The Utility of Feedback

We rely constantly on feedback in our lives.  Our bodies give us feedback on how it’s doing (hungry? Tired? Both useful pieces of feedback).  When we play a game we’re reliant on feedback on how we’re doing.  Social interactions with our friends and family give us feedback on how well (or poorly!) our jokes land.  All of this feedback is good, it helps us take care of ourselves, get better at games and tell better jokes.  Feedback at work, however, usually feels like a negative thing.

This to me is incredibly odd.  Many of us spend the majority of our waking time at work, so I would expect work-related feedback to be treated at a premium.  Frequently though, it’s seen as negative.  I’ve written previously about “having” to give feedback and the negative connotation around that phrase, but it goes beyond just “having” to give it.  Many of us are also reluctant to seek out, or even accept, feedback.  Giving feedback is also something we shy away from, after all, it’s very hard to first identify something someone can improve on (or where they’re doing well) and then communicate that to them.

Regardless of our reluctance, however, feedback requires two things to be effective.  It must be timely, and specific.

Timeliness

Imagine someone you trust comes up to you and says something like “hey, during that meeting four months ago you did a great job presenting X topic, it could be even better by also doing Y”.  This is useful, since it’s specific… but it’s made less useful since it’s months later.  You may not really remember that presentation or topic.  You may have already improved that skill so this feedback isn’t as useful.

Ideally feedback is provided as soon as possible.  I’m not saying interrupt a meeting, or call someone at 2am, but the sooner feedback is provided, the more useful it is to the recipient.  Not only does it makes it easier for them to apply it, it’s also still fresh in their minds.  They know the context, and they know how it can be applied.  Waiting to give it robs the recipient of a lot of the utility.

Specific

Imagine someone you trust comes up to you and say something like “hey, I checked out that paper your wrote yesterday and noticed some grammar errors you made”.  This is useful since it’s timely (they’ve told you close to the event), but it’s made less useful by not being specific.  Sure they mentioned grammar errors… but WHAT errors?  Are you mis-using commas?  Not using conjunctions?  Adding too many spaces after periods?  Without the specific information this feedback is not very useful.

Making feedback specific helps the recipient by clearly showing what they’re doing that can be improved.  Ideally specific examples can be pointed out and used to exemplify where improvements can be made.  THis makes it considerably easier for the recipient since they clearly see what they’re doing that needs improvement.  Being vague (regardless of the reason) robs the recipient of a LOT of the utility of feedback.

Wrap Up

Most people most of the time want to improve something, and feedback is one of the best tools to do that.  Like any tool, however, it needs to be used properly.  Being timely and specific gives the recipient the best chance of using the feedback effectively.  Not only does it illustrate exactly what needs to be improved, but it’s provided close to the event itself making it much easier to translate into reality.

"Its broken"

Many times I’ve received a report that a specific system or integration is broken, only to go investigate and realize that nothing is actually wrong.  Instead the root cause is a knowledge gap; the person reporting the problem doesn’t understand enough about how the system works so assumes it’s broken.  This is a common challenge that takes up a lot of time, and fortunately one that can be mitigated quite easily.

Ensure new hires get basic training

As new team members join up they have a lot on their plate.  They have a new team to meet, processes to learn and a job to do.  Part of their onboarding, however, should include a basic outline of how the systems they use are intended to work.  This basic knowledge will help reduce the risk they report something that turns out to be nothing.  

Exposing new hires to systems will also begin building a partnership with them as early as possible. This will lay the groundwork for a positive relationship as they learn about you almost immediately. Having more touch points throughout a relationship will make it easier for them to reach out for help, and for you to help them.

Document everything (well, a lot)

Documentation is your protection against future questions and problems.  You certainly don’t have to document everything, but taking time to write down and share out documentation on common challenges or basic information about your systems will help prevent users from reporting non-issues.  Training users to go check documentation before they come to you will also help deflect tickets and up-skill your team. Frequently when someone comes to me for help the first thing I ask (assuming it’s not an emergency) is “What documentation did you check?”. This is both a (not so) subtle reminder that they should do that, but also clues me into what they’ve already tried.

Build solid partnerships

Getting to know, and understand, your end users is always a good idea.  Strong partnerships make it easier for users to approach you with challenges or questions, and ensure they know who to go to for help.  When an end user doesn’t have, or doesn’t feel like they have, a strong partnerships they’re much more likely to escalate issues or not report them.  This can easily be mitigated by taking the time to get to know your end users.

While a large part of systems is working on tech, it is important to remember the importance of partnerships.  The strength of these partnerships will help us get through challenging situations and can be a huge help in bridging knowledge gaps.

