My gut reaction is this sounds pretty unpleasant. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the sort of feedback you’d expect to share in such a situation; could you perhaps give some examples?
To be clear, I think it can be unpleasant! The vibe can be something like “speak the truth even if your voice trembles” or it can be more gentle, depending on the participants and their preferences.
Some things I wrote down from my last doom circle:
I don’t write enough / share my models enough
I don’t make time/money tradeoffs enough
Something about my Midwestern accent might make people underestimate me
People feel confused about why I don’t live in a hub and this might make them think I’m not serious
I should consider spending more time learning about technical topics
I don’t prioritize my physical health enough, buy professional clothes, etc and this might make people underestimate me
I sometimes don’t use reasoning transparency enough, which can make it hard for people to understand why I think certain things
None of this felt particularly hard to hear for me. If people had gone on and on about the appearance stuff or said it in deliberately hurtful ways I’d probably have gotten pretty tired of it. I’ve made a bunch of changes as a result of this feedback, so it was quite useful to me and worth the discomfort. But YMMV!
I really admire you have shared personal examples. Makes this way more tangible.
I see you that in the description wrote that you should only say “thank you”, but isn’t it sometimes a bit risky to not discuss the feedback?
It seems that someone’s model of you may be quite off because they miss some context that you have or because of their biases. For example reading the feedback you’ve received made me think that some of that could be quite distorted by preferences of the giver.
It’s my impression that in writing workshops where people bring their writing to be criticized, it’s also a common rule that the writers are not allowed to respond to the feedback. I believe the rule exists exactly because of what you say: because another person’s feedback may be off or biased for a variety of reasons. If there was a discussion about it, the recipient of the feedback might get defensive and want to explain why the feedback was flawed. That would risk the conversation taking an unpleasant tone and also any correct feedback not being properly heard.
When the rule is instead “you are required to listen to the feedback, but it’s then totally up to you what you do with it and can choose to ignore it as totally deluded if you wish”, that gives people the full license to do so. Unfair-feeling criticism won’t put them in a position where they have to choose between defending themselves and losing face—not defending yourself won’t make anyone lose face since nobody is allowed to defend themselves. That helps make it easier to consider whether some of the unfair-seeming criticism might actually have a point. And on the other hand, if the criticism really was unfair, then someone defending themselves might give the other people the temptation to argue against the defense in order for them to save face and justify their criticism as correct… and someone trying to argue to you that no really, you really are doomed (or “your writing really is bad”), would totally break any atmosphere of mutual kindness and support.
Thanks for the answer. I think I got it more and I find the reasoning convincing, but in the end it seems to be then quite dependent on the context.
I find what you said optimal in not-so-ideal psychological safety environment, but with teams high in psychological safety it’s not really about things you listed, like
Unfair-feeling criticism
but rather truth-seeking approach to make sure we are really elevating the person. For this two-sided communication performs better.
Anecdotally, from my perspective in public feedback rounds it’s not so much defense, but more like “I think you are onto something, but consider this… ”. Which seems to me a bit more productive and optimal for the person than just listening. Then the two models can inform each other. For an extreme outcome example on one of such rounds in a team—one person criticized public speaking skills of one person and said the person should speak more. But after discussion we all agreed that it was not a good strength to invest in for that person and their comparative advantage lies elsewhere, so in the end it’s not a good feedback. So the giver was missing some crucial considerations that indeed changed that person’s feedback. I found it way more productive than I would find a one-sided communication. I also think if it’s done with compassion and intent to help each other then it shouldn’t break the atmosphere.
But after your and Amy’s answers, I get now that it’s a bit different environment that Doom Circle aims to create. It seems to me that Doom Circle requires less vulnerability thanks to these rules which makes sense, especially for less psychologically safe teams. So this seems good for people that know each other less.
I can’t remember discussing feedback that I thought was wrong (and I agree with the reasons Kaj shares about why this can be disruptive during the Doom Circle). I have followed up with people about feedback that I thought was apt/useful to get more information. In a couple of cases, after discussing further, the person offered to help me address something they raised and I took them up on it :)
My gut reaction is this sounds pretty unpleasant. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the sort of feedback you’d expect to share in such a situation; could you perhaps give some examples?
