Wrongfully Reinterpreting or Reframing the Right Feedback Can Lead to Failure
In the dynamic theater of organizational operations, the exchange of ideas and information stands as the backbone of success and innovation. However, there lurks a silent saboteur in the form of complacency, particularly in how we receive and process feedback that challenges our competence and intentions. This blog post delves into a scenario that, while fictional, mirrors a pervasive issue across all industries—the wrongful dismissal of the critically right feedback, leading to organizational failures.
The Scenario: Ignorance Is Not Bliss
Imagine being in a meeting where a team member courageously points out a flaw in your approach, suggesting that it borders on incompetence or, at worse, fraud. Instead of probing further into this unsettling revelation, you opt to don the stoic mask, reframing the critique to diminish its impact. You tell yourself, “This critique is more about their perspective than my actions.” This self-justification allows you to continue down your chosen path, blatantly ignoring the red flags raised by your colleague.
Fast forward two years, and the fragile edifice you’ve constructed comes crashing down. The warning you dismissed has now been recognized by the wider scientific or professional community as valid, leaving you to grapple with the consequences of your inaction.
Now, compare this scenario with Amy Edmondson’s advice for addressing unwanted feedback.
How many company executives in Kodak, Nokia, and Blockbuster thought like this when they heard the unwanted feedback? Failing to even “check” as Amy actually recommends:
Amy Edmondson’s Recommendation on Reframing Unwanted Feedback:
“Someone says something in a meeting that you instantly interpret as an insult to you or as a threat to you in some way. Another moment; that’s another opportunity where you pause, breath, and think, “wait a minute my interpreted…I took that to mean XYZ. Is there another possible interpretation to that remark?”
The answer is almost surely yes, especially if you are creative, you can come up with something else and usually that something else is more benign than your first instinct. I could choose…I could go check, but I just choose to think that they weren’t actually out to get me you, they were thinking about something else or frustrated about something, ‘It was about you not me’.“
The Root of the Problem: Complacent Listening
At the heart of this scenario is a behavior known as complacent listening—a form of listening where the receiver, due to overconfidence, prejudice, or simply a desire to avoid conflict, fails to engage with or critically assess the information being shared. This behavior isn’t just about ignoring advice; it’s a deeper, more insidious issue that involves reinterpreting, downplaying or “reframing” information to fit one’s existing worldview or narrative.
The Impact: A Cascade of Failure
The consequences of such complacency are far-reaching. In the short term, it may preserve the illusion of harmony and competence. However, the long-term effects are invariably detrimental. Projects may proceed based on flawed assumptions, resources may be wasted on untenable initiatives, and, perhaps most critically, the organization’s ability to innovate and adapt is severely compromised. The warning signs were there, but they were ignored or misinterpreted out of a misplaced sense of self-preservation or denial.
A Prevalent Issue Across Industries
This phenomenon is not confined to any single industry. From technology startups to healthcare, finance, and scientific research, the failure to listen and act upon challenging feedback is a universal issue. It stems from a culture that values conformity and certainty over questioning and exploration. This culture fosters an environment where critical feedback is viewed as a threat rather than an opportunity for growth and improvement.
The Cause: “Cultivating a Culture of Niceness”
The supposed remedy to this originally pervasive issue was supposed to lie in cultivating a culture of openness and psychological safety, but in this instance led to misinformation and where team members feel disempowered due to this form of complacent listening, “reframing” and dismissing of their warning, in the guise of keeping the peace or saving face.
In conclusion, the scenario outlined above serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of complacent listening and the wrongful dismissal of critically right feedback. It underscores the need for organizations to embrace an atmosphere more open, inquisitive, and responsive to potentially unwanted communication and feedback.
One where teams can evaluate and validate the fairness or voracity of the information being shared. Only by doing so can they avoid the pitfalls of the “wronged kind of right” and pave the way for genuine progress, change of tact and success.
Object123 
Leave a comment