Jakub Petrykowski blog

Don't announce your goals

This summer I decided to go for a trip. I wanted to spend all the colder months, from October to March, in warmer climates. I planned to go to the south of Europe first, stopping for a while in Croatia, Greece or some other country at the Mediterranean. 

Many people were asking me "what are you planning to do?", and I kept telling them about the idea of the trip. I hoped to meet some great people, get to know other cultures better, and above all else - not suffer from cold weather (which I hate more than most other things in life).

Everyone was excited about my trip. I was excited too. I departed in the first week of October and headed for Czech Republic, where I had friends to visit.

I planned to spend around 6 months on the road. I returned home after 6 days. It was boring and tiring.

Of course people asked "hey why did you return? What happened?" So I explained with patience.

I decided to stop announcing my plans so much. I'll keep my goals and plans to myself, and announce what I already did - not what I'm planning to do. 

I announced a lot of crazy and a lot of reasonable plans to my friends and colleagues, and you know what? I didn't do many of these things. I don't think announcing is healthy.

If I announce something and then not do as I said, I feel bad (for various reasons). Perhaps others also think less of me, too. And I don't see much benefit in announcing - other than that it satisfies curiosity of people who ask me about my plans, and is an easy response for me ("you want to know what I'm up to? Why, of course I'll tell you. I am about to...").

Now, incidentally, two friends of mine have sent me this short TED talk by Derek Sivers: he suggests (and has some research behing his thesis) that if you announce that you'll do something, it makes you less likely to succeed. He also has an article about it.

By the way, I noticed that people often do not distinguish the following to statements:

I will do it. (certainty)

Perhaps I will do it. (uncertainty)

In both cases, if I don't do it, people think I failed to live up to my commitment. I think they are wrong, but it's probably better to be very careful with qualifiers in statements - people really have a hard time remembering them, or perhaps even have very different meanings attached to them (e.g. some interpret "perhaps" as "probably not" while others as "most likely yes" etc.).

Anyway, I think this whole area of announcing your goals to others, whether or not it actually motivates you to accomplish the goal, whether others hold you accountable, what you do when others fail to do what they promised etc. is very interesting --  and I hope science will give us some definitive answers about these topics in the future.  

Writing skills

Most non-fiction books I read are too long, many are poorly written in general. Authors routinely repeat themselves, play with anecdotes and explanations that do not strengthen their arguments, or describe several nearly identical examples when one would suffice. I recognize that it is especially challenging for a non-native speaker to write well, and some of the books I have been reading recently were written by people for whom English is second language. However, isn't it the editor's job to help with that? And what about those many well educated, native speakers? I do not see a connection between the quality of the author's insight and the quality of his writing. 

Clear, concise books are priceless. I admire 37 signals team for their short, fun and informative "Rework". I regret that "The Black Swan" is so hard to read, because it probably makes many people abandon it or not recommend it to others (despite its great content).

When a book I'm reading is too long, but seems to have valuable content, I try skipping parts that are just illustrations of an argument the author had already made. When it is just poorly written - which often implies poor structure - it is hard to skip large fragments without risking losing important content.   

I realize I will have to work hard to become a good writer myself. I have always enjoyed writing and it seems to be growing in importance in my life. This blog is an exercise in writing just as much as it is a tool for recording and sharing what I learn. I am spending considerable time editing each post even after it is published. I share some of the articles with a friend or two before publishing to get feedback - a practice I borrowed from Paul Graham. I have recently read "The Elements of Style". I am now experimenting with Etherpad as a tool to find out a bit about my own process of writing. Here's an example of what it can do for you (hit the "Play" button). I also started reading "Thinking on Paper", a book about how the process of writing not only allows you to record thoughts, but also facilitates thinking and discovery. I welcome your feedback on my writing style.

Ask for feedback

Summary: Feedback is valuable, but people will rarely give it to you without a nudge. That's why you should ask for it directly.

It pays off to be open to feedback from people you interact with. Though it's important to know the difference between feedback and an attack on your personal territory, you should listen to what people have to say about your behavior because it's valuable information.

For example, you might learn that people find your impatience annoying, and that they do not trust you when it comes to taking difficult decisions precisely because they think you act too quickly. You are then free to either ignore the message, change your behavior, or change their beliefs (i.e. come up with a way that will increase their confidence in your decision making process).

