Last week a colleague that I highly respect sought my opinion on the content of a critical feedback he had given to someone and also sought my help in navigating the next steps as he was accused of "lacking empathy".
I looked at the content and it appeared perfectly fine. He had ofcourse specifically chosen to focus ONLY on the critical feedback so as to not dilute the message. Unfortunately, this had not gone down well with the recipient and hence the comment "lack of empathy". Having been myself accused of "lacking empathy", I was able to relate to him quickly. I'm not a big believer of "sandwich technique of feedback", as my experience is that usually people tend to exaggerate to themselves, the positive feedback and downplay the constructive part. Especially when repeated feedback has not resulted in the desired improvement, it is always prudent to have a session exclusively for constructive feedback. It is better to clarify that the session is only on constructive feedback and that doesn't mean the receiver has no positive things to talk about. I didn't see anything wrong my colleague had done - he had made it very clear that he'd be talking only about the constructive feedback.
I told him that I didn't find him in lacking in empathy for a number of reasons:
I looked at the content and it appeared perfectly fine. He had ofcourse specifically chosen to focus ONLY on the critical feedback so as to not dilute the message. Unfortunately, this had not gone down well with the recipient and hence the comment "lack of empathy". Having been myself accused of "lacking empathy", I was able to relate to him quickly. I'm not a big believer of "sandwich technique of feedback", as my experience is that usually people tend to exaggerate to themselves, the positive feedback and downplay the constructive part. Especially when repeated feedback has not resulted in the desired improvement, it is always prudent to have a session exclusively for constructive feedback. It is better to clarify that the session is only on constructive feedback and that doesn't mean the receiver has no positive things to talk about. I didn't see anything wrong my colleague had done - he had made it very clear that he'd be talking only about the constructive feedback.
I told him that I didn't find him in lacking in empathy for a number of reasons:
- It really was not his job to provide a detailed feedback. He did so only because he wanted the receiver to improve.
- The feedback was very specific, actionable and he even had training part planned out and was committing his own time.
- Some of the feedback were basic and not to be expected by a person of receiver's experience and role. By stepping in proactively my colleague was only trying to protect the perception of the larger group.
If the above is not an example of "empathy", then I don't know what else is. He felt little better, though still perturbed having branded.
Unfortunately, many people when they ask for feedback are looking merely for self-validation, wants to hear only good things and really dislike hearing things that might help grow.
No comments:
Post a Comment