"I had to give" someone feedback

Feedback is critical to learning.  Without understanding the impact our actions make we cannot course correct and become better.  One of the best sources of feedback is our team; the folks we work with.  Not only do they have an understanding of how we work, they understand something about the work itself. This gives them insight into how we can improve in specific areas, as opposed to generalities.

Understanding that feedback is important is one thing, but being able to accept it is something else entirely.  Many times the phrase “I had to give so-and-so feedback” is used when describing giving feedback.  This phrasing sets up a bit of an adversarial understanding.  They’re giving feedback because they “have to”, because something went wrong that needs to be fixed.

---

Phrasing

This phrasing instantly tells everyone that someone screwed up.  It tells the team that so-and-so made a mistake and the boss (or whomever) has to come down from on high to make sure it doesn’t happen again.  This phrasing also puts the boss into the mindset of “correcting a bad thing” instead of “helping someone improve”.  At this point it stops being positive feedback, and instead turns into something closer to a punishment.

The person receiving the feedback will also pick up on this difference.  Going into a meeting where you “have to be given” feedback primes you for being in a defensive / negative headspace.  It takes what should be a positive event - learning to become better - and shifts it into a negative event - being dressed down.  While this certainly isn’t guaranteed - after all everyone will accept and interpret feedback differently - it certainly doesn’t help.

Part of how feedback is delivered is built into the culture of the company - do folks expect regular, honest discussions on how they’re doing and where they can do better? - or do they expect to only be told when they screwed something up?  While this framework will certainly impact any feedback discussion there’s a lot a team, or even an individual, can do to frame feedback as a positive.

Use different words

As noted above “I have to give feedback” sounds negative, so just say something different.  

• “I liked XYZ you did, let’s talk about how you can get even better next time”.

• “I’ve got some ideas on how you can increase your impact”

The intention is to present the discussion as a positive, “lets help you do even better” talk vs a “you screwed up, don’t do it again” talk.  The words you use to transmit that intention are incredibly important… take time to think up a way to indicate you’ve found something they can do better, without sounding like a demerit.

Openly talk about feedback

Many times feedback is only provided during set times (generally around performance discussions).  This not only guarantees it’s stale (ever had a manager bring up something that happened 4 months ago? Or not bring up anything at all?), it also clearly ties it to performance.  This linkage is dangerous since it puts everyone in the mindset of “feedback had better be positive or I won’t get my bonus/increase/whatever”.

This also makes feedback a rarity, something that only happens at set points.  This breaks any positive habits around feedback and instead sends you scrambling to look up what feedback is, how to write it and how to accept it.  Knowing that it’s coming up, and that you and your team don’t regularly do it, just adds to the stress of it all.

Many of these challenges can be overcome by making feedback a regular, and open, thing on your team.  The more the team experiences feedback, the more the team talks about the feedback and the more open it is will make it easier to give, and accept.

Beginning Background Knowledge

I’ve found that many times I’m presented with a challenge that I don’t know the specific answer to.  It may be some complicated technical setup, or changing how a relationship operates, or some new technology.  These scenarios are a bit exciting and a bit scary since I go into them not knowing the answer.

I’ve found that in order to succeed with tasks like this background conceptual knowledge is critical.  Understanding the basics of how a system operates allows me to more easily understand new areas of it.  After all, it’s still got to follow some basic rules. (Similarly if we understand a little bit about how gravity operates that makes it much easier to understand how something will fall, even if we’ve never seen that specific object before).

This can also be applied to softer skills.  If we consider each individual we interact with as having their own underlying “rules” for how they prefer or need to communicate we can then apply those rules to future interactions.  As we meet and understand more people our toolkit expands and we can begin to apply these rules to folks we’ve never met before… and succeed.

---

Find the common thread

The biggest challenge to making this work is to understand those basic rules.  This requires work.  You have to memorize and internalize terminology, where buttons are, what process flows exist.  Personally I find a three pronged approach to getting my brain up to speed; get the manual and read up, get hands on with the thing itself, and talk to others who know it already.

While reading documentation and studying documents can be tedious and boring this is a great way to understand how something works, especially when that documentation comes from the vendor or an expert in the field.  Documentation is great since you can go through it on your own time.  It doesn’t require others to be available or access to any new system.  It does, however, require time and effort.  Since it was written sometime in the past documentation can also feel disconnected from reality.  Due to this disconnection I tend to combine it with hands on discovery.

It’s hard to beat hands on experience to help drive learning, especially when combined documentation.  Being able to tinker and see things in action is an excellent reinforcement to learning.  Having the manual next to you as well lets you lookup what you’re actually doing.  This approach, however, can be frustrating if you run into a situation where you can’t progress because you’re missing something important.  This is where having someone who knows the system is very useful.

