What feedback has taught me about the other

Add caption

Being an Executive Coach, I use a lot of feedback to help Client discover facets of herself: feedback is received from Peers, Family, her manager, a wider network and direct reports. In addition, I have used psychometric tools, my favourite being Hogan and EUM.

Is feedback about the Client only?

Every frame of reference is from within. In the ultimate analysis, our brains are wired for that which rewards or that which punishes: the pleasure seeking impulse drives our action (See David Rock’s work). Buddha asked us to observe our own thoughts: that which we found ourselves ‘attracted to’ or those we were ‘repulsed’ from. In short, liking or disliking is fundamental to our nature. True bliss lies in equanimity.

If then every frame of reference is personal to the observer, then as J. Krishnamurthy, avers, the observer is the observed itself. We describe others with filters, around lenses we ‘like’ or ‘dislike’. Someone would appear confident or cocky, someone slow and deliberate, while others may view this as tentative and unsure. There is no ultimate reality: only facets of that reality.

Through years of receiving feedback or working with people giving feedback I have learnt, that when one gives feedback to another, one is also providing feedback on the feedback giver itself. It points out to his/ her valuation process. What is it that the feedback values most: in its presence and in its absence.

Reflect back on feedback you received from your boss for instance or a critical stakeholder. Do you recognise that much of the feedback is from his/her lens of what is important for them to see more of/less of. We all have a perceptual canvas, from which we see. Or when you provide feedback to your direct report are you not sharing what matters to you most. Don’t get me wrong: the feedback is about YOU, but it does reveal the interface that would now be required to improve the quality of engagement. Once you recognise this phenomena, you will be able to understand people much better around you. And to cater to their specific needs to improve that engagement.

Feedback is then more about knowing others, rather than just knowing about you. In every comment, there is the said, then the unsaid, and the edited. Are you aware of all three? To every question you are asked, the questioner has already a favoured answer: are you aware of what that is.

Feedback is from expectation from the other: either met or unmet. Expectations always fall short. As long as there is expectation disappointment will follow. As truly, as how Sunrise follows Sunset. Feedback comes from a notion, a phantasy, an imagined. It is only with acceptance that expectations drop. Feedback is about, what is it, that I want to see as an image that I agree with, expect. And from you. Drop expectation, Accept.

Right from birth, we have received feedback, most of it, non-verbally. From the way we were picked up at birth, held, offered gifts and responded to. We unconsciously picked these cues and adhered. What we are, seemed not to matter: what mattered is what was acceptable in us. That lesson we learnt quickly and since then we have adapted. And we have been adapting ever since.

We have learnt to distrust: the advice, ‘Be Yourself.’ Instead, we have created a persona: a special mask for each occasion. Think about this the next time you receive or give feedback: Who is it about?

Does this resonate with your own experience? Do comment, even with a few words.

Leadership Hubris

Hubris (in Greek tragedy) refers to excessive pride or defiance of the Gods leading to nemesis. This fatal flaw, or an error in action (Hamartia) leads to the downfall of the protagonist. For example, Oedipus’s Hamartia is pride, hastiness and anger leading him to make unfortunate misjudgements. For Macbeth, it was his pride and greed. For Richard II, it is his irresoluteness, unwillingness to confront the changing situations. For King Lear it is his inability to strike a balance between his volatile temperament and arrogance. Hamlet’s faltering judgment and Othello’s jealousy. This Hamartia is built into the Hero’s character, even as he has many virtues.  The right type of the tragic hero, according to Aristotle, exists between these extremes, a person who is neither perfect in virtue and justice, nor one who falls into misfortune through vice and depravity, but by some error or frailty (Hamartia) Unlike, a villainous person, his downfall, does not arouse either pity or fear. Hamartia in its broadened context include: Chance, accident, circumstances, and the craftiness of others. Hamartia is not just a flaw in character; but an entire gamut of tragic happenings.

On one hand there are several instances of corporate scams and shenanigans that have led to the downfall of many Corporate Leaders, some who have  served time in prison, and some under who investigation is in progress. Some have fled the country to escape retribution. They hardly arouse pity or fear, although at one point they led ‘king size’ lives, were celebrities and walked proudly in the corridors of power.

