some random stuffs ’bout meeting [part 2]
I never like meeting, I just hate it. So if I talk ’bout what I like from there, I really mean it.
Currently got in some chaotic meeting and got some interesting observations...
There are usually 2 kind of feedback :
-
aggressive, straight-to-the-point and (somehow) spot-on... Example: (interrupt others) to say "why you're doing this ? I think it's wrong... Let's think 'bout it this way"
-
friendly, valid here and there but no really actionable next-step... Example: "we're talking 'bout the same consequence but I want to share a different perspective... "
Usually, people (even I) will like to listen to the 2nd way and somehow judge the 1st one based on the way it's delivered, not the content
It's interesting and the points are
-
For listeners: sometimes, we might want to be objective (e.g. focus on the content) but not subjective (e.g. not focus on who say, or how they say)
-
For speakers: the way you deliver somehow matters