Feedback – Miscellany and Conclusions – Part 6

In Part 1, I talked about me and how people need to want your feedback. In Part 2, I talked about the sandwich method and that feedback needs to focus on substance, not form. In Part 3, I introduced SMART feedback as that substance. In Part 4, I talked about the Halo Effect. In Part 5, I talked about Mistress Gianetta Andreini da Vicenza (Jen Small)’s Get The Most Out of Judging and Entering A&S class. Time to wrap up.

Good leaders give good feedback. And if you give good feedback, you have the potential to be a good leader.

Always on

There is an SCA story, I don’t know if it is true or not, about some king at Pennsic. In the evening, there would be a big ceremony, “the Crown is going to bed.” The King would remove his crown and the Crown would be placed on a pillow and escorted away. The idea being that without the Crown, the “King” was just a man and could act as he wanted without it being construed as the “king” acting that way. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

As I said in Part 1, we are always giving and evaluating feedback. The point of the “crown” story is that you can’t stop being yourself. Taking the crown off doesn’t mean people aren’t going to judge you. Or perhaps more directly said, leadership and whether someone trusts you enough to want your feedback isn’t a hat. You are always on. You are always being evaluated.

Since you are always on, the best course is to be who you truly are. And if you discover who you truly are is not someone who is a leader or someone who gives valuable feedback, you need to work on that. You need to reflect on who you are and who you want to be. Then make steps to move in a more positive direction.

Substance not structure

I really want to drive this point home. The research is clear and this will sound like a contradiction. How you say it is more important than what you say. That sounds like structure is more important, right? No. The attitude, the empathy, the connection is the how, not the formula of the feedback.

Whether you give direct statements, a sandwich, or whatever your favorite method of feedback is, what is important is that the feedback be sincere, actionable, and meaningful. Even if all you give is a negative feedback, it can be done with empathy. Even in a performance review or a termination hearing, you can state what needs to improve, what went wrong, or why someone is fired, in a way that acknowledges a shared connection, that the problem is with the work/facts/etc and not the person.

Basically, consider if someone had to give you the feedback you are about to deliver, how would you like that to be delivered? Do that.

Be open to learning

I am pretty sure Gianetta would agree with me on this. Since mostly what I am talking about is giving feedback in a formal judging situation, you as the judge need to be open to learning. Listen first. Be curious. Even if you are an expert, maybe this person found something you didn’t know about or has a perspective you didn’t consider yet.

Too often in the SCA, we hear that stereotypical story of the hostile judge or person who criticizes the newcomer’s garb. That story comes from a place where the critic assumes they know more than the other person. And what is then worse, chooses to act from that place of superiority. You don’t know why the newcomer did what they did. It may be that are trying this out and therefore did a low buy-in thing in case they didn’t like the experience. Be the kind of peer (either capital or lowercase p) you wish greeted you on your first time.

I still have a photo collage on my wall. “We were all new once.” This applies to feedback as well. We all have tried that new art for the first time. We have all thrown our first weapon strike. We have all shot an arrow for the first time. At some point on that journey, someone gave you feedback that encouraged you to keep going. They probably pointed out things you did well. They probably pointed out things you need to improve on. Be like that person.

Feedback is not criticism; it is encouragement. It is understanding and then giving advice. It is part of being a good leader and being a good person. You are always giving feedback; make it feedback others want to continue to get from you.

More in this series
Feedback and Leadership- Part 1
Feedback – The Sandwich Method – Part 2
Feedback – Being S.M.A.R.T – Part 3
Feedback – The Halo Effect – Part 4
Feedback- Getting the Most out of A&S – Part 5


Feedback – Get the Most out of A&S – Part 5

In Part 1, I talked about me and how people need to want your feedback. In Part 2, I talked about the sandwich method and that feedback needs to focus on substance, not form. In Part 3, I introduced SMART feedback as that substance. In Part 4, I talked about the Halo Effect. Now I am going to talk about Mistress Gianetta Andreini da Vicenza (Jen Small)’s Get The Most Out of Judging and Entering A&S class.