To be clear, I think it can be unpleasant! The vibe can be something like “speak the truth even if your voice trembles” or it can be more gentle, depending on the participants and their preferences.
Some things I wrote down from my last doom circle:
I don’t write enough / share my models enough
I don’t make time/money tradeoffs enough
Something about my Midwestern accent might make people underestimate me
People feel confused about why I don’t live in a hub and this might make them think I’m not serious
I should consider spending more time learning about technical topics
I don’t prioritize my physical health enough, buy professional clothes, etc and this might make people underestimate me
I sometimes don’t use reasoning transparency enough, which can make it hard for people to understand why I think certain things
None of this felt particularly hard to hear for me. If people had gone on and on about the appearance stuff or said it in deliberately hurtful ways I’d probably have gotten pretty tired of it. I’ve made a bunch of changes as a result of this feedback, so it was quite useful to me and worth the discomfort. But YMMV!
I really admire you have shared personal examples. Makes this way more tangible.
I see you that in the description wrote that you should only say “thank you”, but isn’t it sometimes a bit risky to not discuss the feedback?
It seems that someone’s model of you may be quite off because they miss some context that you have or because of their biases. For example reading the feedback you’ve received made me think that some of that could be quite distorted by preferences of the giver.
Or do you do discuss it later on?
It’s my impression that in writing workshops where people bring their writing to be criticized, it’s also a common rule that the writers are not allowed to respond to the feedback. I believe the rule exists exactly because of what you say: because another person’s feedback may be off or biased for a variety of reasons. If there was a discussion about it, the recipient of the feedback might get defensive and want to explain why the feedback was flawed. That would risk the conversation taking an unpleasant tone and also any correct feedback not being properly heard.
When the rule is instead “you are required to listen to the feedback, but it’s then totally up to you what you do with it and can choose to ignore it as totally deluded if you wish”, that gives people the full license to do so. Unfair-feeling criticism won’t put them in a position where they have to choose between defending themselves and losing face—not defending yourself won’t make anyone lose face since nobody is allowed to defend themselves. That helps make it easier to consider whether some of the unfair-seeming criticism might actually have a point. And on the other hand, if the criticism really was unfair, then someone defending themselves might give the other people the temptation to argue against the defense in order for them to save face and justify their criticism as correct… and someone trying to argue to you that no really, you really are doomed (or “your writing really is bad”), would totally break any atmosphere of mutual kindness and support.
Thanks for the answer. I think I got it more and I find the reasoning convincing, but in the end it seems to be then quite dependent on the context.
I find what you said optimal in not-so-ideal psychological safety environment, but with teams high in psychological safety it’s not really about things you listed, like
but rather truth-seeking approach to make sure we are really elevating the person. For this two-sided communication performs better.
Anecdotally, from my perspective in public feedback rounds it’s not so much defense, but more like “I think you are onto something, but consider this… ”. Which seems to me a bit more productive and optimal for the person than just listening. Then the two models can inform each other. For an extreme outcome example on one of such rounds in a team—one person criticized public speaking skills of one person and said the person should speak more. But after discussion we all agreed that it was not a good strength to invest in for that person and their comparative advantage lies elsewhere, so in the end it’s not a good feedback. So the giver was missing some crucial considerations that indeed changed that person’s feedback. I found it way more productive than I would find a one-sided communication. I also think if it’s done with compassion and intent to help each other then it shouldn’t break the atmosphere.
But after your and Amy’s answers, I get now that it’s a bit different environment that Doom Circle aims to create. It seems to me that Doom Circle requires less vulnerability thanks to these rules which makes sense, especially for less psychologically safe teams. So this seems good for people that know each other less.
Thanks, Jakub!
I can’t remember discussing feedback that I thought was wrong (and I agree with the reasons Kaj shares about why this can be disruptive during the Doom Circle). I have followed up with people about feedback that I thought was apt/useful to get more information. In a couple of cases, after discussing further, the person offered to help me address something they raised and I took them up on it :)