Is it feedback or criticism? Here’s the filter

Nat: Before we hit record today, I gave myself some feedback, and it was feedback that — if you’ve watched our YouTube channel, you’ll see that we now have videos for our podcast. And in every single one, it doesn’t matter how interesting the topic is, I look like the most bored, dissociated, not-paying-attention person.

Kristen: No, you don’t. You’re really good — that’s good feedback for you, but you’re always…

Nat: I know, but you don’t think I’m boring, do you?

Kristen: Oh, no — you don’t bore me at all. I think what I’ve learned, actually, years ago someone said our listening faces look bored because we’re not paying attention to how we’re setting our faces, we’re just immersed in the topic. But when you’re recording yourself for other people to watch, you have to pretend that your face, when you’re interested, makes different shapes than it actually makes.

Nat: Yeah, change your listening face.

Kristen: OK, well, on that — we’re chatting criticism and feedback today. And I want to ask you first now — I just got off a really interesting call, so I want to share that when we get to the feedback section. And you’re diving into criticism for next week’s Newsy, which will actually be this week’s Newsy. But have you had any criticism — specifically criticism — that has stuck with you? Can you remember anything?

Nat: I had to think about this one a little bit. I remember the first one that comes to mind — I haven’t thought about this at all, but years ago, when I was single and thinking about having kids on my own, someone said, “Well, of course you would, wanting to do everything on your own and be all independent.” And I was like, wow, you have very strong feelings about my life choices.

Kristen: That person’s a friend?

Nat: Yeah, well — a friend, loosely, like a friend I wasn’t particularly close to or anything, but I definitely got a lot of what I’d consider criticism at that time. People — I’ve mentioned this before, it really stings — people calling me selfish for choosing not to have babies, and then choosing to have babies on my own. Both of those two choices I’ve been told by multiple people are selfish. So that criticism, yeah, that one really stings, because it’s people criticizing your life choices in a way that doesn’t feel like they’re on your team at all. So those are the ones that stuck in my head. I’ve probably had some at work too, but I genuinely feel like I don’t mind.

Kristen: I think it’s the personal.

Nat: It is the personal. So it’s when it bleeds from something professional, something you can separate yourself from, into really personal, often emotional things — or often things we can’t or won’t change. I don’t even mind if someone criticises my work, or gives me feedback on my work, but criticising who I am, that’s always gonna be tough. What about you — have you got any?

Kristen: I struggled a little bit, and that’s only because I haven’t been thinking about it. So all I went back to was my memory bank of, what’s something I heard that I still, once in a while, think about. And this was a personality trait of mine — some people really celebrate this personality trait, and other people frankly can’t take it. So I think it’s criticism, because they were criticising the way I am. But then equally, I think, over time I found it surprising, because it’s probably the first time I heard this word, which I’ll tell you in a minute and it will not surprise you. And now I’m like, nah, I embrace it, because it is what it is. What is it? “Kristen is so intense.” So intense. It was a guy — can’t remember, it was uni days — and I am intense. Back then I was surprised, because I was like, but I’m so friendly, and I’m chatty, blah, blah, blah. And then I realised what it is — when I get into conversations, as you know, with new people, I dive into journalistic mode, I go deep, I’m asking twenty questions. And I think some people find that a lot, and some people love it. So yeah, I thought I should tell that story — “to be loved by few and hated by few, than to be bland and mediocre to everyone.” I am a taste to be acquired. I am intense, and some people are really energised by that and others aren’t, and I can appreciate that I can come on a bit strongly.

When you first meet me — I was at a networking session last week, which was fabulous, and someone said, “I’m involved in this line of work,” and I just dug straight in. And the third person in the circle was like, “What, forensic analysis? I’m loving these questions.” And they loved it, because we just had great banter going — I was praised for my intensity, which I loved. And then, on the ride home, my son picked us up and drove us home, and he said, “Oh my gosh, Mum, one of my friends said you’re the most active listener they’ve ever met.” And I’m like, yeah, I go deep, I’m fast, and I’m—

Nat: That’s why you have such great facials in our YouTube videos, because you’re actively — hilariously — listening. Firstly, I want to say I don’t think you’re an acquired taste. I think we should all be an acquired taste. I think the whole purpose of knowing who you are and what you’re about means there are going to be people who don’t like you or don’t get it, and that’s fine. So I don’t think it’s you specifically — I think that’s what we should all aim to be, because it’s a sign you really know who you are and what you like. And people who don’t like having that type of conversation, you’re probably not going to get along with that well anyway, so that’s OK — we’re just not each other’s people. I can’t remember the second thing I was going to say. It’s a Monday.