For starters, you can find the handout materials for her class and her outline at the links above.

I had quite a bit of management training before I took Gianetta’s class at Pennsic a few years ago. However, many of her insights and techniques mirrored what I was taught and undoubtedly shaped this series. Let’s go through her notes and class and see how this series can work with her insights.

In the Lunarbaboon cartoon, the father teaches feedback. Be Specific, Be Postitive, and Give the next step. There are some parallels there. The next step is often “actionable.” Immediately below that, Gianetta writes, “sharing is vulnerable, focus on empathy.” That is another point we have in common. Much of her advice is what implied in the 0th rule of feedback; they have to want the feedback from you. Her advice is an excellent way for someone to want feedback from you. In part 2, I hit on several areas of overlap again, be an active learner, find out what the other person needs, etc.

One of the big points that Gianetta makes about giving and receiving feedback is understanding your audience. In specific, understanding that the presenter of the display wants to show you something, something they worked on, and hopefully are proud of. As a judge, you should expand your view and see where you intersect with the presenter. You are both humans, you are both SCAdians, you are both creators, and you are both participants in this activity. With so much overlap, you should have many areas to empathize with each other.

Your base interaction, even in judging, should be a conversation. So have one. And don’t assume you know a lot about the object, even if you do. Let the other person tell you about it. Enjoy the experience. Be an active learner. Ask questions. Be collaborative.

That last one is very important. Stereotypical or not, the bad “judge” or “laurel” who just rips things apart is a legitimate fear. Everyone has heard the stories. As a judge, what are you trying to prove? That you know more than the presenter? That is probably true. But you earn no points by such behavior. Approach the situation as a true collaboration. You have something to offer but this is their project.

Gianetta then offers some basic attitudes to adopt when judging. Be comfortable and secure. Many times, the other person is looking at you as an expert, or at least someone who knows more than they do. Be curious. Sincerity helps a lot here too. Be excited. “What this is thing? Why did you choose it? Tell me about.” Be a learner and a student.

Ask open-ended questions. Allow the other person to answer and explain. You want the story of the project. When you are getting it, ask open-ended questions that lead to the answers in the criteria? “Tell me about your research.” “What did you like about the project?” “What were your challenges?” Much of that can be organic to the conversation but ask if it isn’t offered.

Once the presenter has given you their story, then you offer feedback and advice. Don’t be afraid to offer suggestions on a next step. You want to encourage this person to keep making something, not stop in fear of your words.

One of the hardest things is judging something that you have no understanding about. You know somethings. If you made anything before, you understand effort. You understand the process of making something. Rely on that. Rely on your fellow judges. You definitely don’t have to agree with them but you can get insight from them. “Was that a reasonable substituion?” “That seemed to be difficult, is it?” You can even rely on the presenter. They know this object really well. And rely on the criteria.

For presenters, consider what your goals are in the entry. Are you showing off? Wanting feedback? Winning the competition? All are valid goals. Be prepared. The judges are going to want to know what you did and why. Consider whether the venue is compatible with the goal. Maybe a craftsperson’s faire is better to show off. Maybe a Queen’s Prize Tourney is better to win a competition. But all work.

If high scores are your goal, then score yourself verses the criteria. Figure out the range bracket. Are you good with that score? Later, when you get a score from the judge, you can determine, “that was fair.” or “I should have scored higher because x”. And maybe you forgot to talk about x!

By and large, in an A&S situation, you are not being judged. Your work is. The judges, by and large, are not interested in and definitely don’t want to alienate you. But their feedback might do that. Give yourself time away from the feedback. Have a safety valve in a friend. Then go back to the feedback. Hopefully, it will be sincere and actionable. See what you can learn from it and use as much of it as you can. Some feedback, even though well meaning, can be discarded. “I know it was supposed to be red. I don’t like red and I am going to wear this.” That is fine.

