer feedback as a telemetry signal for teams and individuals

Be hard on the problem, easy on the people

The most important discipline in giving feedback is separating what you
observed from the story you told yourself about it. Useful feedback is often
grounded in real observations, not judgment. Here’s an example of
observation-based feedback.

When you presented today, I noticed you skipped several slides. Skipping
slides makes your audience feel that you’re either delivering a canned talk
or are underprepared. Next time, if you have slides that aren’t relevant to
the audience, how about hiding them before you begin presenting?

If you dissect that piece of feedback, you’ll notice three constituent
parts:

• A situation: when presenting today.
• A behaviour: you skipped a number of slides.
• An impact: skipping slides makes your audience feel that you’re either
  delivering a canned talk or are underprepared.
• (Optional) A recommendation to improve: how about hiding them (the
  slides) before you begin presenting?

By describing the situation and the behaviour, you lead with objective
truths. The impact, of course, is your perception, and that’s the value you
offer when sharing feedback. The above example also includes a suggestion
for the future, which can be useful when the alternative is evident.

Situation-behaviour-impact, or SBI, is a popular format for sharing
feedback, but we find that seeking context before sharing feedback avoids
some of the tension that can build up in a feedback conversation.

Seek context to create safety

When sharing feedback to improve effectiveness, remember that no one screws
up on purpose. There’s always some context behind people’s actions. Consider
the above feedback example. Instead of launching into the SBI, we could begin
with a simple question.

Hey, when you were presenting today, I noticed
that you skipped a number of your slides. Why was that?

Perhaps it wasn’t lazy prep that led to the skipped slides. Perhaps a late
start or unplanned interruptions threw the presenter off, and they had to skip
some of their content. There’ll still be room for feedback, but now the
feedback won’t be about preparing better. Instead, it’ll be about elegant ways
to skip slides.

When you seek context before sharing feedback, you also create safety in
the conversation. You position yourself as “curious, not
judgmental”, much like Ted Lasso
(the TV character) would advocate for. A CSBI
(context-situation-behaviour-impact) pattern for sharing feedback sets you up
to be curious before you offer any judgment.

Seek permission, so the other person is ready

Feedback is most effective when our colleagues are open to hearing it.
After all, we don’t want to ambush our colleagues with feedback. So, it
helps to ask if they’re ready to listen.

“Is now a good time to share some feedback with you?” works for a short
conversation. For something more significant, explain the purpose and the
time needed: “I have an observation about how the workshop went. It may be
useful to talk about it for 20 minutes. Is now okay, or should we find
another time today?”

If the person is not ready, agree on another time. Sometimes you may
notice the other person avoiding the feedback discussion. That reluctance to
hear feedback may mean that there are other issues to address in your work
relationship. Address those topics first.

Share feedback in private, in real time

Feedback to improve effectiveness is often safer in private. Public
criticism adds an audience to the problem. The receiver now has to manage
the content and their status in the room. Psychological safety takes an
immediate hit.

We also prefer sharing such feedback in real time — either in person or
on a video call. Text is a poor default for feedback that carries tension.
The written word doesn’t promote conversation and lacks pauses, body
language, and facial expressions that can help defuse tension.

Of course, if both people agree, you can document the feedback
afterwards, but a private, synchronous conversation has always been our
sensible default.

Public recognition is different, by the way. People don’t mind
receiving praise in public. At Thoughtworks, our company’s social network
lets people share kudos for colleagues, and it’s a popular system for
recognising value-aligned behaviour. Here’s an example of how those kudos
work.

Figure 2: Peer-to-peer recognition can be public and asynchronous

Don’t prescribe a solution, but invite ideas

When sharing criticism, it’s natural to prescribe a different way to do
things. If you’re helping your colleague align to team norms, prescriptions
can be effective. In most cases, though, we find that involving the receiver
helps identify the way forward. Take the example of the presenter skipping
slides. You could offer a prescription, or you could say,

How can you prepare your presentation in a way that allows you to be
flexible to the situation you find yourself in?

Asking an open-ended question can help your colleague think of solutions
that work for them. Remember, they have to take action, not you. If they
identify a viable solution, they’ll be more likely to follow through. So, when
possible, open up the conversation instead of offering a prescription. Who
knows—together, you may identify a solution better than the one you had in
mind!

Figure 3: The SBI feedback model, informed by context,
turned into a conversation

Match feedback to the level of impact

When we share feedback early, often, and close to the context of the work
we do, we can match it to the level of impact. The level of impact can
escalate between feedback-sharing moments.

Level 3: relationship

If you’ve shared feedback about the content, saw a pattern developing,
and still don’t see a change in behaviour, the stakes might be even higher
now. Repeated infractions fray our work relationships, and feedback can’t
be about the content or pattern anymore. It has to be about how we think
of one another. Imagine that Harish has ignored the previous two pieces of
feedback. Here’s how one might frame the next conversation.

