SEARCH

Search

Explore

Blog
Podcast
Free Live Event
Self-Assessment
Manifesto
Book

Work with me

Connect

SUBSCRIBE

Search
Close this search box.

The due date

In a small software development company, the team has been working tirelessly for weeks to meet a crucial deadline. On the due date, the leader calls a meeting to review the work. Despite the team’s hard work, there are some bugs that need fixing. The leader, visibly irritated, addresses the team:

“Frankly, I am disappointed. This work is riddled with errors and it’s clear that there’s a lack of attention to detail. We’ll miss the deadline and our client will be furious. I expect everyone to work overtime until these issues are resolved. This is unacceptable.”

A different leader would have said:

“I appreciate the hard work and long hours everyone has put into this project. We’ve come a long way, and the client is excited about what we’ve developed so far. However, we have stumbled upon some bugs that need our attention. I believe in our team’s capability to resolve these issues and meet our client’s expectations. Let’s tackle these challenges head-on and show what we’re made of. I’ll be right here with you, and together, we’ll get this done.”

The words we use can make all the difference. Both in the way they affect our own thinking but also in the way we’re perceived by others and the impact that follows. They can confuse or provide clarity, demotivate or inspire.

Your choice!

How would you improve it?

“How would you improve it?” 
vs.
“What would you improve?”

The latter is satisfied by “I don’t like this aspect and that one”. It invites destructive feedback.

Asking “how”, on the other hand, asks for constructive feedback. You can’t just respond with what you don’t like. You’re invited to share how you would make it better.

And then, a conversation can start about whether that would actually be better. And possibly lead to a third idea that’s even better than that.

No one laughed.

Recently, I went to an OpenMic event where comedians get the chance to test their programs. One of the performances was heartbreaking. No one laughed. Not a single time.

Which was a good thing. Because it provided the comedian with an opportunity to grow. Had we laughed, he would have assumed that the jokes do work.

But that night, the jokes didn’t work. Now he knows. And can work from there.

In general, comedians are in the fortunate position to get immediate feedback on any of their actions on stage.

Great comedians seek these situations out.

In business (or even in private life), it often feels easier to hide from similar situations. After all, it feels so much better to get reassurance than rejection.

But if growth is your goal, then the comedian’s way of getting honest feedback might be a better approach.

Perfectly aligning to your audience

When you perfectly align to the expectations of your audiences, they will follow you wherever you go. Like in this beautiful example by Bobby McFerrin leading a crowd at the World Science Forum in 2009:

What expectations can you align to in your interactions with your audience?

How can you play with your audiences’ expectations to lead them to places they are ready to go but would never have gone themselves?

What might in our domain be the equivalent to the universal pentatonic “musical alphabet” that McFerrin used?

Also: How can you include joyful elements in your interactions with your audiences?

The real experts

Asked about which kind of feedback he values apart from the audience feedback, stand up comedian Jerry Seinfeld answers:

“There is no other feedback that means anything.”

It’s the only feedback that matters. It’s 100% accurate. No expert will ever come close to that level of accuracy. And that’s why for Jerry Seinfeld it just doesn’t matter what the experts think. Or his colleagues. If the audience cheered, that’s all he needs to know. It they booed, that’s all he needs to know.

The same is true for communication in general. The ultimate feedback is always the one from your audience, your customers, your team. And one of the healthiest things you can do to improve your communication is to take responsibility for that feedback.

If your team isn’t on fire after the meeting, reflect on what you said and how you said it. And then improve.

And that’s where the experts come in. They are the ones to help you pinpoint why the feedback was what it was. They are the ones who help you find ways to improve that you wouldn’t think of yourself.

But for the feedback on what you actually say and do, it’s always the audience who is the real expert.

The polite audience

Have you ever sat in a totally boring presentation but ended up clapping your hands anyway? Clearly, the applause wasn’t well deserved but you clapped anyway. But why? Out of peer pressure? Pure relief that finally it’s over? Politeness?