If Gianetta has an overriding point it would be this: both sides need to have a good attitude about what is happening and be present in the moment. Interact with each other sincerely and with a sense of wonder and curiosity.

All of the above is just a summary of Gianetta’s class. There is a lot of good stuff if you get the chance to take it.

More in this series
Feedback and Leadership- Part 1
Feedback – The Sandwich Method – Part 2
Feedback – Being S.M.A.R.T – Part 3
Feedback – The Halo Effect – Part 4
Feedback – Miscellany & Conclusions – Part 6


Feedback – The Halo effect – part 4

In Part 1, I talked about me and how people need to want your feedback. In Part 2, I talked about the sandwich method and that feedback needs to focus on substance, not form. In Part 3, I introduced SMART feedback as that substance. Now, let’s talk about the halo effect.

The halo effect is a predisposition to think positively about something based on external reason, the ways something looks, who is recommending it, etc. For this post, I am going to lump several related effects into this term, just to make it easier to talk about. I will be combining the halo effect, the horn effect (the opposite of the halo effect) and the recency effect into the term “halo” effect to discuss how our preconceptions can affect feedback and how to avoid that.

The halo effect, in this context, gets its name from a tendency in periodic performance reviews of people working to make a favorable impression in the time frame just before the review. The hope is that giving you that favorable impression will color your interpretation of less recent events.

If you are giving periodic reviews, you should avoid this effect as much as possible. The solution is to give timely feedback whenever possible (as in part 3) and keep good notes on any incidents, positive and negative, that occur. Your periodic review should cover the whole period in question. Since you addressed each incident as it occurred, you are really just recapping. You can and should note if you see a pattern of genuine improvement or a pattern of engaging in the halo effect before each review. Similarly, there might be a horn effect going on, where some negative event happens just before the review. This too should not be allowed to color the review.

To an extent, it is human nature to try to engage in halo effect behaviors. People in general want to be liked. If I present myself as friendly, competent, and well meaning, you might give me the benefit of the doubt. People also naturally want to play up their good traits and play down their bad traits. Again, this isn’t deception; this is human nature.

The job of the reviewer is to look at the time period as a whole. Containing your emotional response does not mean losing empathy or compassion. They are also on the scale. But it does mean giving context to the each incident. The halo effect is less of an issue when incidences are addressed quickly as they happen. The review is indeed a review. No new things should be sprung in a review.

The halo effect also occurs in one time only events, like judging. There are two issues to be aware of. One is simply a coloration of the person/object/performance based on who it is. “Master So-and-So always has his stuff together. I am sure this one is very good.” This is the classic halo effect. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. He has to prove it just like anyone else. The other issue is a tendency to evaluate the work in front of you compared to another work. For some competitions, this is what is expected and should be done. But for many, you are judging the object on its own merits, not compared to someone else’s entry or even other entries by the same person. Avoid such comparisons if at all possible. “The stitching wasn’t as good as this other one” Did it meet the criteria? If yes, then it gets scored appropriately.

While dealing with the halo effect feels like it should be cold and emotionless, it doesn’t have to be. The feedback should still be relatable and sincere. Knowing about the halo effect in all of its incarnations is a tool to help ensure your feedback actually is sincere; you are giving feedback about what is actually in front of you, not based on your preconceived notions of who made it or when the incident happened.

More in this series
Feedback and Leadership- Part 1
Feedback – The Sandwich Method – Part 2
Feedback – Being S.M.A.R.T – Part 3
Feedback- Getting the Most out of A&S – Part 5
Feedback – Miscellany & Conclusions – Part 6

Leadership, Uncategorized

Feedback – Being S.M.A.R.T – Part 3

In Part 1, I talked about me and how people need to want your feedback. In Part 2, I talked about the sandwich method and that feedback needs to focus on substance, not form. Let’s move on to what that substance looks like.