Talking to others about that system or interaction is also important.  There’s two main ways this can go - they know more about the system than you do, or they know about the general concepts (or both!).  The first will let you improve specific skillsets and learn the mechanics of that particular system.  This is great, especially when you’re first starting out since it helps increase your rate of skill gain.  The second helps you understand how to apply general concepts to different areas, which is also very important (especially if your role expands or changes).

In general you can’t really have TOO much background knowledge in any given subject.  The more you have, the more likely it is you can apply some of it to a challenge and come out on top.  It does take work to accumulate this information, but the effort is more than worth it.

Broken Comb Skillsets

A broken comb skill set refers to the shape a comb with missing teeth makes - some vertical lines and a horizontal one (and certainly doesn’t suggest the individual is broken!). They’re essentially an extension of the “T” skill shape, multiple in-depth areas with a (potentially) broad general base. This type of skillset is very interesting to work with, as they have multiple areas of expertise. While this is not without its challenges, broken combs can be very flexible and bring immense value to a team.

---

The upside of a Broken Comb

Broken comb skill sets offer the advantage of multiple focus disciplines.  Due to these areas they can potentially reduce the need to bring in additional team members, or negate the need to bring in outside help.  By excelling in multiple areas they provide a lot of flexibility and are able to make a big impact on projects.  This is especially true if their areas are related (your tax and finance systems, for example) as they are able to easily support thos areas and understand the interconnections between them.

In addition to their areas of depth they are also similar to how a “T”-shaped skillset with a broad skillset of more general skills.  This general knowledge helps them bridge gaps between areas (even their own), and allows them to get a better handle on the big picture.  The mix of focus areas and general skills can make for some very versatile individuals, capable of not only handling technical areas, but also “softer” skill sets.

The downside of a Broken Comb

While not a rule, despite a Broken Comb shaped skill sets offer deeper expertise in multiple areas, it’s likely their depth isn’t as great as an “I”, or even a “T”.  This is simply due to not having as much time to dedicate to each one as those other types.  This may result in overconfidence, or stretching too far in those areas.  Have multiple focus areas can also detract from their overall impact as they may get pulled in too many directions to be truely impactful.

Similarly, the breadth of general skills may be limited as a lot of energy is put onto the areas of focus.  This leaves less capacity to developing general skills, or to developing them deeply enough to be at least minimally effective.  This can result in broken combs having narrower general skillset than their “T” shaped counterparts. 

Managing a Broken Comb

Understanding what any given Broken Comb’s focus areas are is important to fully using their talents.  Take time to understand where their interests lie, and what areas they choose to focus on.  This will not only allow you to be utilize them on projects, but also help the continue to improve their focus areas.  Knowing how wide (or narrow) their general skillsets are is also important.  Their wide range of skills can make it seem like they can handle anything, but knowing where the edges are is critical.

Broken Combs can also fit in incredibly well between teams, especially if there are folks with I-shaped sklil sets on either side.  A Broken Combs multiple focus areas allows them to (relatively) easily translate between groups as they share an understanding with each side.  This can also open opportunities to expand someone else’s skillsets and the Broken Comb can relate to them, and the new skill.

If you’re a Broken Comb

Take time to understand where the edges of your focus and general areas are.  Knowing your areas of depth allows you to further exploit and build those skills, and knowing your general areas will make it easy to see how things connect.  It will also help you better communicate to your team what you can do… and help avoid situations where you’re expected to be an expert but really don’t know.

Having multiple focus areas (plus generalized skills to round you out) will make you very popular. Be careful that you don’t get pulled into too many different directions. Take an active approach in shaping what work you take on to best maximize your interest and impacts.

T Shaped Skillsets

If an “I” shaped skillset is very deep in one area and not much else, a “T” shape is a skillset that’s deep in one area (the vertical part of the T) with some general knowledge of others (the horizontal part of the T).  Generally these folks have a broader range of interests or responsibilities than someone who is “I” shaped, resulting in a broader skillset.  These individuals may also have been on the path to be an “I” shape and made the conscious (or not!) choice to broaden vs. deepen their skillset.

I find “T” shapes to be good at putting together a broader picture, or investigating new areas (think a Business Systems Analyst, project manager, etc).  Their broad skillset allows them to more easily interface with other groups and understand new topics at a higher level, while their single deeper skill can have them either leading or assisting where an “I” shape would be.  These individuals can take the place of an “I” in some areas, but you need to be careful since the depth of the “T” tends to be shallower than that of an “I”.

---

The upside of a T

T-shaped skillsets result in an individual to have one area of in-depth focus.  It also results in them having at least a passing familiarity with other areas of the business, systems or processes.  This allows them to dig into one area of expertise, while also making it easier for them to flex into other areas or to draw from their other experiences.  This more rounded approach can result in more novel solutions to challenges, or help break out of challenges than an “I” shape may get stuck on.