In our first conversation, I raised that messages such as ‘update
code’ did not explain the intent or outcome of the change. I continued to
see this as a recurring pattern, and I again shared feedback that commit
messages should give the team enough context to understand the change
without opening every diff.

Since then, I’ve seen the same pattern in several more commits: ‘fix
tests’, ‘address review comments’, and ‘update validation’. It worries me
that you’re not acting on my feedback and that we don’t share the same
standard for communicating our work.

I also find myself scrutinising your changes and relying less on the
commit history. That’s making our collaboration more effortful and is
affecting the ease of our working relationship. How can I help you follow
the team standard for commit messages?

If escalating feedback to address issues in your work relationship
doesn’t work, it may indicate you need someone else to intervene. Perhaps
it’s a manager or HR. And there lie the limits of peer-to-peer feedback.
Sometimes, when establishing team norms, you may need to invoke positional
authority.

Figure 4: Three levels of peer-to-peer feedback.

Catch someone doing something right

With all we’ve written so far, it’s easy to imagine feedback only as
criticism. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, sharing feedback
solely to improve effectiveness can hurt peer-to-peer relationships and dampen
team morale. Our colleagues are often doing several things right, with little
or no acknowledgement from us. We must encourage our colleagues to keep doing
those things right; otherwise, there’s a risk they’ll change those behaviours
or, worse, stop demonstrating them. Neither is a good outcome for the
team.

The CSBI format and the content-pattern-relationship hierarchy of feedback
apply as much to praise as they do to criticism. John
Reid-Dodick,
chief people and leadership officer at Thoughtworks, speaks of “catching
someone doing something right.” Being alert to things our teammates are doing
well and praising those behaviours is just as important as sharing
criticism.

Detach ego from your feedback

Feedback isn’t always a universal truth. Context matters. Sometimes
feedback reveals a lot about the giver. For example, Sumeet often advises
colleagues not to delegate communication to AI. While Sumeet’s advice is often
sound, no one is obliged to follow his advice, since there aren’t yet any team
or company norms around using AI to communicate. If anything, Sumeet’s
feedback reveals more about his communication preferences than an established
standard.

Sumeet has strong views about communication, but he doesn’t expect everyone
to agree. And yet, he continues to share his feedback with anyone who cares to
listen. Unless your feedback concerns an established principle or standard, we
suggest sharing it as a gift with your colleagues. Gifts are sometimes useful
and other times not. Leave your colleagues to decide how useful your feedback
gift is.

Say thank you

There are only two responses to feedback — “Thank you,” and “Thank
you, please tell me more”

— John Reid-Dodick

Whenever someone offers us feedback, it demonstrates care. They could be
wrong about the feedback gift we need, but they sure care about us getting
better or staying awesome. We want our colleagues to keep sharing feedback
with us, so the simplest response to most feedback is a thank-you. Saying
thank you shows your openness to hearing feedback and encourages your
colleagues to share feedback in the future as well.

The “say thank you” pattern extends to receiving praise, as well. Some of
us are not accustomed to hearing praise. Sumeet grew up in a tough-love
culture, so in his early years at work, he’d default to “Oh, it’s nothing,
really” when he heard praise. That was when he wasn’t squirming in his chair,
hoping for the earth to swallow him whole. With conscious practice, he’s
gotten better at acknowledging such feedback with an equanimous “thank
you.”

Seek clarifications, but don’t defend

The “thank you” coupled with “please tell me more” can be quite powerful.
Many of us are cagey about sharing feedback, and we may be clumsy with our
articulation. Asking questions to understand feedback helps us get the most
out of it and also shows our curiosity.

However, there is a fine line between clarification and defence.

• “Can you give me an example?” is clarification.
• “But I had to do it because nobody else would” is a defence.

Defence is often an immediate reaction to feedback we don’t understand or
find unpleasant. Sometimes we may defend ourselves when we receive
unexpected feedback. However natural the defence may seem, we suggest
suspending judgment and reflecting on the feedback.

Here are a few examples of clarifying questions that can help you better
understand the feedback you’ve received:

• When did it happen?
• What did you observe?
• What impact did you see?
• What did you expect instead?

One of the biggest benefits of sharing feedback in a real-time
conversation is that you have room for such questions and
clarifications.

Read written feedback with a smile

There will be times, however, when we receive written feedback that
feels unpleasant at first blush. We’ve found that reading the same
feedback and imagining the giver saying it with a warm tone and a smile
helps a lot. In recent years,
Anuja has pasted
written feedback into Google Docs and had Gemini read the feedback to her
in a friendly tone. Since written text doesn’t carry body language and
expression, sometimes the harshness we experience lies more in our
interpretation than in the giver’s intent.