In the Human Resources world, feedback and goals are related. Goals are the way that feedback moves forward. If there is feedback given about a performance issue, there is likely a goal on how to improve it. If there is feedback on something you do well, there is often a goal to develop that further. A common way to write goals is the SMART method. You can read more about in the link and a google search will get you dozens of articles on it.

I am going to borrow the acronym and change the words a bit but it is still applicable. Feedback should be Sincere, Meaningful, Actionable, Relatable, and Timely.

I alluded to some of the problems with the sandwich method. Because most people aren’t skilled at giving feedback, the praise or the criticism can seem forced. I mentioned how there was a study that the employees actually just wanted the criticism straight up. Or as I sometimes say, “it turns out that people can sense BS.” The solution is for your feedback to be sincere.


If you like something or think it was well-done, say so and mean it. If you didn’t like something or think that it could have been done better, say so and mean it. A word of caution though. Being direct is not the same as being harsh, cruel, or a jerk. The letters M and R will help with that later.

When you are sincere, your body language will automatically match your words as well. A disconnect between body language and words is the biggest indication of BS.

Sometimes we are too soft in our language and that isn’t sincere either.

But it is okay to say, “I really liked the use of color in this piece,” or to say “I see where you dropped some stitches”

For those who get in trouble with directness, with let’s say extreme sincerity, the problem is that sincerity isn’t enough for good feedback. It is the root of good feedback but there are more parts.


Feedback needs to be meaningful. Meaningful to whom? That is the question.

The feedback needs to be meaningful to the receiver. To know that requires conversation. Ask what the person is looking for. What is important to them? Assume this is a display situation or the Midrealm Tournament of Art. Actively listen to the person. What are they aware of? What do they seem to want to know about? What area do they seem to have trouble with? That is what feedback they are after.

We can expand this too. Let’s imagine an A&S Faire situation where there is criteria. By nature of the event, there will be feedback on many pieces of the object. You as the judge must provide feedback on what does the documentation look like, how is the writing, how are the choices of sources, etc. It is still worth a conversion about whatever it is the presenter cares about. They probably also want the feedback on the other things but you can provide what they truly want.

Similarly in a job/performance review situation. There are some pieces of feedback you have to give. They might already know very well about the mistake they made. You have to bring it up for the formal review. But you can also have a deeper conversation. Did they lack the skills to make a good decision in that circumstance and want them? That can be the meaningful feedback. Did they want to grow in another area?


It is often part of the meaningful feedback but the feedback also has to be actionable. What does that mean? It has to be something that actually can be done by the person. That is important.

Again, you need to have a conversation. What can this person do? What options do they have access to? This is where feedback and leadership can intersect. Leaders often are able to direct towards or give access to resources. Part of your feedback might be “if you could have used this material, which you can find here and here” that is actionable. You have given the recipient something they actually can use.

Feedback which is not actionable is not meaningful. “If you only had access to 1 ton of gold, you could do this.” The person can’t have that kind of access and therefore can’t enact your feedback.

Let me give an example given to me by a friend.  This friend does Commedia and they asked a Performing Arts Laurel for feedback.  The feedback given was “clearly, you’re under rehearsed.”  This feedback is not meaningful.  What was missing?  As my friend relates it, as a long distance Commedia group, they will always hurt for rehearsal time.  What should they rehearse?  What didn’t work? The feedback didn’t give any indication on what was the actual problem?  It could have been a lack of chemistry between two actors.  Or one of the actors had timing issues.  Or one of the actors didn’t feel confident.  Or almost anything.   The feedback wasn’t really actionable either.  This is a long distance group.  For all any of us know, they are rehearsing as much as is possible.  They can’t rehearse more.

If you are going to give feedback, talk to the person and find out what they have done, what they can do, and where their challenges are.


Good feedback, especially if it is negative, is relatable to the recipient. Relatability is a useful tool to help make negative feedback palatable. I am using this a synonym for empathetic.

In an art situation, if you are providing feedback, you are likely in a position of authority of some kind. You are the judge handing out points. You are the expert offering clues to the next step. You are the confidant offering incentive to keep going. The other person is vulnerable in showing you their art and asking you for your feedback.