Kristen: What about tips — what about tips on criticism? You’re digging into this now, how? How can we…

Nat: OK, so any given criticism we get — of which some stuff will be, as you listen, no doubt our Powrsuiters’ stuff will be coming up for you — what are some tips? Well, OK, should we first define — yeah, I’m going to come up with my definition, because this is something that’s sort of evolved with a lot of input over the years. So there is a difference between feedback and criticism. And there’s a reason we’re discussing it this week — there was a LinkedIn incident where someone criticised someone and then said, “Feedback is queen, right?” And I was like, yes, feedback is queen, but you didn’t give any, you just criticised. So criticism is when you might be feeling frustrated, something someone’s done irritates you, and you tell them that thing, and it’s not delivered in any way designed to help or support them, or even with their best interests in mind. It’s you’re annoyed and you want to share your opinion. Feedback is delivered with best intentions — it’s designed to help the other person succeed. The whole point is, “I want you to win at life.” And so it’s always clear and actionable. If you criticise, you might say something like, “You have to be so independent” — I can’t do anything with that, what am I going to take action on? Whereas feedback would be, “Have you considered trying to explain this in a slightly different way?” Or, “When you say you want to have babies on your own, it makes other people feel X, and you could maybe try a different approach.” So it has to be clear and actionable. And I think the third part is: it has to be delivered with good intent, it has to be clear and actionable, and usually, if it’s constructive, it should be in a private environment — whereas criticism, if you’ve been on the internet in the last few years, you’ll notice it’s just spat out in public, and it’s designed to, or otherwise ends up, shaming the other person and making them feel a bit yuck.

Kristen: This feels so interesting, because there are a few broad themes that crop up when it comes to women and feedback. The first thing I think is really interesting is that it’s often around their personalities — to me, this is interesting, because I’d put that in the criticism basket. Like, again, “Kristen, you’re so intense” — criticising me for my fabulous personality. And the other end of the spectrum is that it’s vague, which you talked about — feedback should be specific. I think we should touch on both, so let’s talk about that.

Nat: Feedback often falls into that criticism category, and this is research that shows — performance reviews, when they come around, a broad study done on gender, men versus women — when it came to women, most of the feedback showed it was around personality and how they showed up at work, executive presence, that kind of thing. It used words such as — and this is what this research found — “abrasive,” “judgmental,” “strident.”

Kristen: I don’t even know what strident is.

Nat: I mean, I broadly know it — like, moving forward, pushing through obstacles without really hearing what—

Kristen: Sounds verb-like.

Nat: It does sound verb-like. But it felt like that falls into criticism territory, as opposed to what should be happening in a performance review, if we’re actually giving feedback.

Kristen: Yeah, agreed.

Nat: Yeah. And that’s why we wanted to tackle this — because, like the LinkedIn example, so often women are giving criticism under the disguise of feedback, and then people go, “Why didn’t she — she can’t take it, she’s being emotional.” And actually, the outcome of giving criticism is that it normally stops someone doing what they’re doing. You see it with public figures, and primarily, again, it’s women — criticise, criticise, criticise how they look, how they act, their behaviour in public, their policies, criticise, criticise, criticise, and they quit. That’s the outcome you’re effectively pushing towards — criticising someone’s personality, their identity, you’re basically saying, “Be smaller, be less, change who you are,” and the result is they quit, because they can’t do anything about it.

