I feel concerned about versions of this where there is implicit social pressure to:
stay;
seem fine with the critiques given;
participate in the first place.
Like, if its implicitly socially costly to opt out, it’s pretty hard for an individual to opt out.
I also think that it is hard to avoid these pressure-y dynamics in practice. Especially when people really want to be included in the social group.
I can imagine a scenario where there is a subtext of:
“You can opt out. Of course. But, as we know, the real hard-core and truth-seeking people stay. And this social group values truth-seeking. So… you can leave. But that is an out-group thing to do. Come on guys, it’s virtuous to seek-truth! And we are just providing you with an opportunity to do that! Don’t tell me that you’d rather hide from the truth than get your feelings hurt.”
(I’m overdoing this a bit to illustrate my point.)
I also think normally, people tend to have strong social rules in place to “be nice”. When someone shares a goal they have, or if someone has something that seems to be holding them back there is pressure not to say the ways we expect them/their efforts to fail.
For example, I think one of the most common pitfalls with new managers is ruinous empathy:
Ruinous Empathy is “nice” but ultimately unhelpful or even damaging. It’s what happens when you care about someone personally, but fail to challenge them directly. It’s praise that isn’t specific enough to help the person understand what was good, or criticism that is sugar-coated and unclear.
Ruinous Empathy is seeing somebody with their fly down, but, not wanting to embarrass them, saying nothing, with the result that 15 more people see them with their fly down — more embarrassing for them. So, not so “nice” after all.
A Doom Circle is meant to be a special, voluntary space where these rules are suspended. I agree there are risks and some people probably shouldn’t participate. I also think it is useful to have facilitators who can share the risks mentioned in the “Should you try this” section as part of the setup.
I’ll be testing a new variant of this at an event soon so might have more suggestions in the next month or so.
Maybe there is another “gentler” variant that might involve setup with a spiciness level (like Hot Seat) or with additional guidance like the suggestions from Admonymous:
Giving admonition
Some suggestions for ensuring your feedback is constructive:
Be gentle. As long as you get the message across, there is no need to be harsh. Receiving even nicely-worded negative feedback can be difficult. Put yourself in the recipient’s shoes and imagine how you would feel if you were on the receiving end of the message you just wrote.
Be specific. Provide as many details as you can without deanonymizing yourself (should you wish to remain anonymous). Bad: “Your meetings are wasting people’s time.” Good: “When you arrange meetings, sometimes they are ineffective because there isn’t a clear purpose and you don’t stop people who go off-topic.”
Admire. Just as the recipient may need your feedback to change behavior that bothers you, they may not be aware of the good aspects of their behavior, and even if they are not blind to them you can encourage them further by giving explicit praise. Use Admonymous to encourage positive behavior as much as you use it to change negative behavior.
Pick actionable things. Make sure the recipient can act upon your admonition. Even better, provide some suggested courses of action. Bad: “You’re annoying.” Good: “Some habits you have are annoying. It would help if you made fewer clicking noises, and let others speak more in conversations.”
Don’t abuse. It’s easy to be mean when anonymity protects you. Remember that the goal is helping the recipient, not making them feel bad.”
The original CFAR alumni workshop had a warning: ”be warned that the nature of this workshop means we may be pushing on folks harder than we do at most other CFAR events, so please only sign up if that sounds like something that a) you want, and b) will be good for you.”
It seems like the moderators might say something like that at the beginning. I’ll add that as a suggestion in the post. I’d be curious if you have other suggestions for striking the right tone/setting up the right social dynamic.
I feel concerned about versions of this where there is implicit social pressure to:
stay;
seem fine with the critiques given;
participate in the first place.
Like, if its implicitly socially costly to opt out, it’s pretty hard for an individual to opt out.
I also think that it is hard to avoid these pressure-y dynamics in practice. Especially when people really want to be included in the social group.
I can imagine a scenario where there is a subtext of:
“You can opt out. Of course. But, as we know, the real hard-core and truth-seeking people stay. And this social group values truth-seeking. So… you can leave. But that is an out-group thing to do. Come on guys, it’s virtuous to seek-truth! And we are just providing you with an opportunity to do that! Don’t tell me that you’d rather hide from the truth than get your feelings hurt.”
(I’m overdoing this a bit to illustrate my point.)
Makes sense, thanks for flagging.
I also think normally, people tend to have strong social rules in place to “be nice”. When someone shares a goal they have, or if someone has something that seems to be holding them back there is pressure not to say the ways we expect them/their efforts to fail.
For example, I think one of the most common pitfalls with new managers is ruinous empathy:
A Doom Circle is meant to be a special, voluntary space where these rules are suspended. I agree there are risks and some people probably shouldn’t participate. I also think it is useful to have facilitators who can share the risks mentioned in the “Should you try this” section as part of the setup.
I’ll be testing a new variant of this at an event soon so might have more suggestions in the next month or so.
Maybe there is another “gentler” variant that might involve setup with a spiciness level (like Hot Seat) or with additional guidance like the suggestions from Admonymous:
Giving admonition
… replacing “anonymity” with “doom”
The original CFAR alumni workshop had a warning:
”be warned that the nature of this workshop means we may be pushing on folks harder than we do at most other CFAR events, so please only sign up if that sounds like something that a) you want, and b) will be good for you.”
It seems like the moderators might say something like that at the beginning. I’ll add that as a suggestion in the post. I’d be curious if you have other suggestions for striking the right tone/setting up the right social dynamic.