But the performance had technical flaws. Or the object shows evidence of bad technique. It could be anything. By making your feedback relatable, you show that with work, the recipient can overcome the problem and achieve your level. That offers hope, even in the face of large amounts of criticism.

Let’s try this example. ” Your pronunciation of the German in Bach’s Gott mein Herz dir Dank is offputting. It really took me out of the moment. I suggest you look at finding a German tutor to help you. Here are a few sources” It has all of the letters so far. It is sincere. It is meaningful. It is actionable.

Verses this. “Your pronunciation of the German in Bach’s Gott mein Herz dir Dank is offputting. It really took me out of the moment. I remember the first time I sung that piece and I too really struggled with the German. I suggest you look at finding a German tutor to help you. Here are a few sources.”

Instead of “here is your problem and here is your solution”, the second option offers compassion, even with the criticism. All with one sentence. The recipient sees more than “I screwed that up,” and goes “okay, it is not just me. Others had trouble with this and overcame it.”

The relatability doesn’t have to necessarily be in the same area. By the time you are in a position to give feedback, you will have shared life experiences.

Even with performance issues this can be used. Bosses aren’t perfect and mistakes don’t necessarily mean immediate termination (there are few things that will). There is no need to project perfection. Relatable feedback shows that even with negative feedback, there is a way forward.


Feedback should also be timely. It should occur close to the when the event happened.

In a judging situation, this is pretty much automatic. The performance, object, or person is right in front of you. In job/performance review situations, this is more relevant.

Oftentimes, bosses don’t want to be seen as “bad guys.” There is a temptation to let a bad behavior slide. “Maybe it won’t be a habit.” Or “surely they know this is a problem.” It is better to address the problem sooner rather than later. It helps head off confusion later. “You never told me I shouldn’t do that.” It keeps the incident fresh in your mind.

It also applies to positive feedback. Positive feedback should also occur very close in time to the event that is being praised. It reinforces that what you are seeing or just saw is what you want to continue to see.

When doing periodic reviews, the maxim is there should be no surprises. You have already given feedback, positive and negative, at the time of the incidents; you are just recapping what has happened over that period of time.

If you are periodically reviewing some in the SCA, perhaps a dependent or someone’s growth as an artist, the timeliness becomes more important. Give your feedback at each incident, document it, then refer to those documents at that periodic review to show change over time.

With SMART feedback, the form doesn’t matter. It can be a sandwich. It can be part of a natural conversation. It can be isolated comments. It is the substance that matters. If you only have one item of feedback, because that is all you have or perhaps that is all the recipient wants, SMART covers your bases. The feedback will be sincere, meaningful, actionable, relatable, and timely. All of that can be accomplished in a few sentences or several paragraphs depending on your style.

More in this series
Feedback and Leadership- Part 1
Feedback – The Sandwich Method – Part 2
Feedback – The Halo Effect – Part 4
Feedback- Getting the Most out of A&S – Part 5
Feedback – Miscellany & Conclusions – Part 6


Feedback – The sandwich method – Part 2

Time to talk about the sacred cow of feedback – the sandwich method.

Just so you know it is not just my opinion, here are some references. This list is not exhaustive.






There are more. As I said in Part 1, Human Kinetics is different than many companies in that we make products designed to improve how people communicate and interact. We look at our own internal processes regularly. Using research, I was able to persuade my company to change how it did performance reviews, which include how to give feedback. We adopted the method that Adobe uses and removed the feedback sandwich as well. Such a change required proof and diligence. The change came because the new way was better.

For those who don’t know, the sandwich method is basically “say a positive thing, say a negative thing, say another positive thing.” It is sometimes also called the compliment sandwich, or the hamburger method. It is a fine method IF you are skilled at it AND the person you are using it with wants the feedback that way.