Kristen: Do you think — back to your LinkedIn example — do you think criticism is a reflection of how you’ve made someone feel? So if you don’t fit in the box of someone who should be passive and collaborative, they’re triggered, and they give you that feedback? Or, that person saw whatever was going on in that post and was triggered, but had flipped it, so it looked like feedback — is it something going on for the deliverer, I suppose, is where I’m—

Nat: Criticism is all about the deliverer, because there’s nothing in it designed to help you as the recipient — there’s not a thought in it. And we all do this, by the way, we’re all guilty of criticising. When you’re in that mode, you’re normally annoyed, frustrated, you feel wronged, you feel like they’ve done something, you’re on your high horse — me, me, me, me, me. And then you say something because you’ve got all these emotions around it. Whereas feedback, you’re like, you, you, you, you, you — I want you to succeed, and I’m on your team. You see it all the time online — “triggered” is the right word for it. People are so triggered by each other, and it’s something to do with the person they’re criticising, but it’s really just their own response. And honestly, it shows low emotional maturity — which is why we all do it — but you want to avoid it as much as possible, because it’s when you’ve kind of lost control of your own reaction to something, and you’re dumping that on someone else and blaming them for it without any self-reflection.

I think it’s worth pointing out there’s an effect called the idiosyncratic rater effect. What it shows is basically the fallibility of humans and opinions — when people are being rated, quite often what they find is that half of the rating, when you’re being delivered feedback or criticism, is impacted by the person’s mood. They’ve done studies where two managers watch the same person do the same piece of work, and they hold very different ratings of that person — often dependent on things like, did they have breakfast, did they have a good morning or a bad morning, like me in a perimenopause rage. And I think it’s interesting to know going in — recognise that part of what someone delivers to you is influenced by how they’re going, not tainted exactly, but influenced. And I always think, what do I want them to do about it? When I’m at my best — not when I’m at my worst — I try to ask myself, what do I want this person to do as a result? And when you think about that, you’re often like, huh, I don’t actually — I want them to change to benefit what I want, or fit the stereotype I have of them, or make my life easier. Then you know you probably need to dig a little deeper.

Kristen: I agree. I think the number of times — and we should discuss this a little — when you’re in a restaurant, out on the street, and someone impacts you. Mine is: I’m walking, running, jogging, and groups of people know I’m coming and don’t disband, and my immediate desire is to criticise them, like, “Watch where you’re going.” None of that is about them and helping them — it’s all about me venting my frustration. Do you do that?

Nat: Do I do it? Well, I don’t know — what about complaints, where does that fall? Because I’ve definitely become an email writer, and I’m about to write another one this week. I’ve done two strongly worded emails over the last year, about service at restaurants, because it’s expensive now to eat out, and when you spend a lot of money — I had my parents there, I was so proud of showing them this winery, we had this beautiful meal, it was expensive, and the service was shocking. So I sent an email, partly because I was embarrassed, I’d talked the place up, and also because it was expensive, I was really annoyed. So I wrote an email — naturally I got huge apologies and offers of wine, which I said no to. Same response from another dinner we were at with a group, poor service, complained, got that back. And then this weekend was just shambolic — a few little things happened at a ski hill, which was really annoying, and I’m like, not good enough. So anyway—

Kristen: Breaking here?

Nat: Well, not breaking — spraining my wrist. I didn’t sprain my wrist, I just leant on it a bit too hard.

Kristen: But OK — where does that fall, being a critic? No, I think that’s a beautiful example, because to me your strongly worded emails fell into feedback — it was, “I’ve taken someone here, it was really expensive, your service didn’t match up to my expectations.” I can do something about that as a restaurant owner, I’m delighted you told me that rather than just leaving and not doing anything, I’m delighted you told me in private so I can have a one-on-one with you. If you wanted to criticise, you’d have gone straight to Google reviews, “Restaurant, one star” — and that would’ve been about you trying to have consequences for them, payback, whatever. So I do think, while it’s a letter of complaint, that complaint can actually be given as feedback, and it’s positive — as evidenced by the fact they were grateful and wanted to do something about it. Whereas if you’re one of those people going public — I’ve noticed more and more restaurants just going, “not my problem.”

