Make it a 10: Frameworks for Actionable Feedback
I recently attended the national conference for the Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL). This is a conference that happens every two years, so despite the fact that it needed to be virtual this year, or perhaps because of it, there seemed to be a level of interest and engagement that stood out to me. As we attend these types of events more frequently, it has become clear that virtual conferences do not simply move the conference experience to a virtual forum — they are just, in fact, a different thing. During the keynote, for example, there was a running chat on the side of the browser, and in many ways that was really helpful — people were able to share links to relevant sources, express support for what the speaker was saying, or highlight specific salient examples of her broader points. What struck me, however, was the idea of using a live chat function to give critical feedback in real time.
At one point, in response to the speaker’s broader point about the impact of our choices around information platforms, one of my fellow attendees put in the chat: “The irony of hearing about the impact of information platforms through this hugely inaccessible platform with a garbage privacy policy …” The comment struck me so much that I had trouble maintaining focus on the speaker. Who was this comment directed toward? What was the goal of sharing this in the public chat? The underlying merits of the concern — accessibility and privacy — are critical, and challenging assumptions or offering “critique” on those points should be encouraged. People should feel empowered to share thoughts that may be uncomfortable to hear, especially when speaking truth to power. In this case, however, my assumption would be that the best audience would be people who have the power to choose conference technology (not the keynote speaker herself), and the goal would be for them to recognize the importance of accessibility and privacy when selecting a platform and either choose differently in the future and/or remediate the experience (if possible) in real time. If my assumption holds true, however, this felt like an inappropriate and ineffective way to give feedback, and it is unlikely to inspire the conversion into action that we would hope to see with issues of this importance.
Strategic communications involves consideration of audiences and goals, and we should extend those same considerations to the giving and receiving of feedback. How can we offer and receive feedback that is actionable, usable, strategic? Why do we need actionable feedback and how can we structure offering and receiving actionable feedback to become a practice that we incorporate into our work?
Why do we need actionable feedback?
In thinking about the practices that can promote the giving and receiving of actionable feedback, let’s start by thinking about why we need feedback to be actionable. We have all been on the receiving end of feedback — the red pen of a teacher, editor, or supervisor — reflections shared as part of performance review — or audience opinions on the way something looks, behaves, makes us feel.
When that feedback is not specific, when it is not tied to an actual change that you could make, it feels wholly personal — it becomes about you, the creator, and it gives power to that reviewer — putting them in a judgment position, not a creative partnership. That power dynamic is toxic to individuals and teams trying to work collaboratively — at best it separates a team from stakeholders and at worst it pits members of a team against one another. Vague feedback or feedback that is about the person, not the work, is also disempowering — it leaves the creator feeling like there is nothing they could do to change the outcome or that they are guessing about potential changes — flying blind as to how potential changes will land in future feedback cycles. It can also turn people off from seeking input from other sources leading to an avoidance of diverse perspectives that make for a richer, more robust final product. That isolation contributes to a culture that avoids asking questions and reinforces feedback as a hurtful retaliatory act.
Actionable feedback, by contrast, encourages individual and personal growth — reinforcing autonomy and empowering creators. It promotes engagement with our stakeholders and among our teammates. It ultimately strengthens our output — the things we produce — by making them richer and including more perspectives, and it normalizes a culture of curiosity — getting people comfortable with asking questions of one another and ourselves.
Feedback that encourages growth
Feedback is, practically speaking, a learning activity — teachers, coaches, parents, mentors — offer feedback to make us and our work stronger and better. If it is presented as judgment, or dissatisfaction, however, the learning opportunity is lost.
One technique that can be helpful is formulating feedback using an “I” message. People tend to formulate feedback starting with “You,” such as “You are …,” “You did …,” or “You caused …” when feedback starts with “you” it can be received as an attack. By formulating feedback using an “I” message, the person offering feedback must acknowledge and take personal responsibility their own emotional reactions that might influence the way they formulate and give feedback. This can help us remain focused on the learning and growth experience while producing feedback that is less harsh and attacking.
One framework that comes from the design thinking field is “I like, I wish, What if …” This is often used in the case of prototype designs, but it can be repurposed for any reflective process.
- In “I Like…” statements, the reviewer is encouraged to convey the aspects that he or she liked about the presented material. This provides the creator with positive feedback about her attempt.
- In “I Wish…” statements, the reviewer is prompted to share ideas of how the material can be changed or improved so as to address some concerns or issues. This is an avenue to collect negative feedback and constructive criticism.