Reasons to use the sandwich method are:

  • May ease the sting of hearing difficult comments
  • Encourages specificity in the feedback process
  • Allows employees to increase their receptiveness to criticism
  • Enables meetings to end on a positive note
  • Can be useful for managers who find it difficult to engage in criticism

So what is the problem then? There are two major ones.

Most people aren’t good at eating these sandwiches. What am I talking about? A standard method of getting your dog to take the medicine is to hide it peanut butter. Since your dog likes the peanut butter, it doesn’t notice the medicine. That is the problem, it is too easy to pass up the “criticism” part since it is buried in the praise. Another problem illustrated by the dog-medicine analogy is that sooner or later, the dog starts associating peanut butter with the medicine. Same with people and the sandwich method, sooner or later, the moment you offer praise, the recipient starts to wonder what the bad news is.

Or to borrow from these articles

  • Including positives may undermine the criticism involved, thus rendering that criticism ineffective
  • The method trains employees to distrust praise, as they will begin to anticipate the criticism that comes along with it
  • The method detracts from praise when it is truly due
  • The method may serve more as a crutch for managers who struggle with giving feedback rather than as a tool for helping employees improve
  • It may give employees a diluted or inaccurate understanding of their work performance and what changes are required of them

According to the first study, managers liked using the sandwich method because they felt less like the bad guy. But the employees actually wanted the criticism straight up without the praise!

The second problem is implicit in the first, not only are people bad at eating them, they are bad at making them. It is too easy to make a bad sandwich. The praise can be too little, the criticism too harsh. Or the opposite, the praise is too much and criticism is too little.

Now this is in the business world where you are normally giving and getting feedback from the same people, often on a fixed, periodic basis. Why not the sandwich method as a one-time, or special circumstance?

The main plus to the sandwich method is that it is easy to teach, in theory. Just find two things to praise and one for the person to work on and you are golden. It assumes people are good at identifying items to give feedback on, good at constructing feedback, and good at relating that feedback.

For the SCA, it is often the desire to make the other person comfortable that we use it. Like the study above referenced, we don’t want to be seen as the bad guy. Because the entrant KNOWS the bad news is coming, the praise feels fake. Add to the fact that we are often judging something we know little about, how can we make a good sandwich? We praise that which is trivial and criticize that which is next to impossible. Then we have to come up with a second item to praise!

Lastly, the sandwich method is formulaic. What if I only have 1 item of feedback? What about 5? Can I make a dagwood sandwich (two praises but tons of other stuff in between)? Do I make a club sandwich (praise/criticism/praise/criticism/praise)?

The natural response is to get better, to just train people better at feedback. I agree with that. Again, there are problems. There is no requirement that people get training. There is no budget, no mandate, no way to force this training to happen. Good feedback can come in a variety of forms, some just as easy as the sandwich method. Many are more natural to use than the sandwich method. In the SCA, we seem to insist on the form, because it is easy to teach, rather than the substance, which is easier to use by both parties. While not a formal survey by any means, my canvassing and my experience is that people want the substance. Digging through the form to get it is not helpful.

I am not suggesting that everyone stop using this. I am suggesting we stop recommending it as the default method. If you are skilled at using it and your audience wants it, do it. That is one tool.

As I said in part 1, there are no binary answers here. What works is sincere, actionable, and meaningful feedback. That can take a variety of forms. It means more listening, less judgementalism. It means the person giving feedback needs to be an active learner in this situation. You probably don’t know much about the thing to be judged. Listen, learn, ask questions, figure out what this person needs, and deliver if you can. It works for performance issues in business as well. Be sincere, provide feedback that can be done, and will be meaningful to the situation. Again, this isn’t easy.

More in this series
Feedback and Leadership- Part 1
Feedback – Being S.M.A.R.T – Part 3
Feedback – The Halo Effect – Part 4
Feedback- Getting the Most out of A&S – Part 5
Feedback – Miscellany & Conclusions – Part 6


Feedback and Leadership – Part 1

Every living thing processes feedback constantly. Reactions to its environment, where is food, where is safety, is that a threat? As social animals, our feedback is more complex. Not only do we have biological feedback but we have a ton of social feedback to process. We are constantly scanning body language, verbal cues, written statements, olfactory senses, and more to decide how to react to another person. And we are constantly offering feedback through these same means to other people.