Nat: Sometimes I do act a little bit like a Karen in the moment, but I try, I try my best. Also, by the way, I was reading something on the weekend that the word “Karen” has probably come from perimenopausal women — a lot of Karens in my generation, woe is us. So once in a while I’m allowed to act like the Karen. Anyway, I honestly think those emails are such an example of feedback being a gift, because we say that all the time at Powrsuit too.

Kristen: And actually, I have to break it to you — we just got some delightful feedback from someone who wants to put a whole bunch of women from her organisation on Powrsuit, and she’s followed us since the start. She started the conversation, fifteen minutes, and spent the first two saying, “I just wanted to congratulate you on how far you’ve come since we first spoke, and when you first launched, and the incredible movement you’ve created.” And I just thought, wonderful, love that, thank you. And I always end up saying, “But tell me anything you want us to improve as well,” because we don’t get a lot of constructive feedback, people are so kind. So I’m like, tell me, because the faster I know, the faster I can improve — like the restaurant probably felt, “We need a team meeting, get our service back up to scratch, it’s not where it should be, and where we thought it was.”

I want to say — I’ve just come off a call with a potential Powrsuiter who’s going to become a Powrsuiter, and I’m going to summarise the conversation as vague feedback. We talked about criticism, specificity, does the person care about you. And then there’s this whole other epidemic of women receiving non-feedback feedback — “You’ve done a great job,” or just niceties. And the common thing this person has heard, which I’ve been mulling on a little, is, “You didn’t get the job because you’re not ready for the role.” So, “You’re not ready,” or, “You’re not senior enough.” And it left this person effectively extrapolating — “I think I have a confidence issue, or an executive presence issue” — and this is someone who showed up in a suit jacket, but she still looked amazing, had her own style, and I was like, I’m sorry, this isn’t — you’ve gone out of your way to have a chat with me, ask if Powrsuit’s the right fit for you, you look fabulous, I don’t think you’re struggling with confidence off that. Granted, it was a fifteen-minute conversation, but when you hear someone say, “You’re not ready,” or “not seen,” or fill in the blank, it’s not helpful. That’s such vague feedback. But the second thing I thought was, by the time you get feedback like that, you’re not ready — you’ve gone and done the job and weren’t successful in the promotion, and I’m like, it’s too late. So what I think, actually, is you’ve got to start having those conversations twelve months out. What does “ready” look like? If you genuinely care about my development and enabling success in this organisation, let’s get these meetings regularly and figure out specifically what “ready” looks like in twelve months, and what I have to develop in terms of skills, network, whatever it is.

Nat: Yeah, I totally agree. I think that kind of vague — I don’t even know what to call it, I hate to put it under the realm of feedback, because in my opinion it doesn’t meet the definition. I can’t do anything about “being ready” — what is ready, what’s the definition, how do I get there — if you can’t tell me that, you actually haven’t helped me at all. You’ve just given me this big mental burden of, “Oh no, I know there’s something wrong, but I don’t know what the thing is, and I don’t know how to fix it.” That is really not a gift for someone. So I do think pre-emptive feedback — and maybe it’s actually the converse of feedback, the ambulance at the top of the cliff — is expectation setting. This is my expectation, this is where you are at the moment, this is how you get there. And then at the other end is feedback — this is how you went, this is what’s next. I was trying to figure out what to call it — it’s not a performance improvement plan, PIP, that’s performance management. It’s the reverse of that — you need to reverse-engineer success in a role. You know how in a PIP you meet with someone easily once a week, sometimes huge amounts of time, and you’re effectively going, “You’re here, this is where I need you, we’re going to meet consistently to close that gap” — no doubt very difficult on all parties. But surely there’s a positive way, without meeting weekly, to meet monthly or bimonthly and—

Kristen: Maybe meet weekly?

Nat: I’m like, OK, not weekly, we’re not doing that. But there’s got to be something — real clarity on expectations, this is what would be — we anticipate these skills, this level of skill in this area, this type of network for this role, expectations of success, what they look like specifically. And then, if you reverse-engineer it — here’s where you are, this is what I’d like you focused on over the course of this year — and you do those monthly or bimonthly check-ins.