“T” shapes also tend to be more open to exploring new areas or learning new skills.  This makes them useful in situations where different teams or groups have to come together as they can “talk the talk” of both sides.  In addition, the depth of the “T” can have them serving as the technical expert as well, eliminating the need to bring in more resources.  While each individual and situation will have it’s own requirements, having someone who is more flexible on the team can be a huge help.  This deeper expertise also makes it easier for them to work with “I” shaped individuals in a similar field; they’ll very likely share many concepts, skills and ideas.

The downside of a T

While a “T” shape does allow for some in-depth expertise, it is uncommon that it will be as in-depth as an “I” shaped skillset.  This is generally due to the “T” shape drawing energy away to build the general skillsets, however, may also relate to the interest an individual has in any one area.  Some folks simply aren’t interested enough to learn EVERYTHING about a particular area, so use the time that would be spent drilling deep to expand into other areas.  This can be detrimental as the “T” shaped skillset may not be able to handle the complexity of some scenarios, requiring more resources.

While “T” shapes have a breadth of skills, the depth of many of them may be lacking.  This could be due to a lack of need (e.g. “I know enough project management to get by”), lack of resources (“I never got formal training) or lack of interest (“I started learning XYZ but got bored”).  This may result in situations where a “T” quickly gets in over their head.

Managing a T

As noted “T” shapes offer a lot of advantages.  Not only do they have a single deep skillset, they have many other skills that can be applied.  This makes them great for throwing at problems that relate to the area of interest as they’ll be able to apply multiple tools or ways of thinking to the challenge.  This may also be hazardous since they may end up over their head.  Unless they’ve learned to raise a flag for help (or are closely watched) this can quickly lead to big problems.

The depth of a “T”’s area of focus may also not be as deep as you need for any particular task.  While they may seem to know enough, they can quickly get blind-sided by some obscure or specific thing that they don’t know how to handle.  While this can be mitigated by their broader skills (e.g. knowing how to ask for help, how to research the problem, etc.) it can lead to project delays or other challenges.  Until you’re at a stage where you can gauge their comfort, it may be beneficial to regularly check in to see what support they need.

You can support a “T” by learning if they want to deepen their focus, or expand their range.  Deepening their focus may involve getting them more specialized training, pairing them up with an “I” (or another “T”) who has the same focus, or letting them take on more challenging work in that area.  This will give them a deeper focus, but may also reduce their breadth.  Supporting their range could involve assigning them to work on projects related to their focus (e.g. if they’re a lawyer put them on something just outside their speciality), or embedding them on other teams to learn how they work.  This will increase their breadth, but may reduce the depth of their focus.

---

If you’re a T

Understanding where your focus is and how wide you want your breadth to get is important to being a successful “T”.  Knowing the limits of your focus is critical to knowing when to ask for help or call in support, and will also help you learn where you can expand (if you choose to).  Knowing how wide your skillset goes will help you avoid flinging yourself off the deep end.

You may also end up being the swiss army knife on your team - the one person who can be counted on to assist anywhere.  Clearly communicating those boundaries to your team will also help you avoid situations where you’re expected to perform but have no clue what’s happening.  While your interest and skills may be broad, they do have limits!  That said, these can be great opportunities to expand your general skills since they’ll be new.

"I" shaped skillsets

Individuals with an “I” shape of skills have one focused their time on delving deep into a single skill.  This means they’ll know everything about a specific tool, concept or area, which tends to make them excellent resources for those topics.  This focus can, however, lead to other skills not being as strong as they could (or should) be.  For example, a technical resource who is incredibly knowledgable about yoru system, but cannot effectively communicate, or a lawyer who knows everything about their area but is incredibly abrasive in interpersonal interactions.

“I” shaped skillsets may not be very common in smaller environments, if only because the level of challenges that crop up on a regular basis don’t necessitate their skills.  Frequently this results in these individuals working as consultants or contractors so they can stay busy.

---

The upside of an I

Folks with I shaped skillsets are incredibly important to successfully completing large and complex projects.  This is mainly due to their in-depth understanding of the topic at hand, which tends to allow them to either foresee challenges before they crop up, or deal with them if they do.  While “T” shaped folks or “broken combs” may also possess some amount of skill in those areas, they rarely get to the depth that someone with an “I” shaped skillset can delve.

This means folks with an “I” shaped skill set are great to throw at large, complex problems that fit in their wheelhouse.  Their experience and background will give them a good idea of where to begin tackling the problem, and since they’ve done it all before they’ll know what steps need to be taken and when.  Their innate desire to learn about that topic will also result in them continuing to sharpen their skill set, either through formal training, experimentation or networking with others in their field.  This makes them a great resource for trying new things and getting the most out of their work.

