Defensiveness - The Bane of Effective Feedback

Giving "difficult" feedback is hard and often complicated by the potential for defensiveness. Frameworks like COIN, BOOST, FAST, STAR, and BID (sound more like crypto projects) help structure conversations. There's enought content on them already (and they sound more like crypto projects). I won't be shilling them here.

Instead, I'll explore actionable methods to sidestep defensiveness by creating what I call "Bidrectional Empathy". This will help transform feedback into a constructive, even enjoyable, process.

The Problem with Defensiveness

Someone who is defensive will not listen and take onboard your feedback. It could also damage your relationship with them. Once the shield is up, it's very difficult to bring it down again.

When giving difficult feedback, if you make someone defensive, you've failed.

To avoid defensiveness, you must show the other person you have listened, that you care and that you want them to succeed. In other words, you need to generate empathy in them towards you.

Bidirectional Empathy

'Bidirectional Empathy' is a term I've coined to underscore the necessity of mutual understanding in feedback. It's about more than walking a mile in their shoes; it's inviting them to do the same with yours.

This second part is critical and often forgotten. When giving feedback, you cannot rely on the recipient to instinctively understand your perspective. You must take responsibility for helping them understand you.

Avoiding defensiveness is about building Bidirectional Empathy.

How to Build Bidirectional Empathy

Let's go through some actionable methods to help build Bidirectional Empathy. We'll iterate through an example where a fictitious person called Jim has been late.

Bad (non empathetic)

Why are you always late?

Try that out yourself. It feels quite attacking and something you need to defend. Let's improve it.

Avoid direct "why"

What often causes you to be late?

A simple one to start. Try to avoid using "why" when questioning behaviour.

The word "why" comes across judgmental and accusatory. Jim will not be able to see things from your perspective if he feels like he needs to explain himself.

Be Specific

What caused you to be 10 minutes late in this morning's team meeting?

Being specific allows you to separate the action from the person. You're talking about something Jim did (he was late) rather than who he is (a person who is late).

Specific feedback is also more objective. Jim often being late is a judgement. Jim being late for a meeting that morning is a fact.

Impact from Jim's Perspective

This morning you were 10 minutes late for the team meeting... Making others wait for you implies you value your time more than theirs.

It's important to highlight that impact is most powerful when framed from the perspective of the recipient. In other words, make sure you talk about how Jim's actions impacts what Jim cares about... Not what you care about (or think he should!).

For example, another impact of being late is that it wastes company time. However, Jim will likely care much more about disrespecting his colleagues. The more you understand what drives Jim in advance, the easier this is.

Impact Gap

Your contributions in meetings are insightful and highly valued. However, this morning you were 10 minutes late to the team meeting. Making others wait for you implies you value your time more than theirs.

We've already highlighted the negative impact of Jim's behaviour. This time, we do the opposite - we show Jim what could be if he changed his behaviour.

The difference between what could be and what is is what I call the 'Impact Gap'. This is much more powerful than the negative impact alone and puts a positive twist on the conversation. As before, it should be framed about what Jim cares about - not you!

Change the perspective

Your contributions in meetings are insightful and highly valued. However, this morning you were 10 minutes late to the team meeting. Can you see how making others wait for you implies you value your time more than theirs?

This is my favourite part and the crux of this post. It forces Jim to answer from your perspective rather than his own. This helps Jim build empathy towards your point of view.

Now both participants of the conversation are speaking from the other's perspective - not their own. You've framed your feedback about what JIM cares about. He's repeating back the world as YOU see it.

Quick sidenote: "Repeating back" is amazingly powerful in all forms of communication - not just feedback. Highly recommend the book Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss for more on this.

Don't give all the answers

Your contributions in meetings are insightful and highly valued. However, this morning you were 10 minutes late to the team meeting. Can you see how being late causes your colleagues to feel disrespected and devalues your contributions?

This is getting more advanced now! We've given a start action (being late) and an outcome (disrespected and devalued contributions) and not directly explained the connection. We've then asked Jim to think about this connection for himself.

This creates a great backdrop for a conversation where Jim is forced to think empathetically about how his actions impact others. You know you're on the right track when it feels like Jim is giving feedback to himself.

Extending the Concept: More Real-World Examples

The example above is contrived to help illustrate the point. In reality, things are much more complex and nuanced. In fact, I find a lot of advice on feedback to be like this: simple when read in a blog post, but much harder to apply in real life.

The best I can do is go through some more examples.

Performance Drop

Bad:

Why has your performance dropped?

Better:

When you're engaged, you are one of our best performers. However, I noticed that ticket X took 3 days longer than I'd expect and you were very unresponsive in Slack. Can you see how this makes me feel like you're not as engaged as you used to be.

Of course, this is a difficult topic and I've simplified it a lot.

In these situations, it's even more important to separate actions from identity. Questioning a person's performance attacks their value to the company - something that is likely to be core to their identity in the organisation. Instead, using a phrase like "not as engaged" makes it much easier to talk objectively. On the other hand, "engagement" is softer. It's more actional, less personal and feels easier to change.

Camera on in meetings

Bad:

Why do you never have your camera on?

Better:

In the meeting just now your camera was switched off. I believe that having cameras on is important to our culture in remote environments. Can you tell me why I feel so strongly about this?

Here, you're asking Jim to repeat back your perspective on the importance of cameras. You haven't given him the answers. You're asking him to give you a thoughtful response about why cameras are important to you.

Also note the distinction between "can you see" and "can you tell me". You can't just answer "yes" or "no" to the latter. Open questions are generally preferable.

Lastly, It's not always bad to use "why". In the "Bad" case, it's directly questioning the person's actions. In the "Better" case, it's asking the person to question YOUR view of the world.

Rogue Engineer

Bad:

Why did you refactor that code without consulting the team?

Better:

You have a great eye for code quality and the team really values your expertise. However, when you went ahead and refactored part z of the codebase without consulting anyone, it undermined the work that was already there. Can you see how the refactor made things worse for the team who don't understand why the change was needed?

Very often, people are not aware of the impact of their actions on others. If they think they're doing the right thing, they'll be much more likely to get defensive when you suggest otherwise.

In these situations it's even more important that you force them to think from a different perspective and have to work a bit to find the connection themselves.

Continuing the Conversation

So far, I've just suggested ways to start the conversation. What then?

Silence

It's very likely that your questions will catch them off guard and they'll need time to think. Give them this time! If you fill the silence, you're going to undo all the good work you've done so far.

Help but don't tell

Remember you're putting them on the spot about something they've likely never thought about before (other people's perspectives!). If they're really struggling, give them hints. Giving feedback should be a 2 way conversation - not a test.

Keep it light

Soon, the conversation will start to feel like you're working through You're a team, working out how to get the best out of each other.

At this stage of the conversation, I always try to keep it light... I want them to feel like it's any other problem that needs to be worked through and that process can be enjoyable.

Finishing up...

Avoiding defensiveness is just one piece of the feedback puzzle. However, it's a pivotal piece. It has held me back from giving feedback in the past and I hope this post can help you avoid the same.

PLEASE share your own experiences with giving difficult conversations or perhaps give me some feedback on this post! Don't make me defensive though, you've failed 😜.