The Gift You Need To Want

“Feedback is a Gift”

One of the most enlightened leaders I’ve had the privilege to work for often said this. As I went on to grow professionally (and personally), I have grown to increasingly appreciate the wisdom contained in this simple statement. Rather than being obvious or trite, effective feedback is quite elusive – and therefore precious – for a few reasons.

Deliverers of effective feedback need to be willing to face conflict, and to take some time and effort to point out specifics to make the feedback valuable as well as communicate it clearly.

And yet, regardless of how its delivered, recipients tend to react defensively (see “the 3 Ds“), or simply ignore it altogether.

Which is a huge loss. Even if the feedback comes from a “biased” or self-interested perspective and is delivered terribly, there are always nuggets that provide important learning – if only because “perception is reality”: the wake you leave on others will effect your own life in various ways that you may be aware of or not.

So when I saw a crazy-a** email inquiry come into our mailbox at WebFWD, my biggest takeaway was not how lame it was (details on that part at this blog post); rather, it was how valuable the actual response was that my colleague provided.

For convenience, here’s the original email (sent to BCC):

Hi

I have a great idea that’s working and I have customers and revenue.  I need advice for experienced angels/ investors/ mentors in order to scale it

Several questions if I may:

1.       When are you accepting applications?

2.       What do you offer?

3.       What equity stake do you request?

4.       What are the best mentors/ angels are you firm?

5.       What differentiates you from all the other incubators?

6.       When I visit you (I’m coming from london uk), where should I stay accommodation wise, please recommend me some places

Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

Regards

…but, again, rather than reeling in my aghastness, what has stuck with me was Pascal‘s reply:

Hi <first name of sender>,

I can’t tell if you sent this email to me personally or to WebFWD (judging from your questions I assume the later – so I copied my colleagues on this response).
Don’t get me wrong – but this email is probably the worst possible way to ask for help. You obviously sent this email to a bunch of people at the same time; didn’t take the time to personalize your email; don’t tell me what it is that you’re doing (a hair saloon? a new web browser? a cure for cancer?); clearly haven’t done any homework (the answers to your questions are all on the WebFWD website – if you happen to mean WebFWD – which I still can’t tell).
If you really look for help and genuinely mean it – I suggest you treat the people you ask for help with a bit more respect. That way your chance that someone will actually help you increase significantly.
Warmly,
P
This is so good, for so many reasons, including:
  • It sets up the feedback being delivered as being in the best interest of the sender: all of the input is intended to help the sender get the help she is allegedly seeking.
  • It provides 4 specific examples as to why the inquiry is so ineffective.
  • It shares the basic direction of the feedback straight away, as opposed to the proverbial “shit sandwich” approach that many afraid to provide constructive feedback hide behind, obscuring the ‘meat’ of the feedback in between a few fluffy bits of niceties that on their own would not merit any feedback.
  • It clearly took time and effort to craft, but if received with any degree of openness, will clearly help the sender.
Blessed are those who are not only open to feedback, but who get it in such thoughtful, concrete ways. Here’s to a year of growth, through constructive, actionable feedback!

 

 

What will it take, indeed?

The spate of gun massacres in the U.S. has triggered renewed controversy and outrage. Rightly so. A friend recently wrote a nice post, “What Will It Take?” Indeed. What will it take to meaningfully address this unthinkable problem of mass violence when a ridiculously absurd amount of evidence shows a correlation to the presence of guns and gun-related deaths (of humans, not hunting game)?

Given the contentious nature of rationally-ensuing discussions on gun control (see evidence and mortal impact of gun ownership cited above), many instead appeal to mental health reforms. Given it’s easier to get a gun than to get mental health care (note a widely-circulating post by a mother calling herself “Adam Lanza’s mother”), once again the evidence calls for a different answer. In fact, the mental health conditions cited by the gunman at Sandy Hook have in fact no correlation to increased violence. In fact, mental health seems to have zero impact on violence. Out, then, go the arguments for mental health reform…at least, as it pertains to reducing these inconceivable acts of violence.

Ok, perhaps humanizing the problem will work? After all, a central principle of those seeking to educate people about the holocaust is to communicate the horrors not by raw statistics or clinical facts, but rather through the lens of individual stories. These custodians of history seek to illuminate the horror through photos, letters, and testimonials rather than theoretical, abstract facts. I’ve witnessed this at Holocaust museums in Washington, D.C. and Jerusalem, as well as the Steven Spielberg Jewish Film Archive devoted to sharing and extending these stories through the generations

The thinking is that no amount of facts or theory will impact people meaningfully; it is only through personal stories that people can begin to grasp the most dark and absurd turns of human behavior.

Alas, and tragically so, hoping that this insane pattern of outrage followed by inaction have cause to be concerned. Incredulously, public opinion remains unmoved by such tragedies. Studies by the Pew Research Center show that even violent public gun massacres such as the ones in Aurora, CO and Tucson, AZ have had no impact on public opinions towards how guns are obtained or regulated. And some are even calling for the press to refrain from reporting the names of the perpetrators, keeping the issue more abstract and nameless.

Thus, despite all the facts above which demonstrate our only lever to reduce such violence is gun control, the public remains wed to its antiquated notion of personal rights and loves the theory of the 2nd amendment more than the reality of the bloody impact that its anacrhonistic implementation has in today’s society.

So if not facts, if not humanity…then what, what will cause us to change this insane holding pattern of death, outrage yielding no change? Didn’t Einstein call insanity the act of doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting different results? Isn’t there a reason the rest of the world thinks we are on another planet on this issue? (If someone told me there was a society that allowed any citizen to own a weapon of scalable destruction, I would think they were crazy too…and then I realized, it’s us).

Those who fearfully clutch at freedoms crafted in an era of escape from armed militia  in today’s world — when civil liberties, due process and judiciary checks abound (as do the firearms and bloodshed they propogate) — mystify me. Now we live in fear that the person on the bus may have a bad day and whip out a rifle. Is this fear and death worth the “freedom” to personally own a death stick?

I’m too exhausted to play this out anymore, though. so I’m just appealing to what Joe did in the movie that keeps me relatively sane as the world grows more insane. I’ve decided to talk to plants. Please join me.

 

plants