The downside of an I

Given the immense amount of time and focus it takes to develop a single set of skills this deeply, “I” shaped skillsets tend to leave folks lacking in some areas.  When unrecognized this can lead to some severe challenges with projects, as this individual will keep chugging along their path without realizing other areas may need attention.  For example, understanding the need to communicate changes to a project’s scope is incredibly important, however, if I’m entirely focused on a technical buildout I may not share that information in time.

The extreme depth of skillset an “I” shape offers also can make it hard to find one.  This is less a challenge for that person, and more for someone seeking those skills.  This can lead to increased market demand, as well as scarcity (think back to how hard it can be to find an expert in some smaller fields).  The focus on one particular area may also blind this individual to learning about other areas, potentially leading to not fully understanding how their work interacts.

Managing an “I”

Managing an I

The best advice I can provide here is to learn to identify when someone has an “I” shaped skill set and where that skillset ends.  Theres a number of signs that will help indicate an “I” shaped skillset:

• Long history with one technology, concept, etc. - Individuals who have specialized over a number of years in one field may tend to be “I” shaped.

• Disinterest in other areas - Not expressing interest in other disciplines, ideas, etc. while focusing entirely on one is also a good indication.

Knowing where these edges are allows you to find ways to support them, whether it be through integrating them with a team of “T” or “broken combs” to help fill out the gaps, or someone skilled in managing “I” shapes.  You can also look for groups of “I” shapes and have them work together.  This can result in multiple folks with deep skill sets playing off each other and performing great work… you just need to be careful they all aren’t blind to each others areas.

Being direct, and repetitive, with communication can help avoid potential problems as well as folks in the “I” shaped bucket sometimes end up assuming others will fill in the gaps, or simply forget to take specific actions (e.g. communicating updates).  Consistently connecting with them (or putting them on a team that’s stronger in those areas) can help maximize their impact.  Helping ensure their schedules are cleared can also be helpful as it allows these folks to focus their time.

If you’re an “I”

Similar to someone managing an “I” the best thing you can do is to be aware of where your skill sets end.  Knowing this boundary will help you work with a team (since you can call out where someone else needs to step in), and where you can choose to improve.  Knowing the depth of your skill is also important, as many folks will turn to you for all the answers about a specific area.  While you may be a super-expert, there’s always *something* you don’t know… and know that edge is just as important and knowing everything else.

Asking for feedback on how to improve your overall performance is also a great (if not uncomfortable) idea.  There’s no expectation that you master other areas or take on more work, but there may be some simple and straight forward things you can do to help keep things running.

Skill Shapes

Everyone is different (citation needed).  This part of our reality impacts every aspect of our interaction with folks, but in this particular piece we’ll look at how it impacts our work.  There are many different ways to try and quantify or qualify our differences, from things like MBTI personality assessments, to background degrees, to more.  Here, we’ll focus on our skillsets, and how our understanding of others (And our own) can impact our work.

One straightforward way to look at skill sets is to group them into “T”, “I” and “Broken Combs”.  These three classifications are useful to understand where an individual’s strengths lie, and how they can be best utilized to tackle any given challenge.  They can also be used to dig into past projects or events to better understand why things went the way they did.  I’ll start with a high-level of each of these, then dig into them more in the coming weeks.  Note that none of these is necessarily better or worse than any other - they’re just tools to help understand people a bit better (yourself included!).

Skill Shapes

I-shaped people

I (like the capital I or lowercase l) shaped people tend to have one deep skillset… and not much else.  These individuals are valuable where in-depth knowledge is needed for a particular area - specific programming languages or systems, business processes etc.  In my experience I-shaped people tend to be a bit more senior in their career or area, and likely ended up choosing to focus on a particular skillset because they find it interesting, or have a particular talent for it.  Note that this extreme specialization can make it challenging for them to adopt new concepts/ideas, which may lead to blind spots developing.

T-shaped people

T-shaped individuals are similar to I-shapes, in that they have one specific skill they’re much better at (the vertical line in the “T”), however, they also possess at least a passing familiarity with several other skills (the vertical line in the “T”).  This broader exposure of skills allows them to more easily flex between assignments, or to more easily interface with other groups as they may know some background concepts or parts of their systems.  Note that because they also possess a broader skillset, their in-depth knowledge may not be as deep as someone who is “I” shaped.

Broken Combs

Like T-shaped people, broken combs possess basic knowledge in a broad set of skills.  They differ from T-shaped people because they will possess at least 2 skills in more depth (this is where that name comes from… imagine breaking most of the teeth out of a comb).  This allows them to be subject matter experts in several areas, while still maintaining general knowledge of others.  Similar to a T-shape, however, their depth of knowledge in those areas may not be as great an I shaped person.

Each of these shapes offers its own insights, and I will be delving into each of these shapes over the next few weeks. Like many concepts these are not intended to limit or restrict an individual… instead they’re intended to be used to better understand how an individual or team will act (or to explain how it got to a specific situation).

