Importance Of Feedback In Engineering Writing

"When people tell you something is wrong, they're usually right. When they tell you how to fix it, they're usually wrong" When renowned actor and comedian Bill Hader made this comment, he wasn't necessarily thinking about product development or engineering. Yet, this concept maps well onto those domains, serving as a valuable lesson for everyone from young product developers to seasoned engineers. At the heart of this idea is the recognition that feedback, particularly from users or customers, is an invaluable source of insight into problems. Users are highly adept at pointing out what's wrong or where pain exists. Their lived experience with a product or service often lends them a unique perspective, allowing them to identify issues that may not be immediately apparent to those who designed or built it. However, the translation of these problem areas into workable solutions is a skill set that resides more comfortably with the creators—the engineers and product developers. This is where the second part of Hader's observation rings true. When users propose solutions, they often reflect a personal perspective or a narrow view of the problem, unaware of technical complexities, overarching product strategy, or design constraints. We might cringe when we hear, "we just went to users and asked them what they wanted." This approach, although seemingly customer-centric, can lead to misguided efforts and misplaced resources. It risks being swayed by articulate or loud voices, and not by genuine, widespread needs. It's crucial to take a step back and reconsider how we approach and utilize feedback. Product teams and engineers should listen attentively to the problems users describe, then apply their professional knowledge and expertise to devise appropriate solutions. This ensures that we are addressing real issues in the most efficient and effective way, driving innovation rooted in user needs while retaining a firm grasp on feasibility and strategic alignment. This principle is perhaps more nuanced in the field of engineering. Unlike the arts, engineering leans towards empirical, often quantifiable solutions. There are standards, best practices, and established methodologies that provide guidelines. Still, the core concept remains—listen for the problem, and then employ your expertise to devise the solution. So, the next time you receive feedback, remember: focus on the issue at hand and leverage your own skills, knowledge, and creativity to find a solution. Doing so will allow you to turn insights into innovation, driving your product or project towards success. Feedback, when decoded correctly, can be one of the most powerful tools in your arsenal. #learning #productivity #product #engineering 

On being Reviewer 2 (or just don't). I was pushed recently, asked if by saying don't be reviewer 2, that meant don't write negative reviews. My response, no! You can deliver bad news in constructive ways. Here are a few tips for how to write a review, that while delivering bad news, is not cruel. Step 1. Start with Something Positive (If Possible) If there are any strengths in the work, acknowledge them upfront. Example: “The paper addresses an important topic, and the research question is relevant to the field.” Step 2. Be Clear and Direct but Diplomatic Avoid overly harsh or dismissive language. Instead of: “This argument makes no sense.” Say: “The argument would benefit from further clarification, as some key assumptions appear unclear.” Step 3. Use Objective and Specific Feedback Please point to specific sections or arguments instead of making generalized statements. Example: “The methodology section lacks details on the sampling process, which may affect reproducibility.” Step 4. Frame Criticism as an Opportunity for Improvement Instead of: “This study is flawed and should be rejected.” Say: “Addressing these methodological concerns could significantly strengthen the study's contribution.” Step 5. Offer Constructive Suggestions Provide actionable advice rather than just pointing out weaknesses. Example: “Consider including a robustness check to strengthen the validity of your results.” Step 6. Maintain a Professional and Respectful Tone Even if the paper has major weaknesses, avoid personal attacks or overly negative phrasing. Example: “The current version has several areas that need refinement to align with best practices in the field.” Step 7. Conclude on a Forward-Looking Note Encourage them to keep studying the topic and to review their work. Example: “With these revisions, the paper could make a stronger contribution to the literature.” There is no need to "slam a pie" in an author's face, to let them know there paper needs work! You can deliver the bad news in a constructive way, which helps them improve as a scholar in the future! #academiclife #reviewertwo

Positive feedback? Hurry through it. It doesn’t feel 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭. Negative feedback? That’s what we can 𝘧𝘪𝘹. That’s where the real work is. Too many engineers and leaders treat positive feedback like it’s background noise. I’ve seen this in clients, teammates, and honestly—myself, at times. But here’s the problem: when you train your brain to only listen for what’s wrong, every feedback session starts to feel like a threat. You miss the information about what’s working. You lose the signal that says “𝘥𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴.”. That makes feedback harder to give and harder to receive. This is how we create feedback-phobia. Positive feedback isn’t fluff. It’s a reinforcement tool. It tells your brain, “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩—𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨.” ↳ If you’re receiving feedback: slow down when someone tells you what you did well. Ask why it worked. Positive feedback is data. ↳ If you’re giving feedback: don’t let the good parts get skipped. Pause and say, “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘥. 𝘋𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘵.” What kind of feedback are you wired to notice—and what might you be missing? When was the last time you let positive feedback actually land? Give this a repost ♻️ to help others find this message ✍🏻 You might like my weekly newsletter https://lnkd.in/gxtnCFay