Thanks for the Feedback

‘You sometimes seem unapproachable in meetings.’ A single sentence can be enough to put us entirely on the defensive inside. Perhaps the statement seems wrong. Perhaps what bothers us most is who is saying it. Or perhaps it touches a sensitive question about how we see ourselves. At that moment, listening becomes difficult – even if part of the feedback would be useful.

In Thanks for the Feedback Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen shift the focus from the person giving feedback to the person receiving it. Their guiding question is: How can we learn from feedback even when it may be imprecise, poorly expressed or emotionally charged?

1. Recognise three kinds of triggers

The authors describe three typical triggers. A truth trigger says: ‘That isn't true.’ A relationship trigger directs attention to the source: ‘You of all people are telling me this?’ An identity trigger touches our self-image: ‘If that is true, perhaps I am not the person I think I am.’

This distinction is not intended to suppress the reaction. It helps us understand it more precisely. A relationship conflict can be real and still contain a useful insight. Conversely, criticism does not become correct merely because someone we trust expresses it.

2. Translate the label into an example

Feedback often arrives as a label: too dominant, too quiet, not strategic enough. These terms evoke strong images but remain ambiguous. Feedback becomes more helpful when we ask about the specific behaviour and its effect: ‘In what situation did you observe that? What did I do or not do? What consequence did that have for you or the task?’

It is also worth looking ahead. Feedback can contain appreciation, evaluation or coaching. Someone seeking recognition who instead receives improvement suggestions may easily feel that their actual need has been missed. A brief clarification – ‘Do you want to tell me how you assess my performance, or look together for an improvement?’ – can reduce misunderstandings.

3. Select a useful element

Receiving well does not mean accepting every piece of feedback. Recipients may examine it, put it in context, set boundaries and ultimately decide for themselves. Particularly useful is searching for the small element that adds to our own view: is there a recurring pattern? Do others see something invisible from the inside? What change would be worth a limited trial?

This attitude combines openness with self-determination. It prevents both reflexive defensiveness and the unexamined adoption of other people's standards.

Your exercise: from a label to a learning point

Take a recent piece of feedback and work with it for three minutes:

1. Minute 1 – name the trigger. Am I reacting mainly to the content, my relationship with the source or a threat to my self-image?
2. Minute 2 – ask for an example. Formulate two questions about the situation, behaviour and effect.
3. Minute 3 – choose an experiment. What small point do I want to try or observe at the next suitable opportunity?

‘I should be less dominant’ could become a testable experiment: in the next meeting, I will first ask two open questions and only then offer my proposed solution.

What we take from this

The approach connects awareness of learning with relationship skills. Within WEITER7 it particularly supports the reality check and reflection on learning: feedback becomes an additional perspective for the next experiment rather than a grade.

Which feedback might I be rejecting because of its source or form – and what small, testable insight might it nevertheless contain?

Context: This insight summarises selected ideas from the book in our own words. The trigger types are the authors' interpretative framework, not a clinical diagnosis. The exercise and framework allocation are our own applications. Feedback can be biased, manipulative or discriminatory; openness does not require agreement and does not replace protection or complaint procedures.

Sources and further reading: Official publisher's website ↗ · Stone & Heen's author website ↗