In this second issue of our August throughline, we explore one side of the feedback dynamic, the giver of feedback. Let’s look closely at the feedback experience from the giver’s perspective.
Tag: critique
It does not matter how good the feedback is
When we are not ready to hear feedback, it does not matter how good the feedback is. This tension is a simple truth that often goes unnoticed during the process. That is why many of my tactics and strategies to improve feedback focus on how well we can receive it. It does not matter how good the feedback is.
During the process of creating something, we invest in different ways. Let’s say for this article; the creative process is a student working on writing a narrative piece that has a simple planning, drafting and editing process. But it could be anything: from a conference presentation you are making, a script you have been pitching, a product you are building or a jewellery piece you are designing.
Please extend these ideas into your context and consider how it is more important what you do with your feedback.
Once the task of crafting her story is shared, our student’s ideas will begin to bubble. For feedback to be useful, it should happen as early as possible. Depending on the learning design a student will invest in her writing in the following ways.
Factors Affecting the Response to Feedback
Cognitive effort
Is the work effortful? The challenge of planning and drafting a piece of narrative is quite broad. Our student invests cognitive energy in the problem. The levels of cognitive effort are likely to be very different for everyone. Some of us find it easy to develop slides for a presentation, whereas others have to invest more cognitive effort.
Perhaps what is more important here is the level of accumulated cognitive effort. In other words, how much thinking we have done. When feedback occurs at: “I have spent ages thinking about this.” it is received in a fundamentally different way to: “I have only just started thinking about this”.
Emotional Investment
When something is more meaningful to us, we want to commit. We cannot learn anything unless we care about it. Passionate commitment to a piece of writing is not always a part of the experience but given time; a writer will invest emotion into their work. When there is a high level of emotional investment, it is harder to hear critique.
Creativity
The ideas for the narrative piece need investment to get off the ground; creativity is the engine room. But over-investment in a poor plan is a harsh environment for feedback. There are lots of potential barriers to effectively hearing feedback here. For example, the first idea is considered the best approach or clutching too tightly to an idea even when it is a poor one.
Resources
Over time more and more resourcing is brought to a project. Tasks that have unlimited resources from the very beginning often lead to overcommitment. Should we be using every pencil in the set?
Accumulated Time
My reference here is the quantity of time that our student spends on her work. This amount accumulates as the work progresses and as the project continues. We are often far less inclined to action feedback when we have committed hours and hours to a version.
Here is another set of ideas that change throughout a creative task such as writing.
Fidelity
Although messy in reality, the path of a creative task is towards higher and higher fidelity. Let’s define fidelity as to how close the outcome is to the original concept. As time and effort accumulate, we would like to think that we are approaching a higher fidelity. At which point do we stop hearing feedback?
Opportunities to fail
Stakes get higher as opportunities to fail reduce. This is closely related to the amount of time that has passed and how long a student has been working on a piece of writing. Commitment to a “final” product or draft is crossed, and any significant changes or large scale feedback is difficult to action.
It is worth noting here that this could be a perception and have no grounding in reality. A student may incorrectly perceive they cannot start again or change their work at a late stage. It might not be ideal, but it may only be a perceived constraint. The second order effect is the stakes get higher.
Opportunities for formative evaluation
As stakes get higher, opportunities to fail reduce (perceived at least) and opportunities of formative assessment reduce. The word “formative” has a time stamp on it. Developmental evaluation should be happening as the writing begins to grow. Think of a more frequent reference to our “formative years’: that time in our life when we were learning life lessons.
Convergent and Divergent Mindsets
At the very centre of this is the disposition of the feedback receiver. Typically the mindset is somewhere on the Convergent – Divergent scale. As we decide on ideas and as our commitment or effort increase so our disposition shifts to Convergence. We rally around a core idea and push on. Our thinking becomes narrow as opposed to the expansive open thinking we should have done to get started.
Remember, this is a critical shift and one that allows us to execute creative work and not just deliver a hot mess of ideas. When it comes to the conditions for effectively receiving feedback, we might assume we need to be in a divergent state. But that is not always the case – the feedback needs to match the disposition state.
If I am refining a single idea and the intricate detail within it, I do not need other more significant ideas that might replace it. We have to be aware of the mindset of the receiver of feedback and carefully adapt what is shared.
The exception to this is always having an open disposition to feedback regardless of when it occurs. In my experience, what is coupled with this is a well-established feedback filter. After all, just because it is shared and we have received it, does not mean we need to do anything with it. We can still be open to late feedback when we are narrowly executing an idea.