The process of formally giving feedback is hard. How do you overrule your unconscious feedback? What do I say? How do I say it? How will the other person(s) take it? Anyone who tells you it is easy is wrong. That is one of the few absolutes I will use in this series. It takes training and time to become good at giving feedback. Feedback is also something you have to reinforce and constantly earn the right to give. Humans are not simple.

Why should you listen to me?

Who the heck am I that I know anything about this? I have been a middle manager at my work place for 15+ years. I work at Human Kinetics (HK), Inc, a sports, health, fitness, and coaching publisher. HK has been around for over 45 years at this point and was founded by a man whose main mission was to improve coaching. Coaching IS leadership and leadership demands feedback. As a manager, I have quarterly, 1-hour trainings on how to be a good manager that includes how to evaluate and give feedback to my staff. As a publisher of books designed to educate coaches on how to do the same things, whether they are coaching a little league/park district team or coaching professional athletes, HK has many resources on how to be a good coach. Much of our management philosophy is influenced by these books.

I have over 90 hours of management training and access to materials that help professional coaches manage professional athletes. Am I an expert? No. Do I get paid millions of dollars to advise Fortune 100 companies how to manage employees? No. But I have more training than many and due to my employer and their vision, a different viewpoint than many in the business world.

In this series, I am going to explore feedback and give you tools to improve yours. Tools, not answers. There are no simple binary answers here. We are dealing with people. What works in one situation won’t in another. Strategies evolve over time. What works with one person won’t with another. I told you there are very few absolutes. You get a toolbox to help you find the right tool for the right job.

The 0th rule of feedback

I am not aware that feedback has enumerated rules. But if it did, the 0th rule would be “Feedback only matters if the other person wants it.”

For any feedback to be meaningful at all, the person must be willing to listen to it. Otherwise, you are just talking to yourself. Reasons why someone may not want to listen to feedback are: they don’t like you; they don’t respect you; they feel they already know the answer; they are uncomfortable; and more along those lines.

This is the first thing you need to do when giving feedback is making sure the other person wants it. In some situations, the consent is implied. If they want to keep working for you, they can either listen to your feedback, act on it, or leave the job. If they enter a competition that will have feedback, it is assumed they want feedback. But they may not want feedback from you.

Like an performance, you need to know your audience. Do they want feedback? Do they want it in the form you are going to give it? Do they want it from you? Bobby Knight tactics may not be the best choice for a group of 5 year olds playing soccer for the first time. Spend some time getting to know who you are giving feedback to.

Likewise, identify the goal of the feedback. What are they needing/wanting to hear? What is your goal in providing the feedback? This blog is heavily SCA focused so I will use SCA examples.

A common SCA story is the unsolicited feedback. A new person comes to an event and is confronted by someone who offers feedback. “Your clothing should be this way”, “that isn’t a period technique”, etc. At best, the new person ignores the feedback. They didn’t want the input. At worst, the new person runs off never to be involved with the SCA again. You can break down any activity in the SCA that way. The first A&S competition, the first time in armor, whatever.

Spend a few moments finding out about the person, why they are there, whether they even want your opinion. “My friend wanted me to come. I just borrowed this from someone else.” No need to give feedback. Or perhaps after that initial icebreaker, they may want to hear “would you like some advice on that?”

That is your first tip then: “feedback only matters if the other person wants it.” Know who you are giving feedback to, figure out how to approach the situation so they want to receive it, and know the goals of the parties involved.

Coming soon:
Feedback – The Sandwich Method – Part 2
Feedback – Being S.M.A.R.T – Part 3
Feedback – The Halo Effect – Part 4
Feedback- Getting the Most out of A&S – Part 5
Feedback – Miscellany & Conclusions – Part 6