In Indian tradition, the role of a leader is to be a Rajshri, a combination of king and a Rishi. When he serves his duty zealously, but forgets to be inclusive and all embracing, he is potentially, exposing his personal Hamartia, with hubris bound to follow leading to nemesis.

I will stop here. Are you able to spot Corporate leaders with Hamartia?

Why the Study of Humans is different?

I have spent over 30 years in the field of HR and involved with Human Process workshops over 20 years. Herein are my reflections on distinctive nature of the function and extended to humans in general.



Unlike most functions, HR does not have a unified coded theory that allows guidance to what one needs to do when influencing and impacting people. It borrows eclectically from many fields: Psychology, Sociology and also from sciences: Maths, Finance (black scholes for ESOP’s) Industrial Engineering, Neuroscience (incentives for manufacturing), etc. It does have a set of rules around compensation benchmarking, and principles around OD designs and learning interventions, but at broad principle levels only.

Not that I am saying, this is a setback. Not at all. It is for this reason that it is fascinating.

Unlike Science which is causal and can be verified by experiments, people practice is different: it is an Art, in service of Business and a Craft – one needs to learn the ABC’s.If you read, 7-8 chapters of any text book, the subsequent chapters become easier. That’s because once a good foundation has been established, subsequent chapters become easier to follow and relate to.

In HR, or to be more broader, in the study of human process, subsequent studies gets even more complex, more astounding, even bewildering at times. In behavioural science as you go deeper, newer insights emerge. I am amused when some amateur Leader remarks, “people are simple: either this or that, or to be seen, by this X axis and that Y axis, as if one or other quadrant make up the entire world. Even worriedly, when someone says, ‘I am an ENTJ (MBTI Type) and he is and ISFP, etc. Interestingly, some even use MBTI as a basis to hire people, the ultimate abomination of ignorance.

Models are akin to maps. The map is not the territory. The maps can be a mere sketch or highly detailed, and as you go deeper, the embellishment is awesome in what unfolds, as if every texture, tone, dimension and element unfold to the keen eye. Almost like Dhyana (full concentration) and Dharana (contemplation) when they come together provides for a wider perspective. In a highly structured analytical world, demand is placed on causality: do this, and the expected phenomena is observed. Every effect has a cause. Not so with human beings, who do not respond to causality. Science is great for interrogation of the material world, but not for the inner world of discovery.

Human behaviour is a function F (I, C), where behaviour is a function of the identity and Self in the location or role. The interaction of these four create multiple forces that enable creative forces, or which leads to mortgage. Identity and its movement, through ‘being and becoming’ is the play of the private self and the public self, while location and roles offers resonance and dissonance and often normativeness around role taking, prescribed by self (thru self injunctions) or by community (a kind of Social Mirror).

As a result no two individuals feel alike, think or act alike. Yet, at the gestalt of all evocations, one sees an array of similar emotions: love, disgust, joy, but the tone, notes, and context, and intensity varies. For example, a woman who discovers her husband is having an affair may not necessarily respond with the expected “ feeling betrayed”, as a large segment would obviously do. A plethora of possible responses can also exist:
Good for him, off my back.
I’ll do the same and get my revenge
That poor thing (referring to the new girlfriend)
I could not care. I like the comfort I am in, so it’s cool

And so on….

The point is, there is no causality: were it so, it would be a science. It would be predictable, made repeatable and lend itself to correlates of validity and reliability quantification.

Another interesting dimension of the world of Human Process study is that learning happens when the events happen: there is no prefix or suffix. The prefix or preface does not accurately reflect the phenomena ahead, nor can the suffix, be the real experience of the event. At best it would be a ‘remembered memory’ not the ‘experienced memory’. Daniel Kahneman, writes quite a bit on this for those interested. All we can recall is the remembered memory, and not the actual experience itself.

Learning takes place within the gestalt of the phenomena. The micro, macro and alter ego looms largely and ever present, exorcising its will over the event. This is the psychodrama, often exaggerated by the ‘shadow’ of the protagonist.

At a phenomenological level multiple substratum’s emerge: initially defined as a problem (eg ‘I am stressed’), seen at the interpersonal level “I have a problem with my boss’), then reflectively, emerges the intra-personal level of self-introjects (‘I can see a pattern of my behaviour as to how I respond to authority’), introjections , splits and projection, of transference and counter transference.