Late and Early stage feedback
Let’s map these variables and how their levels of investment increase or reduce over the course of a project.
Formative evaluation needs to happen early on in a project arc. This allows the receiver of feedback to be most ready to hear it. Our student’s mindset is more open or divergent, and they are more likely to action new ideas.
Late stage feedback can still be invaluable, but we have to raise a red flag and be aware that receiving the feedback may be more challenging, requiring a much higher level of skill.
Practical Strategies
Here are five strategies that emphasise early feedback and ways to mitigate some of the challenges we have explored in this article.
- Design the feedback process – take your time to consider the frequency and type of feedback that is going to be shared. Intentionally design feedback opportunities.
- Design “low investment” creative tasks – increase the constraint on creative tasks at the beginning. Work on whiteboards or post-it notes rather than impressive graphic organiser, work with thick marker pens rather than every pencil in the set. Develop ideas on the back of a napkin, literally and metaphorically.
- Create opportunities for early feedback – a tonic to many of these challenges is to design as many options for initial input as possible. Early in the process, we are more likely to have an open mind to critique.
- Explore a range of ideas – work to develop a wide range of designs. We tend to have a bias towards our first idea. With little constraint, we might overcommit. Practice the thoughtful exploration of various concepts. Crazy 8s is always a good starting point.
- Match the feedback type to the point in the process – a critical insight I want you to take away is that feedback is received in very different ways. Attempt to match the feedback to the person receiving it and their journey. (Learn more about this in my article about 30% and 90% feedback.)
Despite the best intentions of the feedback provider, their high skill levels and even high quality – unless the receiver is ready to receive, it does not matter. Mitigate this by using some of these practical strategies and considering how we might increase the capacity, readiness and disposition of receiving feedback.
Photo by Efren Barahona
Avoiding Masterchef style feedback
Her eyes widened and her mouth fell agape. I suspect the ticking clock suddenly stood still and the taste buds, that had become her all-powerful ally, dried up as fast as an unwatched pan of pasta. Her idea had been derailed.
Wherever I look I see processes of critique and feedback. It is unquestionably an integral process for learners. However, it is also a process that binds and carries the progress of many other professions and creative endeavours, as well as almost everything else in between.
That is why when watching the TV show Masterchef, the amateur cooking competition, the impact of feedback was all too present and obvious.
Masterchef style feedback refers to providing feedback at a point when it is creatively inappropriate as well as emotionally challenging to hear.
Now if you have never seen Masterchef let me share the scenario. The contestant I describe had begun a challenge in which they were in a small group of other contestants but cooking independently. They were given a time limit, like 30 minutes, to cook a particular style of dish or create something unique.
I recognise that the pace of the creative process (generating original ideas for a dish) on show here is very high along with the intensity of the environment, time, expectation and competition. This can be a block to creativity.
In this intensity, the contestants are immediately generating ideas as they hear the challenge ahead of them, even before the basket wielding supermarket sweep for ingredients begins. They are all drawing upon a history of cooking, a long line of experience using the ingredients they have and a range of ideas and principles of cooking that have been tried and tested before.
The action usually commences with everyone rushing off to a pantry filled with a plethora of fresh ingredients and cupboard essentials. The ideas for their dish begin to swirl as they are confronted by the swathe of stock laden shelves in the pantry. There are those that pluck what they need, the decision made and those that are still developing something, waiting for inspiration to strike, lost momentarily in the various types of vinegar on offer.
With baskets crammed the cooks rush to their workbenches and stovetops to begin cooking. Stakes are high (fill in your own pun) as they compete with each other, the clock, their own nerves and the judgement of professional chefs and food critics. Suffice it to say that emotionally the environment is highly charged for those involved.
And then comes the first moment of feedback.
Who knows really how much time has passed due to the editing process for television. However typically a trio of judges saunters across to a contestant to try and learn what dish is being made and observe the progress towards that goal. Comments both positive and negative are typically shared with the contestant at this point. This is a moment when really contestants are implementing their idea for the dish, they have committed to it and are pushing on. Feedback which is anything but affirmation is derailing.
So every now and then you see idea derailment in the eyes of the contestant. The widened eyes of an inner struggle to assimilate the expert advice with their emotional and technical commitment to an idea. “How can I possibly change my dish now?!” The contestant has invested in their idea and fast-tracked to implementing it. They are no longer making major decisions about what to do but are now amongst the intricacies of making it happen. Their mindset is no longer in a divergent state but is now one of convergence towards a more and more fixed goal.
It is this style of feedback which I think we have to seek to avoid. After all the cooking on Masterchef, however much a show for TV is still a microcosm of a creative process. This is similar in so many ways to when we ask the learners in our classes to create something, think high stakes, time, judgement.
