|
On Friday, I’m delivering a workshop for leaders on giving and receiving feedback: Feedback and Empathic Communication. As I prepare, I’ve been reflecting on how we offer feedback, how we receive it, and what often gets in the way. It has been my experience that people naturally default to a self-focused perspective. We tend to think first about our own needs, intentions, and experiences. At the same time, we also have the capacity for empathy and the ability to be fully present with others. But empathy usually requires intention. It asks us to pause our internal narrative long enough to truly consider someone else’s experience. The opposite extreme can be just as unhelpful. Becoming entirely other-focused can sometimes look caring on the surface, but it may also become a form of avoidance—where one person disappears. Healthy communication makes room for both people. Even in professions built on neutrality, such as mediation, we do not stop being human. Humans bring emotions, judgments, ideas, and lived experience into every interaction. Today, I attended a networking event as a guest and decided to be honest about one of my reasons for being there: I wanted feedback. To my delight, I received thoughtful, constructive ideas about how to put some of my own concepts into practice. What a gift. That is the heart of this message: when someone takes the time to give you feedback, they are offering you something valuable. The feedback may not be polished. It may not be delivered exactly how you would prefer. It may even challenge the identity you hold about yourself. But feedback is often a window into how others experience your behavior. This does not mean you must automatically accept or agree with everything you hear. But when feedback comes from someone you trust—or from someone who has nothing to gain or lose by telling you the truth—it is worth considering. If it lands poorly, sit with it before reacting. Thank the person for sharing it. Let them know you heard them. Then reflect with a growth mindset. If you regularly ask for feedback and hear only praise, it may be time to widen your circle or create more psychological safety for honest responses. Many years ago, I was a member of Toastmasters International. As I progressed through the program, constructive feedback became increasingly valuable to me. When I stopped receiving it, I felt my growth stall. Although the Evaluator role is built into the experience, I realized how uncomfortable many of us are with offering difficult feedback. We often prioritize being “nice” and preserving relationships, forgetting that honest feedback can strengthen both. I am under no illusion that feedback is easy. It can be uncomfortable to give and difficult to receive. But like any skill, we improve through practice. Practice builds confidence, deepens authenticity, and supports stronger relationships. Take time to listen with curiosity—especially when the feedback you receive contradicts how you see yourself. 
0 Comments
Why Doing More Often Means Less One day, when my kids were young, we were at a fast-food restaurant ordering our meal. The cashier was clearly not giving us his full attention and even mentioned that he was “good at multitasking.” When the food arrived—and it wasn’t what we had ordered—it became obvious that he was not, in fact, good at multitasking. To this day, it remains a family joke and a gentle reminder whenever one of us is not fully present with the other. Why do we multitask, and why do we believe we are good at it? An NPR article titled "Want to lighten your mental load? First, let go of these gender myths", challenges the common belief that some people are naturally better at multitasking than others. It also highlights the mental strain multitasking creates. In reality, we often accomplish less when trying to do multiple things at once, and we make more mistakes. In some settings, those mistakes can be dangerous—such as when a driver believes they can safely text while driving. So how does multitasking affect our relationships and our ability to manage conflict? When we multitask, we are not fully listening, fully present, or fully engaged. We miss cues, overlook concerns, and drain our mental energy. Research from the American Psychological Association has shown that frequent switching between tasks—especially complex ones—can reduce efficiency, increase errors, and create safety risks. More activity does not automatically mean better outcomes. Multitasking can also shape expectations in our relationships. For example, if someone grew up in a household where one parent managed work, childcare, meals, household tasks, and emotional labor all at once, that model may become normalized. Without reflection, those learned patterns can carry into adult relationships and workplaces, where they may create unrealistic expectations or unnecessary tension. Habits are automatic responses to specific situations. Multitasking can become one of those habits, much like our habits in conflict. We repeat what we know. But growth happens when we pause long enough to examine those patterns, decide whether they still serve us, and intentionally choose responses that are more effective, safer, and more aligned with our values. When we attempt to multitask, we often drain our cognitive energy and increase the likelihood of mistakes. And, as that cashier unknowingly taught my family years ago, divided attention is rarely the best version of our self.  