At a intra psychic level (both a sum of personal and collective unconscious), one comes to gain insight of one’s own perceptual filters, and sees the canvas in quite a different way: the observed is the observer himself. Else, there is no observation.

Even deeper is the intra-existential level, the Atmic self; the ‘Brahmi Sthithi’, the true intelligence of the self that sees beyond the absorptive nature of the senses, that is beyond attachment, desire, anger, bewilderment and ignorance and wherein misery awakens. (refer Bhagwad Gita for more on this). Thus, there are multiple depths of exploration.

No two individuals are alike: there is no comparison possible: no better or worse. Each is unique, so how do you compare two unique things – on what parameters? The choice of the criteria’s itself is subjective bias: that is the fallacy. Yet we are always comparing, contrasting, role modelling, aligning with….

No wonder Socrates said, ALL I KNOW IS THAT I KNOW NOTHING.

Please join in and Comment

Quo Vadis?

What is common to humans with other living creatures?

We are common in that we have a desire to Express and Relate. What distinguishes us significantly from most primates is that we have a well-developed neo-cortex, that allows us to reflect ‘back’, and imagine our world Forward, envisioning our future, our possibilities. With this ability for self-reflexivity and imagination, we cannot just see ‘objects’ out there, but we can work with abstractions, imagined worlds, and imagined ideas.

We have compelled our environment to bend before the power of our minds: the discovery and use of fire, the wheel, the steam engine, printing press, the logic of digital ‘0 and 1’ to further AI, neural networks. We see further, and mysteries bend before our persistent gaze. We now have the capacity to explain our world in mathematical equations that would not take even two pages. This has made us proud.

We live in an age of compelling ‘ideas’ which has gripped our imagination. We have found ways to connect and engage with our ideas. We have discovered ways to connect both with ‘head and heart’ and even join in ‘concerted action’.

The future will allow us to take even further leaps: to co-create on ideas, and to combine thinking, feeling and action. If I know what you are thinking, feeling and modes of acting and you know mine, it would be possible to ‘connect us two’ – to create a third force. I am intrigued that married couples after decades of marriage almost seem to ‘think, feel and act’ almost alike, a kind of synchronicity, if you like. Neuro scientist have already discovered that we have empathy ‘mirror neurons’  that help us stay connected with each other. Despite all the selectively ‘violent’ reports we hear on media of looting, arson, riots, during a crisis, the fact is that humans are primed to act with reciprocity (Caldini / Peter Bloom) and we have a moral and ethical mental structure that allows us to help out each other. In other words, we are a ‘relational and connected world’ and we wish to find commune, both physically and in terms of well-being. Like hedgehogs on a cold wintry night, we huddle for ‘touch’ yet when we come two close get hurt with the ‘spines’ and keep a ‘safe distance’ as well. Our world vacillates between Existential Aloneness and Existential Connectedness.The first step would lie in our evolving to 'CyberHumans'.

We wish to be distinctive from the other, but when we do, we end up comparing: failing to realise, we are unique – that there is no one like us. The world then becomes an Arena and a means to demonstrate our prowess. When we live in communes, we feel stifled and restless, and find the commune suppressing, and we wish to break out – find our freedom. This pendulum swing back and forth – to be a part of and be apart, is characteristic of our times.  

Yesterday, in my article ‘What lies beneath’ I referred to collective unconscious. We are in the age of what Fromm would describe as Social Character, which is Collective Consciousness.  In another article, a day earlier, I referred to ‘East meeting West’ as it is now at a point, when from both sides one discovers – the unknown and starts to grasp at the possibility, that somethings will be unknowable.  

These COVID times have reminded us, that we were the VIRUS that was spreading, destroying our planet. It was nature’s way of resetting the balance.  For many, who have not lost themselves in ‘planned and unplanned zoom calls, webinars’, the uncertainty has allowed us the time and space to reflect on our lives, our livelihood, our relationships, and what is the real source of our joy.  

I aver from our current world of globalisation, the inevitable next step would be polarisation (building firewalls around roles and boundaries for ourselves, however, in some form slowed down, yet on the other hand enabled by digitalisation), leading to alliances for mutual performance and achievement. From there to ‘connecting with meaningfulness and shared intimacy. From there a leap….into holding simultaneity and  multiplicity, but that is for another post.

I  wholeheartedly welcome your comments. Please do join me.