To avoid Masterchef feedback or idea derailment we simply have to provide more feedback earlier on in the creative process.
In the case of Masterchef the time in the pantry, as the contestants jostle for ideas, inspiration and ingredients, would have been a good time to speak with people to offer ideas and feedback. Sometimes on a show, you see those stranded in the pantry getting a pep talk from a judge as they share and develop ideas together. That early feedback and dialogue are much more developmental and appropriate than derailing ideas already on their way.
In the classroom, we might build in earlier check-ins with learners as they begin the process of generating ideas for their writing, painting, modelling etc. The longer you leave that early check in the more committed to their ideas students will become and there is a higher chance of idea derailment if you offer critique. Plan for feedback to occur early and frequently to catch our young thinkers whilst their mindset is still divergent and open to ideas.
Dear Mr Judgy Pants,
Thanks for squashing my idea. You cut me off as I was sharing it and threw it on the ground. You trampled on my idea. You made me watch as you extinguished that precious little spark and yeah, you squashed it.
We obviously approached the chat from different places. You see, I thought we were there to share some ideas. You know, like new things we hadn’t considered yet. It seemed you had just brought your pre-loaded high calibre idea sniper rifle. Those ideas didn’t stand a chance; I mean they barely had a moment to breathe.
But did you hear that other sound? No? Well, you were busy dropping and squashing ideas, so how could you. That was the sound of a crack in my creative confidence. It’ll be a while before that gets fixed. I hope it gets fixed.
When you look around the room and notice others, yeah, those other quieter voices. Or even the silent ones. You know why they are silent, right? The cracks in their confidence haven’t been fixed. Creative cracks just grew. They still have ideas; I know that. They just keep quiet, choosing not to participate in the fortnightly Idea Duck Hunt.
I just wanted to let you know that there are thousands of idea headstones carved because of people like you. We mourn those precious little sparks, those little glimpses of something new, different and unexpected. We still think about those ideas and the fleeting moments we had with them.
Although our gradual creative grief makes us not want to share, our ideas keep coming. They brim up when we least expect it — entrusted to our notebooks, napkins and daydreams. We know they will have their time in the sun probably when you and your shadow have moved on.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Second Score – use this meta-feedback strategy
In our work and learning, the quality of creative culture can be directly linked to the quality of the feedback culture.
We might also call this a Culture of Critique with its associated processes and dispositions.
It is no real surprise that we should invest time, energy and effort in getting good at feedback. What follows is an outline of a a handy technique, I will coin Second Score, which can aid the way we receive feedback from others.
I first came across it in “Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well,” co-authored by Sheila Heen and Douglas Stone. Worthy of your time and standard reading for anyone interested in feedback.
It is pretty straightforward, basically we give ourselves a (you guessed it dear reader) Second Score. But importantly the assessment is about the way we received the feedback.
Let’s imagine the scenario where you have created a diagram to visualise a key concept. It will form part of larger written report you are collaborating on with your team. You pitch in the version you have drafted over the last few hours and have asked for some critique or feedback from others. That feedback arrives from a few of your team and overall it seems heavy handed and too general in detail to be useful. [PAUSE]
So at this moment just as you complete the reading of the feedback comments, you have a choice. We all have a choice in these moments. How we choose to receive the feedback. It is this reception that we can rate or assess. By explicitly thinking about your Second Score (how we receive the feedback) we increase our self awareness at this critical moment, increasing the likelihood of openness and more favourable conditions for it to be received well.
[PLAY] In this scenario we might: (a) throw up our hands and agree never to contribute a visual element to future reports (b) write down some questions in response to help clarify what needs your attention first (c) Nod our heads, retreat to our happy place, change nothing (d) delete the original files and say “I thought that is what you meant, oh fine, I can’t win!” (e) corner one of the feedback providers and ask them what their problem is.
You can hopefully see the choice that might score more favourably using our Second Score.[1] Although we might judge the quality of the feedback to have been low, we can happily give ourselves a higher Second Score in terms of how we received it. Well done you.
For us and for younger learners this type of technique will potentially develop a strong reflective habit. In many ways this falls into the meta-cognitive bucket insomuch that the act of reflecting on how we receive feedback. I am not sure if you can put the word meta in front of feedback but it feels like this is a meta-feedback technique.
So the next time you are providing feedback, and especially when we are on the receiving end consider your Second Score.
Photo by Adam Jang
- (a) good luck with that (b) yes definitely this one (c) no (d) see “a” (e) no that is just wrong ↩