Kristen: One of the things I always think about — I don’t know if every country has performance improvement plans, it’s a legal process in New Zealand, when there’s an issue with someone’s performance, and that’s the way you’re intending to improve it, or have a harder conversation. The thing I always find so funny about these things is the intention of it is actually just good leadership — it’s what we should be doing all the time anyway. Maybe not every week, but it should be very much, “Here’s the expectation, here’s how you get there, and I’m working with you to get there.” And we’ve put that under this big legal scary thing that only kicks in when someone’s not performing. But actually it should just be all the time, because that’s your job if you’re a people leader.

Nat: That was a real breakthrough for me in terms of what feedback is, and why people don’t give feedback — because it’s scary to give, it’s scary to receive. But if we normalise it just by being really clear on what success looks like, separating it from the human, then you’re simply like, “This worked, this didn’t, try this next time” — it becomes much more like—

Kristen: Oh, we do it with sports. Like, “You have to go the wrong way” — I was playing frisbee golf on the weekend, and I was like, my frisbee keeps veering in one direction, tell me how to veer at least in that direction, what do I need to tweak in my behaviour to get closer to where I want it to go? That’s all it is. But because we don’t do it enough, and because I think a lot of us tie our identity to work, we’re awkward about it. It is so much less stressful to tell someone how to throw a frisbee straight than it is to tell them how to write a good essay. But it shouldn’t be, because it’s the same thing — it’s a skill you can hone. But for some reason, do we tie one to our intelligence, do we tie it to our worth, in a way that we just don’t with the other?

Nat: Speaking of awkward and feedback — do you tell people if they have spinach between their teeth? Do you?

Kristen: Yes, because — we read the study, ages ago, when we first wrote our newsletter on giving feedback, that it was spinach — people don’t tell anyone if they’ve got spinach in their teeth. And I was like, why don’t I? I thought about it after that, and now I do. Remember when we were out with our old co-founder the other day, and I was rubbing under my nose because I was like, no, it’s still there — and I’ll try and do that quite subtly, you know how you do the thing, kind of scratch your face, and most of us are monkeys so we just follow and then it gets sorted. Or you go, “Oh, there’s just a little something there.”

Nat: You know what I’ve noticed — it makes everyone else feel uncomfortable, because suddenly it’s clear they let the person just stand there with food on their face without telling them. Well, there’s a study on this — I tell people right away, the first minute I see it, I interrupt them, because there’s a study on this, it was like — chocolate on your face. What they did was put chocolate on people’s faces and had them go sit with a colleague, partner, whatever — I think it must have been a colleague, because a partner would’ve told you. And they watched whether anyone said anything. Almost nobody did. Almost everyone with the mark of chocolate wanted them to tell them, and the other person assumed they didn’t want to know.

Kristen: When I thought about this, I was like, it’s totally second-hand embarrassment. But it’s also timing — when the person’s talking, and you’re like, when? And if they’ve said your name incorrectly, you’re like, when do I correct them, and oh, now it’s too late in the conversation, it’s so awkward. I think the chocolate-on-the-face thing is the same. I used to be that way — that whole “oh my gosh” second-hand embarrassment, so big for me, it’s like a thing in people’s brains. But I’ve got it now, I’ve learned, I’m like, I’d want it done to myself, so I just cut the person off, I’m like, “Oh, just do this.” That’s my go-to — “Oh, just do this,” and then it’s done.

Nat: So just try it, because we’ve all had those things happen to us — well, maybe some people would prefer to just keep walking around with it, but I think most of us would like the two-second interaction that solves the problem rather than, I don’t know, walking into a room full of people.

Kristen: It becomes a non-thing — they’re like, “Oh, thanks,” done, and then you just move on with the conversation. Cool as a cucumber.

