Why It Is OK to "RANT" during Feedback and Insight Sharing
The other week I shared a quick update that simply read "insight should be actionable". Later that night, it came back to my mind, but felt incomplete. Because I remember best when I use a mnemonic acronym or phrase, I came up with what key points that insight should contain before I want to deliver or receive it.
To help me put feedback and insight into perspective, I need to "RANT".
Relevant: Right off the bat, if the insight is not relevant to the task or goal, then is this the correct time to bring it up? I was very fortunate to work with extremely talented individuals in the L&D field while I was cutting my teeth, and I remember it being hammered home to not “lose the forest for the trees”. Are we getting too caught up in minutia that we lose the sight of our actual goal? This is not to say we should rush work or fail to proof work- this is a necessary step before release for managerial approval or to the public. Instead, is the feedback or insight moving us toward our end goal?
Actionable: Effective feedback and insight of any sort should lead to a “call to action”. Questions are great, and challenging the current situation, even with seemingly outlandish ideas, helps push innovation. These tools are best used during the brainstorming phase of a project when all options are on the table. Once we are in the iterative phase of development, insight is most precious when it can be implemented into the process. Insight that is not actionable simply creates frustration.
Necessary: If our insight is relevant, and our insight is actionable- the next step is to determine whether our insight is necessary. Will the fact that we are sharing this help the process, or are we just looking to get in a “final word” or “play Devil’s Advocate*”? What will this feedback accomplish?
Timely: What good is feedback or insight if it comes at the wrong time? Usually, untimely feedback is delivered too late to make a difference. Think about your company review process. Do managers deliver feedback immediately when it is still top-of-mind, relevant, and actionable? Or do they wait until a quarterly, semi-annual, or yearly review? Waiting too long runs many risks- from not giving others an opportunity to implement guidance at the right time, to completely forgetting about the insight by the time reviews roll around.
Looking back at my career and personal life, I have found that when I took the time to think through this progression, my feedback was more readily accepted and implemented. Additionally, when I received insight that met these criteria, I was more likely to incorporate it without feeling defensive of my project and the work I had already put into it.
What type of "filter" do you run your insight/feedback through?
*Devil’s Advocate is a great tool, but that person should have the actual position they are advocating- otherwise the activity can go off the rails or be resolved too quickly without the necessary insights from healthy conflict.