It may be polite, but the problem with undeserved applause is that the speaker doesn’t get a chance to grow. She doesn’t get to feel the consequences of a bad performance. She gave her speech. Everyone clapped. Case closed. Everything’s fine.

But what if her real goal wasn’t to get a good round of applause but to change her audience’s minds? To anchor her message in the minds of her audience? She won’t be able to verify that it worked – at least not easily. Was the customer’s decision for or against the project based on the presentation? Was it her speech that led to more employees adopting the new work culture or was it something else? When direct feedback is missing, it’s just hard to tell.

For leaders, this is an even bigger problem. Who wants to be the person to tell the leader how bad her presentation was? On the other hand, everyone likes to praise a great presentation. If it’s a bad one, we’d rather politely remain silent.

But it’s really not a helpful attitude. As a leader you should encourage your team to provide honest feedback. As a group you should agree to give honest feedback. As an audience member, be polite but also help the speaker grow – if that’s what she’s looking for.

And that’s the crucial point. As a speaker, you should be the driving force yourself. If you’re looking to make change happen, then do not wait for others. Do not rest on the status quo. Question yourself and encourage your audience to be honest. Find out who honestly tells you whether your talk is actually great.

And then go make a leap and deliver a talk that changes the world!

(PS: If you’re looking for professional grade feedback, do drop me a note!)

Die beleidigte Leberwurst

Bevor Sie auf einer wissenschaftlichen Konferenz einen Beitrag veröffentlichen können, durchläuft Ihr Beitrag normalerweise einen sog. Reviewprozess. Mindestens drei unabhängige Wissenschaftler begutachten den Beitrag nach Kriterien wie „Neuheit“, „Relevanz“, „Korrektheit“ etc. Bei guten Konferenzen fallen ca. 90% und mehr der Beiträge in diesem Reviewprozess durch.

Die Ablehnungsemail enthält (bei guten Konferenzen) detaillierte Kommentare der Gutachter, die begründen, warum der Beitrag abgelehnt wurde. Genau jetzt passiert etwas bemerkenswertes. Der typische Wissenschaftler reagiert mit Groll: „Das steht doch auf Seite 3.“ oder „Das hat er völlig falsch verstanden.“

Natürlich ist es völlig irrelevant, ob ich der Meinung bin, meine Erklärung auf Seite 3 sei ausreichend. Ganz offensichtlich habe ich es nicht gut genug erklärt, wenn der Gutachter es falsch verstanden hat. Und nein, es spielt keine Rolle, ob er es nur flüchtig gelesen hat. Die Verschwörungstheoretiker gibt es auch: „Ist ja klar, dass der Beitrag von Professor Scantilor angenommen wurde, der kennt ja einen im Gutachterausschuss.“ Tatsache ist aber (fast immer), dass Scantilors Beitrag wirklich besser war.

Die beleidigte Leberwurst hilft niemandem weiter. Viele gute wissenschaftliche Beiträge sind gerade deswegen so gut, weil sie vorher mehrfach abgelehnt wurden und mit Hilfe der Gutachterkommentare verbessert werden konnten.

Klar, manch ein Kritiker entpuppt sich am Ende doch als Miesepeter. Aber auf Dauer profitieren Sie, wenn Sie Kritik ernst nehmen, gerade wenn Sie aus dem Publikum kommt. Vergessen Sie nicht, dass Sie immer vom Fluch des Wissens bedroht sind. Sie wissen, was die Definition auf Seite 3 bedeutet, Ihr Publikum muss es aus Ihren Worten (und Bildern) verstehen. Auch bedroht Sie der Wunsch, Recht zu haben, während objektiv betrachtet Ihre Argumentation vielleicht doch nicht ganz schlüssig ist.

Nur weil Sie selbst Ihren Text – oder Ihre Präsentation – gut erklärt und einleuchtend argumentiert finden, ist er es nicht zwangsläufig fĂĽr andere. Nehmen Sie es denen, die darauf hinweisen, nicht ĂĽbel.

Spread the Word

Dr. Michael Gerharz

Dr. Michael Gerharz