A
while back, I collaborated
on a project to produce a document suitable for public dissemination.
I
noticed that when collaborators sent back edits and improvements to
the draft's author, each received a comment like: 'Awesome Changes!',
or 'This will really make our document Awesome!', or 'The new
formatting is Totally Awesome!'.
In
reality, the changes did make the document incrementally better, but
this exchange made me think about the non-communication that has
developed from the over use of laudatory remarks for non-laudatory
work.
This
feedback to the originator is analogous to giving a trophy to
everyone on the team, regardless of their contribution or skill level
– it's a cheap 'feelgood' for showing up but does nothing to help
the player (collaborator) improve their output. If a slap-dash
revision is greeted with the same accolade as a masterwork
improvement, what does the collaborator learn about their
contribution?
Valid
feedback is a precious gift from the giver because it shares an
engaged point of view. The remark 'thanks, that clarified the point'
provides value, as does 'thanks for the edit, but I did not see much
improvement over the original wording'. How does Awesome convey
either message? Any message?
I
certainly hope you feel this post was Awesome, and will comment
appropriately.
All
Around the Town - Sales Lab Presentations
