A lot of managers (including me!) find it hard/scary to give critical feedback.
I realized recently that this is often downstream of a less obvious blindspot—giving people enough *positive* feedback! If you've done that, critical feedback "magically" becomes much less fraught.
Basically, the hard part of giving people critical feedback (at least for me) is worrying that it'll make them feel bad (as opposed to motivated to improve). The biggest thing that makes people feel bad is worrying that their manager thinks they overall suck at their job.
So you need to give positive feedback not just for things that are *surprisingly* awesome (which I think is many managers' default), but frequently enough that the positive:negative ratio accurately reflects how good they are at their job.
(There’s a meme that the optimal positive:critical ratio is 5:1, but that was (a) an observational study (b) about tone in meetings, not feedback (c) unreplicated. Regardless though the best ratio is definitely higher than many people’s default!)
This is also the reason why people recommend the "feedback sandwich" method—say something positive, then say your feedback, then say something else positive.
Also known as the shit sandwich, which accurately describes my feelings about it.
The problem is that a feedback sandwiche makes it obvious that you're Using A Management Technique, so puts people on guard.
("Jones, great presentation you gave today." -> "Uh oh, here comes the shit")
Eventually it will condition people to flinch away from your compliments!
What I'd rather do, as with many such Management Techniques, is to replace them with a habit. Instead of executing a formula, I'd rather become *the kind of person* who *naturally* gives a lot of positive feedback.
So far, I'm building the habit by noticing when I think "yay" to myself about someone, and saying it out loud to them too!
I'm still not good at this yet, because knowing you should have a habit is not the same as having it. But it's been great when I've remembered to do it 🙂
PS: the *main* reason you should give people positive feedback is that it nourishes their soul, not because it makes it easier to critique them!
I was just surprised by how much mgmt advice discusses critical feedback without discussing the praise that's a prerequisite for it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(“Outside view” = e.g. asking “what % of startups succeed?” and assuming that’s ~= your chance of success.)
In theory it seems obviously useful. In practice, it makes people underrate themselves and prematurely give up their ambition.
One problem is that finding the right comparison group is hard.
For instance, in one commonly-cited statistic that “90% of startups fail,” (national.biz/2019-small-bus…) “startup” meant all newly-started small businesses including eg groceries. Failure rates vary wildly by industry!
But it’s worse than that. Even if you knew the failure rate specifically of venture-funded tech startups, that leaves out a ton of important info. Consumer startups probably fail at a higher rate than B2B startups. Single-founder startups probably fail more than 2-founder ones.
This is another great takeaway from last thread, which I *should* have learned from changing jobs, but actually took ~20 more cycles on the motivation roller coaster to realize.
For me, bad focus was ~always a response to circumstances, even when I wasn't consciously aware!
My first years at Wave, I repeated variants of the following ~monthly:
- notice I'm stressed/unfocused
- "huh, having an off day"
- go climbing, read books, etc.
- still stressed
- gripe to boss eg "accounting sucks"
- boss helps fix accounting problem
- ✨happiness returns✨
Eventually I started interpreting stress/unfocus as a sign, not that I was having a bad day, but that I was working ineffectively or on the wrong thing. Eg, I'd know I needed to be hiring faster, but kept getting distracted by other, less important, more urgent projects.
One thing that surprised me when I switched plans from "earn lots of $ and donate" to "build important things," is how much more productive I became.
I thought if I was earning the $ by doing intellectually interesting work I'd stay motivated. Turned out that wasn't true!
Actually, it was even worse—I *thought* I was motivated while I was doing plan A, and only when I switched did I even realize *how motivated it was possible to be.*
Several friends had this experience as well. Makes me wonder how many people are stuck in that state.
(For example, I never thought I'd be pumped enough about work to live for 1+ yr in a country where I didn't speak the language! Or to have the stamina to spend 20+hr/wk on the phone with an accounting firm. Or etc.)
People ask me for a lot of advice on what to do about technical debt. Here some things I’ve learned about how and when to prioritize fixing bad code:
1. Distinguish global vs local problems.
Local problems are things like a poorly-implemented module—it slows you down if working on that module, but is fine otherwise. Global problems are things like “we use database transactions wrong” that infect everything.
2. Fix local problems the next time they get in your way.
(i.e. trust that they’ll get solved eventually by a “make the change easy, then make the easy change” process.) Leave TODOs in the code, deprecate methods, etc. as breadcrumbs for anyone else who might want to fix.
I just finished *Creative Selection* by Ken Kocienda, which is largely the story of how he came to build the iPhone keyboard.
It’s a great example of how many twists and turns it can take to come up with something that seems so incredibly normal!
v1 started out looking like...
some wacko phone-keypad variant, because the developers were super worried about touch targets being small. The input method for this was: tap to get the top letter, swipe left/right to get the bottom letters.
Except instead of the letters being organized like a phone keyboard, they’re jumbled up. (Presumably to make sure that common letters were taps, not swipes? But that plus the gestures seems impossible to learn.)
People sometimes ask me whether Wave has any plans involving crypto, presumably because of the narrative that crypto is supposed to help with financial inclusion.
Unfortunately, in reality it doesn’t and we don’t. Crypto does not solve any hard financial inclusion problems.
Wave needs to solve, roughly, 3 problems in order to financially include someone: 1. track their balance 2. comply with regulations 3. convert balance to/from cash
Crypto is a very exciting solution to 1, but Postgres is a boring solution to 1 that is much faster.
People sometimes think crypto helps with 2, because it’s *technically* not currency. This is... not a great assumption about how governments/regulators work. It turns out that if you follow the letter but not the spirit of the rules, people eventually notice and tell you to stop.