Keep communicating until they tell you to stop

Communication, like breathing, is one of things that humans must absolutely do in order to survive (citation needed).  Since we’re born until we die we’re constantly communicating something, in some way.  This means we’re effectively practicing this skills all the time… which only makes it more interesting that we’re all (generally) so bad at it.

90%

They (PMI in this case) tells me that 90% of project management is communication.  I would further this, and say that 90% of our jobs, and general existence in reality, is communication.  We tell our loved ones we miss them.  Our children communicate that they’re hungry.  Our co-workers communicate status updates.  Even NOT communicating can be perceived as communicating (after all, ignoring someone tells them something…) (also, if you don’t notice someone is trying to communicate, you’re effectively communicating to them you’re oblivious).

On the plus side, we use this skill ALL the time.  This would suggest that we should be getting better at it as we go.  On the downside, we’re rarely consciously trying to improve this skill, meaning all that practice time is effectively wasted.

---

Shooting free-throws in basketball is a great analogy.  Once approach would be to just continually shoot the ball again and again and again.  Another approach would be to shoot the ball, then stop and honestly think about what you could do better (or not do at all).  The first approach might get you more repetitions, however, the second will give you conscious improvement.  Sure, it’s a bit of a pain to stop and critically examine yourself (not to mention ego-brusing at times), but the feedback gives you much better results.

Communication is no different.  Many of us get TONS of reps in during the week… but many of us also fail to stop and think about how we can make those reps better (When was the last time you asked yourself if you’re communicating the right way?).

Repeat

One of the best pieces of advice I got on how to improve communication is to simply keep doing it until someone tells you to stop.  Need help with a project?  Keep bringing it up in different ways at different times until you get help.  Need to let someone know when you’re available and you’d like to talk?  Keep talking/texting/emailing until they get the point.  This doesn’t mean send them an email every 10 seconds, but keep up the communication until you’re heard, and you know they heard you.

The good news is this skill is relatively easy to practice.  The next time you need to communicate something you feel is important, pick at least 5 different times (and ideally different ways) of communicating that.  One example of this:

1. Bring up your idea/need/etc. During a team meeting

2. Send a followup email immediately after the meeting.

3. Drop a slack message to folks the next day

4. Two days later send another followup email

5. The day after that bring it up in your meeting again

---

The point here is to ensure others received, and more importantly, understood, your message.  By hitting them at different times in different ways you help ensure you cut through the noise (e.g. the 10000 other emails they have), and solicit any questions.  And if all else fails, at the very least you have a great “paper” trail of your attempts.

Flexibility

In any given day I find myself coaching team members, managing projects, investigating bugs, being blindsided by new asks, and many many other things.  Looking back, any given day represents a crazy mix of things, and juggling them all is certainly challenging.  Despite the insanity of it all, I only really find problems when I try to control the flow things, or when I push back directly and reject doing something.  Fortunately the best approach to this isn’t to just accept ALL work that comes my way, but rather to be flexible in what (and how) I accept.

Many roles these days are anything but specific.  Job descriptions provide a rough outline of what a role is, but they can never fully capture what you’ll be doing if you get the job.  Even if they’re fairly well written, they tend to include something like “duties as assigned”, which leaves a HUGE amount of room for other responsibilities to creep in.  This craziness isn’t even touching the randomness that is smaller companies and/or startups!

Handling multiples

The wide range of randomness heading our way requires that our approach shifts from one of “I only do XYZ” to “I do a range of things”.  The trick to finding a good balance within this range isn’t to remain rigid in how we accept things, but rather to be more flexible in what we accept, and more importantly, flexible in how we reject things.  This may be further compounded by who is asking us to help out… for example if a VP is requesting help it can be a smidge harder to dodge that than someone else.

Being flexible in what work or responsibilities we accept has several benefits.  Exposure to new areas/teams/ideas helps improve our overall skill sets.  This can make our current jobs easier (by providing better context, resources, etc), and also opens doors that we may otherwise not have looked at (e.g. cultivating an interest in a new area of the company).  Flexibility also improves our relationships, either by exposing us to people we wouldn’t otherwise work with, or by giving us time to deepen existing relationships.

Being flexible in how we reject work is equally (if not more!) important.  There are times when you’ll decide you can’t/don’t want to take something on.  When asked (or “asked”), straight up saying “no”, while direct, will likely be seen negatively (e.g. “you’re not a team player”), potentially damaging your reputation but also reducing the likelihood you’ll get help in the future.  Instead you need to find a way to bend out of the way.  Suggesting alternatives (“Did you consider asking so-and-so? They’re really good at this”) and pointing out better ways to do the thing (“Instead of manually doing this, did you consider automating it?”) are great approaches that avoid the need for YOU to do the thing, while still helping ensure it can get done.