The process of exchanging feedback is an experience that helps you build close relationships with others. To me that's incredibly important now, so I spent more than a year already learning how to accept what people say about me, how not to feel threatened by it, but instead appreciate it and learn from it.

Most people give very little feedback on their own, even if they have important things to say. I know some of the reasons, because I belonged to this group. I would never tell anyone anything, no matter how impressed or upset I was about what they did. I was trying to be a nice guy. That didn't make me the happiest guy around, as you can imagine. Anyway, people will be afraid that if they tell you they don't like something you do, you will get upset or angry. They fear confrontation. They don't want to hurt your feelings. Honest feedback can lead to both these situations, unless the person receiving feedback is really mature. But how do you know that without testing?

Note that giving other people feedback is a good long term strategy for both parties involved in a relationship, while not saying anything is beneficial short term in the sense that you avoid potential conflict. So loss aversion or tendency to prefer instant gratification over long term gains can play a role here.

Oddly enough, people are sometimes even afraid to praise others. One rationale behind it is the belief that when you praise others, they will consider it to be insincere flattery aimed at gaining something rather than honest appreciation - not an image you want others to have about you. I am far from criticizing people who have this belief because again, I had it myself for a long time; however, it makes building close, effective relationships in personal and professional life much harder.

Another issue with just accepting what people tell you by themselves is that it tends to be vague. People will often say a simple "thank you" to convey radically different messages. They can say it merely to express their gratitude for a small favor, as well as to express deep amazement with your performance in a specific task. So don't rely too much on people's precision when they spontaneously praise or criticize you. Use the opportunity to ask: "what are you thanking me for?".

Ask for feedback directly. "What did I do well? What did I screw up?" In my experience it's the best way to ensure steady supply of different points of view on what and how you're doing, so that you can then maintain some healthy balance between what you and what other people think is right. Since feedback is valuable and most people tend not to give it to you, take things into your own hands.

Remember the definition of feedback I used: "Feedback is information about actions returned to the source of the actions". Just hearing how other people perceive you doesn't automatically mean you should act on it. You are free to use it the way you like.

In almost all social groups I was ever part of I noticed strong tendency to avoid giving any negative feedback. When negative feedback has to be given, for example in peer performance reviews, it was often weakened to the extent that made it seem unimportant. I hate it. I would like to talk much more openly about what I screw up and what other people screw up, so we can all improve fast. Lack of honesty of that kind, i.e. holding back any criticism, is very destructive in the long term. I don't yet know what to do in order to encourage people to deliver difficult feedback without some hesitation or softening.

For me it's easiest to ask for feedback in a 1:1 situation: privacy seems to be important for both sides. I prefer open ended questions. That way I have good chance to avoid steering the person in the direction I already suspect. Do not ask "Did you like my presentation?". Few people will say "no" even if they didn't like it. Instead, say: "What did you like the demo?" and then "What could I improve?". The more open to criticism you seem, the more likely you are to get useful and honest answers. You appear open if you keep asking direct questions like this, and if you don't get defensive once people do criticize you - which is a surprisingly common mistake.

The more trusted your relationship with someone, the more interesting and surprising things you'll hear about yourself - sometimes other people will be able to see aspects of your personality and their effects on others much clearer than you do.

 

Feedback

Feedback is information about actions returned to the source of the actions. (A concise definition I like very much, taken from feedback Wikipedia article).

It is a very powerful concept in the world of interpersonal communication, relationships, performance and learning. We give each other feedback all the time, often without giving it much thought. It can be about behaviors, feelings, ideas, whatever.

Common examples of feedback:

 

• a friend or coworker says "Thank you!" after you did something for him
• your boss says "I'm not happy with how you handled our last call with the client."
• multiple people tell you "Love your new outfit!" the moment they see you in it for the first time
• someone asks you: "Why are you shouting?" when you think you are perfectly calm
• bored audience leaves the room during a keynote speech

 

Different people respond to feedback in surprisingly different ways. My own responses to feedback have changed radically over the past ≈5 years. Having lived through consequences of rejecting feedback from others, I changed my attitude by 180 degrees, which was one of the most significant positive changes in my entire life. (No wonder I'll be talking a lot about this!)

