Zits were so ugly. We hated them more than anything. We’re so glad they stopped showing up on our faces, so glad our pours stopped getting blocked causing the pressure to mount into those unsightly pustules that we couldn’t resist popping.
A teenage right of passage maybe. A punishing plague. Anyway, thank heaven the acne is finally over and we can get on with our lives.
Still, for many of us the plague passes to the communications dimension, feedback acne, a vicious cycle we enter into with our partners, friends, associates and loved ones.
One person, wary of being criticized blocks another person’s feedback, which as a result, gets impacted. Pressure mounts until the feedback can’t be held back any longer. It pops out with enough force to break through the blocking person’s defenses, more than enough force, given how long it has been impacted.
This causes emotional scarring; the blocker more wary than before, which leads to more stubborn blocking as the pressure builds again.
Clearasil is no help with these communications pimples. So what does help?
We’re often told the solution is just to be nicer. That burden falls on the feedback deliverer, which makes some sense. Breaking through the blockage gently and tactfully might make the wary partner less wary, more open to hearing feedback next time. But at best, that’s half the solution, and at worst, holding the feedback provider responsible increases pressure and inflammation.
After all, the blocker may be wary for lots of reasons, not just because the feedback is harshly delivered. Many of us are just plain defensive. Few of us take critical feedback very gracefully however it’s delivered.
It’s easy to blame the messenger for feedback we’d rather not hear. If they supply it directly, you can say, “You’re too harsh.” If they supply it tactfully, you can say, “Your pussyfooting insults me.” No matter how they supply it you can say, “Your feedback is too negative,” “You hurt my feelings,” or “You're mean.”
And you can always blame their tone or timing; their attitude or wording.
Clearing up feedbacne has to be a joint effort. Yes, the popper should deliver feedback as gently as possible, but at least as important, the blocker has to find ways to allow the feedback in so it doesn’t get impacted in the first place.
So you also hear the advice, always be open to critical feedback, and you're given rational reasons why you should welcome feedback. But aversion is a raw emotion and emotions are rarely responsive to mere reasons.
Reasons or not, openness to feedback simply doesn’t come easy. When we're told we ought to change something we do intuitively it feels like a snubbing mid-stride, a threat, a distraction.
I’ve written lots about techniques for handling feedback better. (For example ingesting and digesting feedback).
There’s one technique that I find more fruitful than any other. It’s a simple formula called mirroring.
When you get feedback, repeat it back to its deliverer in your own words, cleanly, in ways that show the feedbacker that you really heard it. Say it as though you were on the feedback-giver’s side. Don’t satirize it, exaggerated it or otherwise criticise it. Set aside whether you agree with the feedback. You can decide that later.
You can’t demonstrate receptivity to feedback by saying a vague “I heard you,” by declaring yourself open-minded or by saying “Yeah, but” as if you gave it an honest listen, quick as lighning assessed it judiciously and decided the feedback was worthless.
None of that works. All of that will feel like just more blocking.
If you want a clean communications complexion, give feedback as cleanly as possible, and through mirroring, prove that you actually took it in.
Less emotional scars, less pressure build up, and you’ll have passed the second right of passage into adulthood, a mature form of give and take.