- Lastly, in “What If…” statements, the reviewer can express new suggestions that might not have a direct link to the materials. This opens up possibilities for new ideas to be explored in future drafts or versions.
When using a framework like “I like, I wish, what if …” the autonomy remains with the creator to reflect on the feedback being offered and to engage with the parts that are actionable.
Feedback that promotes engagement
Actionable feedback can promote engagement among team members who can share in a collaborative attempt — focusing on the work that they do together and in response to one another. It can also be a way to engage with external stakeholders and provide them with an opportunity to weigh in and influence decision-making.
Receiving feedback from different stakeholders with varying levels of organizational power, however, can be incredibly scary. Sharing your work is an exercise in vulnerability and being open to receiving actionable feedback is an acknowledgement that your attempt can benefit from input by others. It can be emotionally difficult to set your own work up for critique, so one method to diffuse the tension and restore a balance of power is to gamify the experience.
One such game, known as “The Perfection Game” is rooted in a set of high-performance team protocols that start with positive bias. The protocols also dictate that:
- I will personally support the best idea — regardless of its source — however much I hope an even better idea may later arise, and — when I have no superior alternative idea.
- When I have or hear a better idea than the currently prevailing idea, I will immediately either — propose it for decisive acceptance or rejection, and/or — explicitly seek its improvement.
The rules of the perfection game dictate that when presented with a sample of work or a proposal, team members will:
- Rate the work on a scale of 1–10
- Indicate what they liked about the sample or proposal
- Complete the following statement “To make it a 10, you would …”
Team members can withhold points only if they can think of improvements. If they cannot say something they liked about the proposal or specifically say how to make it better, they must give it a 10. By starting from a place where team members must rate the work as a 10 unless they can offer actionable contribution to the improvement of the attempt, the perfection game reinforces the idea that feedback is a learning and growth experience. If feedback does not contribute to learning and growth, it cannot propel the creator or the work forward.
Feedback that strengthens output
In our attempt to create the best possible product, there comes a point where we must look outside ourselves for input. There is only so far that even the most skilled individual contributor can go with a particular idea. Accessing and building on others’ perspectives and expertise contributes to the combination of unique information, which leads to developing new solutions — in short, teams do it better — diverse teams, even more so. Bringing in other sources of information not only challenges our own perceptions of our abilities, it contributes to a rich tapestry of experiences and can alert us to unseen biases or harmful assumptions. It can be difficult, however, to know when and how to seek input. We have talked about frameworks for providing feedback, but how do you ask for it? The short answer is — never stop asking.
Asking for feedback is a natural component of an inspect and adapt framework. We often think of an inspect/adapt routine as part of planning — you determine requirements — you try to adapt them for a particular use — and then you ultimately act. This is common in a “waterfall” development structure. When you move into an agile mindset/workflow, your goal is to incorporate inspection and adaptation throughout the development process.
Breaking our work down into smaller deliverable “chunks” will allow us to move quickly into an inspection phase — that is where actionable feedback is critical. If we spend a majority of our time in a planning phase before acting — seeking to anticipate potential problems or areas for feedback, we 1) raise the barriers to action 2) devalue the impact of timely feedback and 3) shift power away from those involved in the work who are attempting to anticipate acceptance or pushback from external stakeholders. An inspect and adapt framework is truly iterative because it is more than a series of drafts. It is a series of actions upon which we have gained feedback and had an opportunity for reflection and change, informing each subsequent action.
Working through the lens of inspection and adaptation, and using tools like the perfection game, avoids the old pitfall of the perfect being the enemy of the good, but there’s another way to incorporate feedback throughout by working out in the open — encouraging curiosity and asking genuine questions about the work.
One method here is to work openly in a shared document space. Many people have anxiety about sharing works in progress with others — we even mark our documents with big DRAFT watermarks as a way of providing armor against potentially negative feedback. Instead we can accept that we are engaged in a creative process and expose it — the good, bad, and ugly.
This is what my friend and innovation thought-leader Diana Kander calls sharing a “shitty first draft.” If people can engage with work in progress and see a way to contribute likes, wishes, and what ifs in real time, they will develop empathy for the position of the creator — they become a partner in the creative process, not an external reviewer looking for errors. By working in a shared document space we are admitting that we cannot do it alone. That feedback is critical to our process, and we are providing ways to model curiosity in ways that reinforce the very actionable feedback mechanisms we hope to employ.
Let’s try it — this slide deck is open for comments — please go in and add your feedback!