Flexibility also means being open to changing how you operate.  Especially now with many folks working from home we’ve had to change up how we work.  Resisting the need for video conferencing is basically impossible, so instead of fighting these, flex, and use them.  Sure, it requires some effort and creativity to find new ways to operate, but by making time to update team norms, meeting schedules, and other aspects of work you’ll avoid the discomfort of trying to fight the tide.

Make Time to Connect

Frequently I find myself either directly involved in, or watching, a chain of emails/texts/messages going in circles.  One person asks a question, which is misunderstood or requires followup, which leads to more questions and goes around and around and around.  It is incredibly easy to keep that chain going… after all, we know the other end is reading them, and we think we can get to agreement if we just. keep. emailing.  

Unfortunately this is rarely the case… At best, this results in wasted time as it takes several cycles to get to mutual understanding.  At worst, it results in damaged relationships.  A much quicker (and simpler) approach is to break the cycle and connect - pick the phone (or jump on zoom) and take the 5 minutes to explain things in person.

Tangled

Communications technology is a weird thing.  It allows us to instantly send messages, but weirdly this results in us being further apart instead of closer together.  This could be due to the asynchronous nature of text communication (there’s no way to tell when the receiver will read it), in the static nature of the communication medium (sarcasm, for example is REALLY hard to pickup ion text), or in the assumption that other folks will “just get it”.  Regardless, email or comment wars frequently crop up, with individuals endlessly sending messages hoping ONE of them will make sense to the other side.

We’ve all read a response from someone and wondering how the heck they didn’t understand our message.  We took so much time carefully crafting our message, only for them to somehow miss the point.  So we take more time to carefully craft a response… which is received in a similar manner on their end.  This chain eventually becomes self-sustaining and will continue indefinitely unless someone breaks the cycle (the worst I’ve seen was a ticket with 150+ comments on it running in circles).

---

The problem with these cycles isn’t that the folks involved aren’t smart, or well intentioned, or anything about the person.  It’s about the medium and some assumptions we make about it.  Tools like email, slack and @ mentions are great for quickly sending a message around the world… unfortunately they also fail to capture a great deal of information.  Tone is hard to encode in text… so is sarcasm, body language, and basically all of our body language.  We tend to not see verbal communication run in as many circles because we get that additional information… we can see if someone is confused, or more easily pickup on frustration.

We also make assumptions about how we communicate and how others will interpret what we say.  On our end we assume that our message is understandable.  For ourselves this is (hopefully!) true, after all, we wrote it.  For someone else, however, this may not be as correct.  We all filter communication through our own experiences, and others rarely, if ever, have the same experiences we do.  This ties directly into how someone else would interpret our message.  Over time we get more familiar working with folks, but even WITH experience we can send a confusing message.

Finding Clarity

The trick, then, to breaking the circle of endless text communication is to step outside of it and use a different method.  Getting back to a place where non-text information is shared (phone, video chat, etc.) will reduce or eliminate many of the problems pure-text conveys.  By making communication more real-time we also provide immediate opportunities for the other parties to ask clarifying questions or point out challenges immediately.  By both reducing the feedback loop, and providing a richer communications environment, we can make our connections much more impactful.

How Connections Form

We’ve all been there

Everyone, at some point in time, has been in that spot. For whatever reason we’re stuck doing something that pushes us and we need help. Generally this means we don’t know underlying concepts or ideas that are critical to success, or are unaware of how tools work. Some common examples include:

• Being asked to perform data analysis

• Managing a system or tech

• Developing / maintaining a process

On the whole we are very intelligent and skilled at what we do. The problems crop up when we’re asked to do work outside our normal wheelhouse. It may be presented as a stretch goal, or an opportunity to grow, but frequently we are left in a bit of a lurch since our background and expertise is in other areas (imagine a software engineer being told to manage a help desk, or an HR specialist being told to develop analytics).

On the plus side, we are (generally) very smart and talented. On the down side we’ve got basically no idea what we’re doing. This is where connections between technical and non-technical teams is critical.

These connections form several ways, but in general I find they are either organic or prompted.

---

Organic Connections

Eventually we end up bumping into someone who knows more about what we’re trying to do. This might take the form of a content strategist commenting on posts, or a database engineer asking why queries are written the way the are. In some very lucky instances we can reach out for help proactively, but generally we have to get lucky….

How this connection forms is critical, as it dictates how the relationship, and end product, will unfold. Generally it goes one of three ways:

1. The expert reacts negatively - demanding to know why it was done this way, or why a specific process wasn’t followed

2. The expert reacts neutrally - either not showing much interest, or just fixing the problem, without connecting with the individual doing the work

3. The expert reacts positively - attempts to establish a relationship and help grow the individual with the work

Most commonly I see the neutral reaction occur. While this may be seen as a positive thing since it results in a good (or . acceptable) outcome, it doesn’t really serve anyone. It robs t he individual doing the work of the opportunity to improve by learning the proper way, and it robs the expert of the opportunity to educate their partners.

