A simple feedback technique that isn’t a shit sandwich
Giving feedback is hard. An easy hack around the unpleasant awkwardness of it is to use the ‘shit sandwich’ technique, which goes something like this:
a) say something nice
b) say your honest feedback
c) say another nice thing to wrap up and leave feeling good
Naturally, the receiving end of the shit sandwich will start anticipating the shit every time you say something nice — which makes it ineffective but also just ruins any nice thing you have to say.
The technique I’m proposing is an adaptation of a list of rules by Anatol Rapoport — a game theorist — by way of the philosopher Daniel Dennett:
How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
The adaptation when it comes to feedback in a professional setting:
- You should attempt to re-explain your target’s actions so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, that’s exactly why and how I did X”
- You should list and encourage any points that you think were well done
- You should mention anything you find admirable that you have learned from your target’s method of doing things
- Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of criticism
The obvious benefit of this method is getting beyond the unpleasantness of giving feedback and finding a more open audience. The less obvious part is that by putting in the hard work of trying to understand your target’s actions and motivations you’ll give better feedback, and may change your perception of the situation altogether.