Some key topics around feedback:

 

• what does it mean to be open to feedback?
• admitting mistakes and acknowledging successes
• how to use feedback to get the most out of it?
• what happens when you openly reject feedback from others?
• subtle, non-obvious sources of feedback
• difference between feedback and attack. When should you defend yourself?
• how to give useful feedback to others (I'm not yet very good at it myself though)

 

 

Note: Some definitions of feedback include the notion that the information is applied at the source, for instance, a person receiving critical feedback improves her performance. This is not a practical definition, because receiving a signal and acting on it are not the same. For that reason I'll keep referring to feedback without assuming that someone takes action on it automatically.

Basic principles of conversation

Summary: There are just a few principles that are key to have a decent conversation. I used to do it all wrong. After I learned how to talk to others, I began to love it and I've been called a good listener many times. I made a few great friends just by a few deep, long conversations. Note - this is about "how to talk", not "what to talk about"!

The principles:

• do not interrupt one another
• ask open ended questions
• listen carefully to what the other person says
• provide visual and auditory feedback (nod, say "mhm")
• pay attention to the other person's face & body language
• don't talk for too long at a time

Why?

If you interrupt others, they get frustrated, can't get their point across, start resenting you and feel like you don't let them express themselves.

If you only ask closed-ended questions, you may only confirm what you already suspect to be true, and you usually steer the other's person into a given direction too much. You miss out on a wealth of information and experiences they'll never share when asked closed questions.

If you don't really listen to the other person, why do you even waste time pretending to be talking to her? And when you respond, it will not relate to what she said, breaking the flow and making the other person wonder "Why is he saying that? Didn't he listen to what I just said? Is he ignoring me?"

If you don't provide some form of feedback (including looking them in the eye), they'll be unsure whether you are paying attention, and grow uneasy. This can result in just as extreme feeling of being ignored as when you are providing this feedback, but not really listening.

If you don't look at them often enough, you'll miss lots of clues on the true message and more subtle emotions they are conveying. Eyes and face are particularly important for humans to detect emotions of the other person. Looking at the other person when asking a question or sharing information is just as important, because their body and facial reaction will tell you a lot.

If you talk for too long, they'll lose track of what you said, start preparing their response and memorizing it instead of listening to you, or try to interrupt you because of frustration or fear that they may lose an important thread of the conversation.

It's so simple, but so few people actually do it! It took me years to realize I need to work on how I talk to people - and not only on what I say.

I used to violate almost every single one of those rules for the most part of my life. Over time I learned those principles - by observing others, opening myself to feedback, introspection and extensive reading on communication and emotions. 

The quality of my conversations has increased dramatically. I have met and gotten to know well some amazing, intriguing people, and it's like a completely new source of relationships and knowledge. It is also very useful when talking to complete strangers. I've met a few very interesting people on the airports and planes who told me a lot (and whom I told a lot about myself) because I created a space of trust and respect by following those principles. Indeed, when two people show respect to one another, they can get close to each other within a few hours. I find it truly fascinating!

People also started to talk to me much more often, I've been called "a great listener" by many people, and "an engaging conversationalist" by a few. I also learned that closely following people's faces and body language says a lot about how they feel and how they relate to what is being discussed.

I find it amazing that nobody is teaching us those basic skills at school. I think every teenager would understand and be able to implement these rules, to their great advantage.

The general principles I mention here have some caveats of course. There are probably some other important rules, but these few are simple and actionable. 

Science has a lot to say about most of these aspects, too. Talking for too long can make the other person lost because working memory has limited capacity. They won't be able to respond to all that you just said, let alone memorize it to later benefit from what they learned. Looking at the other person gives our emotional brain a lot of input that is processed by automated, subconscious systems of the brain, building greater rapport and giving hints on their actual emotions. Moreover, if someone has studied facial expressions (see Paul Ekman's applied research), they may be able to recognize various emotions even if the other person is trying to hide those. (I started reading books by Paul Ekman and got really interested in the science of emotion. It's likely that I will write more about this sometime in the future.)

If you knew this all along, I envy you. At any rate, I wish you great conversations in the future.