Nat: OK, quick-fire dos and don’ts — do you want to do some quick-fire, to end, dos and don’ts on criticism and/or feedback? Don’t take criticism from someone you wouldn’t take advice from — if you don’t back their judgement, don’t take criticism from them, it’s probably not your person. I don’t listen that much to Brené Brown, although I appreciated an interview she did with the New York Times — I’ve loved that podcast lately — but there’s one with Brené Brown, that’s about the only time I’ve heard her, and she has a quote that says, if you were in the arena, why would you take advice from someone who’s never been in the arena? And I’m like, oh my gosh, I love that. I’m pretty sure it’s Brené Brown, I hope it is — but yeah, love that one. And do you notice that when people have actually been in the arena, they don’t give the same advice? I remember we did this hundred-kilometre walk, and it was just a walk, but I knew a bunch of ultra-marathoners, and I was amazed — people who’d never done anything that distance would quite quickly go, “You’re just walking, it’s no big deal.” But the people who’d done an ultra-marathon were like, “That’s a really big deal, it’s really hard.” Isn’t it interesting that people with experience understood what it took, and gave you much better insight, whereas people who’d never done anything like it were so quick to judge and tell you things. So don’t take advice from people who’ve never been in the arena, because they actually have no idea how to do the thing.

Kristen: I’m going to say — don’t accept “you’re not ready” without getting really specific on what ready looks like. So I’m going to reiterate the point from earlier, but add to it: do try to reverse-engineer, six to twelve months out, what ready looks like, advocate for your growth in the company, and get curious about what a next step could look like. Get really curious about what ready looks like — it’s not a promise, it’s not a guarantee you’re going to get it, but you’re going to improve the odds. So be really proactive about getting specific on what “ready” means, and give yourself a runway to get there, with check-ins.

Nat: I’d say the same for “you’re not confident enough,” “you don’t have executive presence,” “you’re not experienced enough” — all of those vague things we get told that you can’t do anything about. Don’t accept them without asking, what does confident look like, what does the right experience look like. If they can’t tell you exactly what that looks like, then they don’t know, and they’re just criticising you because they want you to be more like whoever they think you should look like — the confidence they think it looks like. That stuff annoys me, mainly because we talk to so many Powrsuiters who’ve been absolutely thrown off in their career by one of those comments. Just don’t accept it — it’s not your job to figure that one out on your own.

Kristen: OK, this is one I’ve had to practise a lot — don’t give “feedback,” in quotation marks, within an hour of being annoyed, or even a day sometimes. I’m an external processor, so I can work through the same thing multiple times, in multiple situations, to get to the underlying — what is it that I’m actually worried about here, and is it for them or is it for me? Sometimes it ends up being about me — let it go. And other times, what I thought I was really frustrated about turns out to be something quite different. Once I’ve taken the time, removed the emotion, you have a much better conversation about it.

Nat: I’m going to finish off with — give specific praise. Not always feedback, but I think what did we say, you need five pieces of praise for every piece of criticism — and that praise should be just as specific as the feedback. Vague statements like “you’re doing a great job” aren’t helpful. Tie it specifically to the role, the responsibility, the business outcomes — especially organisational and business outcomes. What did that person do that really helped, or whatever their superpower is — call it out.

Kristen: You just reminded me — I don’t know why — that’s the other one, it’s not criticism, but it’s your intensity thing. When I’ve had — I think this was just after we met — someone called me “bubbly” at work, and I was like, what an insult. I’m like, what does bubbly even mean, what a dumb thing to say. Maybe some people like being called bubbly, but I’m like, bubbly sort of indicates almost an air bubble — like, say you bring great energy, or you’ve always got a positive outlook, say that rather than “you’re bubbly.”

Nat: I think it is describing, again, a personality, as opposed to a very specific trait that is lovely to be around. Well, I feel like I’ve put a lot of effort into this episode holding my face together — gosh, it takes a lot of effort, I’d rather just sit there looking bored — but actually thinking about where my face is sitting.

Kristen: Well, everyone — check out our Powrsuit YouTube, just find Powrsuit on YouTube, take a listen to this episode, I think it’s 179, all about criticism and/or feedback, and give Nat some specific feedback on how she went.

Nat: But either way, check out Powrsuit. Talking in and out of the sun now, even though I tried — I tried, but now the sun’s moved. Oh my gosh, what a fail, all right.

Kristen: But check out powrsuit.com and come join us on the inside, where you actually get some reflection and homework on these very specific things as well — we’ve actually got a couple of feedback sessions in there. Thanks, everyone, and we will catch you next time.

Nat: Bye.