Be OK to sleep over it

Sometimes we can’t reconcile the feedback we received, despite our
best efforts. That’s OK. It’s also OK to tell the giver that we don’t
understand their feedback, but that we’ll think about it. Thank them,
reflect on the feedback for some time, then decide whether you can do
anything about it. If the giver and receiver both embrace the spirit of
feedback as a gift, they’ll be comfortable with these reflective
pauses.

Take action and close the loop

Imagine you give someone a gift. Now imagine them using the gift and telling
you how useful it is. Wouldn’t it feel satisfying? The gift of feedback is no
different. When you take action and close the feedback loop with your
colleagues, it demonstrates how useful their feedback was. Your follow-up
encourages them to share feedback with you in the future so they can give you
more gifts like this.

Closing the loop is important even when you don’t act on the feedback. It can
be as simple as,

Thank you for the feedback. After reflecting on it, I
still don’t see a way to act on it, but I’d love for us to keep this
conversation going.

Guess how you can keep the conversation going? Well, make it easy for your
colleagues by asking for feedback.

Don’t wait, just ask

Regardless of where you work, sharing criticism is hard. It’s easier to share
feedback when someone asks you for it. So, if you want to get better at what you
do, seek out feedback. That way, even if someone isn’t skilled at sharing
feedback, they will be more comfortable helping you strengthen your confidence
and improve your effectiveness.

When asking for feedback, we recommend being specific about why you’re
asking. If you worked together on a project or a problem, ask your colleague to
share feedback about that shared experience. If there’s a specific skill you
wish to improve, ask them for feedback about that skill. For example,

We worked together on the release and the trunk migration. I’d love your
feedback on how I collaborated with you and how I can make my changes easier to
review and integrate.

The clearer your question, the more useful the feedback is likely to be.

Feedback coinciding with performance reviews

Several teams and companies collect peer-to-peer feedback during
performance appraisals. In our experience, such feedback is neither useful for
personal growth nor useful input for the review.

Performance reviews track how we’ve fared vis-à-vis goals we agree with our
managers or supervisors. Unless peer-to-peer feedback addresses these goals,
it isn’t useful for the review. In fact, unrelated feedback, glowing or
critical, can often confound the review process.

Since performance reviews are also tied to people’s salary increases and
promotions, they discourage honest feedback. No one wants to hurt their
colleagues’ prospects in the company, so even if they have feedback to improve
the other person’s effectiveness, they hold back during the performance
review.

It doesn’t help that feedback tied to reviews is often written. We’ve
discussed the challenges of conveying feedback in writing. Performance reviews
raise the stakes even further, and many people are reluctant to share honest,
written feedback during these times.

Most importantly, feedback during performance reviews reflects on a rather
long period. It’s hard to be specific about examples and incidents when you
look back at a year or six months of working together. In such circumstances,
you’re more likely to hear platitudes and generalisations instead of useful
feedback.

We suggest decoupling peer-to-peer feedback from performance reviews. The
appraisal should focus only on one’s performance against agreed goals. Of
course, the reviewer must share reflective feedback about the reviewee’s
performance, but none of this feedback should surprise the reviewee. The
reviewee should have received all this feedback in the flow of the work over
the last several months. In fact, the most effective performance review
processes recommend that managers have regular feedback discussions with their
direct report, which can then culminate in a performance appraisal.

The sandwich method

The sandwich method originated in the 1980s:

Sandwich every bit of criticism between two layers of praise.

— Mary Kay Ash

Well, let’s just say the 80s called and asked for their stale sandwich
back. Feedback sandwiches don’t work. Period. The praise feels insincere,
and the criticism feels diluted. It leaves the receiver confused about the
goal of the feedback. Nothing lands.

Avoid the feedback sandwich. If you have both praise and criticism to
offer, then headline them by telling the receiver. For example, our
ex-colleague, Pat Kua, would always spend part of the conversation
strengthening confidence before moving on to improve effectiveness. With
that approach, both the praise and criticism landed, and the receiver left
with clarity, not confusion.

Of course, you want to catch people doing something right. But don’t let
that intent dilute your intention to improve their effectiveness. Separate
praise and criticism, and you’ll see your message land much better.

Orchestrated feedback events

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. Most teams will say
they want a healthy feedback culture. In the quest for that culture, some
teams orchestrate feedback events that are downright harmful. Here are two
examples.

Feedback farming

Asking for feedback is useful when the other person has enough shared
experience to offer an observation. It becomes feedback farming when
people solicit comments from anyone who might provide a favourable signal,
and then treat the volume of responses as evidence of performance. This
antipattern is common when companies and teams conflate peer-to-peer
feedback and performance reviews. The goal shifts from learning to
accumulating appraisal currency.

Such performative feedback seeking often results in strange situations.
For example, people receive formal feedback requests from colleagues with
whom they’ve not collaborated enough. They have two choices — either
respond with platitudes or ignore the request — both bad options for
them.

None of the antipatterns we’ve described is malicious or
ill-intentioned. They’re just misdirected efforts in search of a
shortcut.