Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Meta-Discussion on Feedback

12

Lucio: As usual, some parts of my reply are based on my interpretation of very limited information, so some of it -or sometimes a large part of it- might not apply.
As long as you can consider the discordant information with antifragile ego and open mind, which I think you do, then you know better and you decide what applies and what doesn't.

The first part

As usual, some parts of my reply are based on my interpretation of very limited information, so some of it -or sometimes a large part of it- might not apply.

sounds like an excellent approach to give feedback.

It comes across as both power-protecting, face-saving and

"I may actually not have the full context. So don't blindly take my advice. Think about it"

This encourages people to think for themselves.

The second part

As long as you can consider the discordant information with antifragile ego and open mind, which I think you do, then you know better and you decide what applies and what doesn't.

encourages people to have an open mind with the power-protecting "which I think you do" rather than a forceful tone of

Be open-minded and take my feedback.

Then, finally, get the person to think for himself to make the final decision while achieving the power-protecting effect of letting the person decide on his own.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano

Thank you Matthew, and yes, great observations and "extrapolation" of general principles.

Maybe we could make a list of these techniques for effective feedback-giving.

Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

In the recent thread on 17 Oct 2021,
Trainers VS Entertainers: don't get PU if you're looking for easy & fun (this guy hated it)
Lucio discusses the remarks of an unhappy customer and how to manage the interaction.

I'm thinking that there can be a few competing priorities whenever negative remarks are encountered:

  • Manage reputation & perceptions - public relations
  • Take the relevant constructive elements as constructive criticism & feedback
  • Take care of the relationship aspect - power-protect the remark-giver
  • Use the opportunity to showcase something (positive product, personality, story, etc)

I suppose what's the priority depends on the nature of the individual, content, tone, etc.

Lucio seems to balance the 4 priorities in that particular reply.

Feel free to share your thoughts.
Thank you for your time in advance!

Absolutely.

I made a note at the beginning that I was going to post the user's email verbatim, but was going to revisit my reply.

Well, I revised quite a bit in the end -as it made sense I should have-.
Even beyond the polishing, if you compared the two, you'd find the email was briefer, more personal and bridge-building. While the public one ended up being more "PR style", and PU-enhancing.

It's almost as if it took this complaint, and used it to showcase why PU is great for this other category of people, which also end up being the type of people most people wants to be (those who don't expect easy and quick to be revolutionary, those who are willing to put in the work, those who are on a serious path, those who focus on results rather than form, etc.)

Still there are also important overlapping interests that apply to both, such as:

  • Maintain your frame while seeking bridges (but bridges are higher prior in private email)
  • Make your point without entering too much into the complaint's frame (ie.: defending)
  • Make your point expanding on positives, not negatives (more important publicly)
  • Provide some evidence for your claims, without overdoing it (evidence is far more important publicly since convincing one user isn't worth the time, but it's important when many will read it)
Matthew Whitewood has reacted to this post.
Matthew Whitewood
Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?

That helps a lot, thanks Lucio.

  • Provide some evidence for your claims, without overdoing it (evidence is far more important publicly since convincing one user isn't worth the time, but it's important when many will read it)

Making responses to negative remarks seem to have a different approach from conducting scientific studies.
For scientific studies, more evidence usually leads to better objective conclusions and comes across as more persuasive.
However, giving too much evidence in a disagreement comes across as over-investing and hence defensive.

Well, I revised quite a bit in the end -as it made sense I should have-.
Even beyond the polishing, if you compared the two, you'd find the email was briefer, more personal and bridge-building. While the public one ended up being more "PR style", and PU-enhancing.

I cannot view the original email reply.
Did you happen to edit the reply?
It could be my web browser or computer that's having issues.

One can probably say the maxim to be

Using the least amount of evidence needed to persuade someone

which is similar to the principle of

Going as slow as possible to win the race

I suppose there may be occasional situations where erring on slightly more evidence can help:

  • Rigorous scientific findings
  • Litigation court cases

Even then, it may be wise to hold back some evidence at first and slowly release each piece of evidence strategically.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.
Lucio Buffalmano
12
Processing...