Occam’s Razor is a principle often attributed to 14th–century friar William of Ockham that says that if you have two competing ideas to explain the same phenomenon, you should prefer the simpler one. It was when I was in school for my graduate degree that I first learned about this principle. As a problem-solving principle, it can help us strip away the noise and recognize a core truth. My work is about listening to understand people and two things hold true: humans are complicated and simple at the same time. At our cores, we have similar needs: food, shelter, love, safety, health, meaning—Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs helps us to understand what humans generally need. That is the simple part. The complicated part is that we all have different ways of interpreting and achieving these needs. We have different life experiences, cultures, worldviews, values, beliefs, likes and dislikes—all things that uniquely define how we go about achieving our basic needs, and how we respond when we feel threatened. Occam’s Razor would suggest that if a basic need to is earn a living in order put food on the table and a roof over one’s head, simply showing up for work and collecting a paycheck should meet those needs. But therein lies the complication. Work has shifted as the contract between companies and their people have evolved. According to an article from Forbes, talent, adaptability and engagement define success which means a new world of work demands new leadership and a renewed focus on human potential. While compensation still matters at work, there are other prominent needs for building a thriving workplace.
Stripping away the “noise” in the effort to recognize core truths, can lead us to the simplest answer, as Occam’s Razor suggests. However, to get to the simplest answer, we must understand the complex and complicated parts of human needs. And this takes time, empathy and strong leadership skills. Investing in people means investing in leadership, todays and tomorrows. And that is a core truth. For more information: www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/05/08/the-future-of-work-through-occams-razor-its-all-about-people/  ... and What We Do Company A claims to be better than Company B, pointing to B’s water pollution from its processing. Company B counters that it is the more responsible organization, highlighting A’s harmful air emissions. Both publicly declare themselves stewards of the community and vital job creators. At the same time, Company A is actively working to put Company B out of business—launching negative ad campaigns and filing lawsuits on behalf of the city. Company B, initially reluctant to engage, now feels compelled to defend itself and has retaliated in kind. What follows is predictable: escalation. Employees at both companies begin to fear for their job security. Communities that once welcomed these organizations start to push back. Regulatory agencies impose heavy fines and issue warnings that could ultimately shut operations down altogether. While fictional, this scenario reflects a familiar pattern. When individuals, organizations, or nations adopt a zero-sum, win-at-all-costs mindset, harm rarely stays contained. It spreads—affecting employees, communities, and often the most vulnerable. Polluted water and toxic air don’t recognize corporate boundaries. Aggressive tactics also come at a cost: they shut down the very conversations that could lead to better outcomes. Without negotiation, there is no space to surface underlying interests, involve experts, or engage the broader community in meaningful solutions. Decisions are made in isolation, often without full awareness of their long-term consequences. There is also a clear contradiction at play. Both companies claim a mission centered on community stewardship, yet their actions undermine that very commitment. Declaring moral superiority while engaging in harmful, adversarial behavior reveals a gap between stated values and actual practice. Regardless of the reasoning behind Company A’s initial actions, the impact remains the same. Efforts to eliminate the other come with significant collateral damage—damage that directly conflicts with the mission both organizations claim to uphold. A different path is possible. Through negotiation, both companies could move beyond positions and begin to understand underlying needs and interests. Fears can be constructively addressed. They could identify shared concerns, explore innovative solutions, and uncover opportunities that adversarial strategies will never reveal. William Ury offers Building them a Golden Bridge. This approach works to build trust and create incentives to keep walking towards you as you negotiate. When the goal shifts from winning to solving, the outcome shifts as well—not just for those at the table, but for everyone affected by the decisions they make.  |
Sunny Sassaman
Sharing experiences and insights of reflection and conflict management techniques. Archives
May 2026
Categories |
RSS Feed