Fortunately I don’t see the first very often. I imagine this only really happens in highly controlled environments, or when someone is having a bad day.

Almost as uncommon though, is the third, which strikes me as very interesting since it is by far the most beneficial to everyone. Not only will the expert help solve a problem more quickly, they will also better understand their partners needs allowing them to head off future potential problems. The individual needing to do the work also gains a valuable contact, and likely learns a little bit more about how everything works.

---

Prompted Connections

While organic connects crop up when we basically randomly bump into an expert, prompted connections connect when someone helps us get an introduction. This may take the form of a manager knowing who to talk to, a coworker having a friend in another department, or a process requiring submission of plans/questions. I personally find these connections to be a bit weaker than organic ones, mainly due to the more artificial aspect of them (e.g. Organic connections tend to arise around a shared challenge, whereas prompted feel more like a job requirement), but they are still incredibly valuable ways of connecting partners.

Regardless of how connections form, they are absolutely critical to everyones success; even aa one-person company needs them to survive. I do my best to build new connections, and enrich existing ons, every change I get. I find them rewarding both in terms of learning new things, but also in terms of getting to know the people around me. They not only make my job a bit easier, but a but more enjoyable since I’m meeting new people, and picking up new skills.

"Generic" and "Specific" Basics

One of the great things about life these days is technology. It (mostly) makes are lives easier, especially when it comes to work. I cannot imagine having to keep track of employee data on paper, having to run payroll by hand, or generating reports manually.

The downside of tech is that it requires at least a baseline understanding of how it works in order to get any benefit. These basics may be more “generic” (applied across multiple systems or scenarios), for example knowing the magnifying glass allows you to search, to a more “specific” basic, such as knowing how your underlying data is sourced.

---

“Generic” Basics

“Generic” basics are things that can be applied across multiple systems or areas. Save icons fall into this bucket since they’re almost always a floppy disk (something that dates back as far as I can remember!), which is especially amusing since physical media of almost any type is quickly disappearing. The search icon is another example that appears almost everywhere.

Despite the prevalence of these items, unless you understand what they mean you’re in for a very frustrating time. I once watching a steelworker manually scrolling through a list of 5,000 files despite the search icon being displayed at the top of his screen. I stopped him after a few minutes and showed him what the magnifying glass did, the told him to call me if he ever looked around for files again (I’ve always wondered how much time is spent globally manually looking for things….).

Digital natives have a massive leg up with the generic basics since they grow up with it all (I’ve heard apocryphal stories of young children getting upset that the TV isn’t a touch screen). Since their training begins so young they’re able to easily translate those basics to work.

---

“Specific” Basics

While generic basics may apply across systems, concepts or ideas, specific basics are, well, specific. Some examples I run into include:

• Workdays security architecture - Knowing how this works doesn’t really help you understand other systems security

• Using a video game controller - I see this one a lot at home with my family. Knowing how to use a TV remote does’t help you turn on the Xbox to watch Netflix.

• Perform data analysis - How data is collected, transformed, and stored has massive impacts on your analysis, but those changes differ based on the data source.

All of those examples are only really in the sphere they’re used in. Due to this Specific basics are generally only known by individuals in those areas.

---

Where Problems Crop Up

Things get dicey when someone :

1. Doesn’t know a generic basic

2. Incorrectly applies a Specific basic

3. Does’t know a Specific basic

The first tends to result from missing training. An employee is a physical trade skill (e.g. carpentry) may not be aware of the search icon, for example. This type is relatively straightforward to correct via training, but can be incredibly frustrating to that individual. It’s always a mark of a good

The second and third are where things get dicey. Not knowing Specific basics results in looking bad (example below) to catastrophic errors (inadvertently exposing social security numbers). Frequently I see these crop up when folks begin doing data analysis or presentation. Most recently I spotted this gem in a hospital:

97% isn’t a third of something!

In this specific instance the error wasn’t too catastrophic, but I always imagine what would happen if something like that was presented to the C-Suite.

---

Minimizing Errors

I’ve found the best way to help avoid both Generic and Specific errors is to work on connections with folks, and try to break down the “I only go to IT when something breaks” mentality. Having a solid (or developing) relationships makes it easier both for partners to ask questions, and for you to point out possible errors.

It’s also REALLY helped me to remember we all commit errors. Everyone has forgotten to save a file, or copy a formula, or how to correctly update something. Keeping our humility, and remembering we’re all in this together, will go a long way to keeping things running smoothly.