Don't add your 2 cents

> That's what I mean by giving reasonable feedback. Constantly being a dick is definitely counterproductive.

But it's not about being a dick. The point is that even feedback that is totally reasonable in isolation sends all the wrong signals if they become a constant factor.

By restraining yourself to asking for changes when there are actual, important reasons for them you minimise that. As a bonus, when it is clear that the changes you ask for are actually important, people tend to take them a lot more seriously.

> That is a symptom of a broken framework for managing a team, not a result of giving natural, reasonable feedback to the output of a person.

I agree with this, with the caveat of what I have written above:

If you have to give constant suggestions for change once someone comes to you with something they believe is ready, I don't see that as reasonable, no matter how reasonable each individual piece of feedback is.

I believe that in that case, either the suggestions aren't all necessary, or if they are necessary the team is badly managed as the staff clearly does not understand what areas they need to collect feedback on during the process, and don't understand when the work is actually complete and/or doesn't have access to the necessary skills and resources.

Note that there is also a clear difference between someone coming to you and asking for feedback or asking you to make a choice or suggestion during execution of a task vs. you giving unsolicited suggestions for changes when they come to you with what they believe is a finished piece of work. The former is generally, if given well, welcomed and appreciated in my experience. It is the latter which often produces negative responses.

It depends on the culture, but I prefer cultures where everyone, including management, gives input, and the creator picks-and-chooses. Management, even upper management, giving input shouldn't necessitate a change.

Management has a big picture individuals often lack. That's an important part of the process. On the other hand, it shouldn't dominate the process.

Great advice, short but precise!

> Which frankly sounds like a good idea, but doesn't seem like it has much to do with this blog post about managing members of your team.

The "safe space nonsense" grandparent was referring to is that when you attempt to stop people from being offended or thinking they don't own their work (or otherwise treating adults like children) by saying "just don't say this" results in a chilling effect that just makes everyone's lives worse. Nobody will come up with legitimate criticisms in fear of "being too mean" or "stealing your thunder", and people who need feedback will never get it as a result. I believe that's the effect that the grandparent was referring to. You get the exact same problem with univeristy campuses, where people wanted to be shielded from alternate views by claiming that you're offending them and that you're violating their safe space.

It's tough to be prescriptive about this sort of thing in a general way. Every situation is different. It really depends on who you're working with, sort sort of context you're working in, what sort of expectations you're working with, etc.

I would say, "make sure you set expectations in advance about how feedback is to be interpreted and acted upon". My boss gives me his 2 cents all the time, and I enjoy it. And vice versa. Sometimes I preface my suggestion with "you don't have to do change anything, but FYI...", and sometimes I say "I feel quite strongly about this: XYZ" – and even then we have an understanding about whether or not something should or should not be changed. It works the other way too. I've shipped things without incorporating feedback, and all was well.

So I think it boils down to culture. Everyone's understanding of what the norms are, what is expected, etc. (Just for fun: Can you imagine telling Elon Musk or Steve Jobs not to add their 2 cents?)