Weekly Notes #1 - On feedback, technofeudalism and play
I AM REALLY FAILING AT FEEDBACK
I find it hard to give feedback to my team as well as my stakeholders, for the simple reason that I am conflict avoidant and conditioned to believe that disturbance to the status quo results in expulsion frm the clique and loss of trust. This is, of course, not true – in fact, feedback is a gift. In the last years, I have become to realize that colleagues and managers that really, truly appreciate you and are invested in your career will give you thorough feedback - while the ones who do not won’t even bother. My conflict this week has been reconciling both the fear and the desire to help others grow.
I carried out my teams’ performance reviews this week and one of my team members was surprised by their grading. Then I spoke with a dear colleague who had had the same issue with their own manager – their performance review did not match the ‘well done!’ feedback they had been getting all quarter long, and they mourned the opportunity for improvement that had not been given to them during that previous half year. After the conversation with my colleague, I realized I had in fact done the same to my report.
What is worth more, continuously giving feedback to someone to help them enhance their performance (which might put them down for not ‘being enough’ yet) and ensure they know exactly what you are thinking, or conceal your true thoughts and let them be, for the sake of avoiding conflict? The latter, I see now, is selfish (Iavoid conflict, because I do not want to deal with it) as well as a bad performance practice (If I refuse to give feedback, even if it hurts, I am the one hurting their development as well as mine).
Therefore, I have been pondering on how to overcome my fear of conflict and provide actionable feedback on a constant basis - perhaps might be useful for other newbie design managers:
Develop a conviction that feedback scales your judgement. For me, it’s been helpful to chat with multiple colleagues, in different levels of seniority, about feedback. If you can connect the dots quickly and have your own judgement, you will see how the people that receive and give intentional feedback have a wider self-awareness and quickly attack it; those who don’t, live in dreamland. I often jokingly tell my friends that if they ever notice a gap between reality and my opinion, to please tell me immediately. I don’t think there is anything more embarrassing than being out of touch with reality and believing things that are just not true. Delusion is fine and a motivator; ignorance is no-way street.
Follow different methodologies to give feedback. It’s about experimentation, as we designers like. For example, I am trying out different ways of feedback that are not just a conversation; perhaps a talk track of how I would tackle a certain problem and actually doing it on a shared document or using simple expressions rather than intellectual blabber. A “this doesn’t look sophisticated, have you tried different options…?” rather than “It’s good but I would try XYZ instead”. Notice how the outcome for the receiver will be totally different in each – first is a question to ponder, second is basically an order. Some tips I am implementing I found on Wes Kao’s letter, here and here.
Reserve time for this – like actually put it in your calendar and treat the time as self & team development. I’m doing it now as I write. It’s a no-brainer, but I’m intentionally setting aside 1-2 hours a week for giving feedback and thinking about giving feedback. It’s all good intentions until the meeting shit storm starts, and then you end up not giving a single piece of feedback for 3 months straight. Not me!
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT TRUSTING GOOGLE AND ITS DECENTRALIZED CLIMATE DATA
On Thursday, the Open Environmental Data Project, a non-profit organization working on decentralized environmental data access, posted on Linkedin about the sudden closure of the US’ government-owned Climate and Environmental Justice Screening Tool. This tool helps to identify disadvantaged communities that face burdens related to climate and development, providing demographic and environmental information at a fine geographic resolution across the United States. Tools like these are public, paid by citizens’ taxes, and are used to help ensure that projects benefit disadvantaged communities. It is down now, and no one knows where it’s gone.
Reading these (unsurprising) news came right on topic, as I had spent a few days investigating tools for climate change tracking – specially in lieu of California fires; but also for my fellowship work, where I investigate climate change resilience and how can communities build their own tools, with less government reliance. I read about Map Action in Mali, a tool developed under UNICEF’s development accelerator grants, that “combines community engagement with the power of digital mapping and artificial intelligence (AI), to build more sustainable and resilient communities.”
Unlike top-down platforms reliant on satellite imagery or government data, like the US Climate and Environmental Data Justice Tool, Map Action relies on locally-generated data which is more timely, accurate and place-based; it comes from communities themselves, and hence the tool is publicly owned and monitored. In the end, it’s an opening for public dialogue and place-based policy making. It does have a few flaws and open questions (who has access to posting in this tool? How is information filtered? And how is it processed and turned into actionable policy advise?); nonetheless, it is obvious that we do need better tracking tooling, platforms and sources that people themselves can and learn to peruse without government reliance.
I think about the floods that happened in Spain at the end of last year, in my beloved home, and how the alerts of extreme flood risk ended up in a loophole of missed emails, calls, and unresponsive policy-makers that would’ve benefitted from another type of anticipation. But then I think about Google’s environmental tools to combat climate change, Google Environmental Insights Explorer, a “freely available data” and insights tool that uses exclusive data sources and modeling capabilities” to provide insights. It’s probably state of the art, and way better than any government tool, and it’s… exclusive? Where does that data come from? Can a tool be ‘freely available’ IF completely, totally, owned by a private technological corporation – with absolutely no estate intervention or fact checking? I don’t think I need to answer.
Thomas Kuhn says that revolution is not only in discovering the risks, but in the practices, the objectives, the norms and the evaluation criteria used to act upon the risks. Climate change and natural disasters are unavoidable at this point, but the methods we use to protect citizens, and the environment cannot be owned by a few. In her last book about climate feudalism, journalist Marta Peirano questions if the technological revolution is in fact orchestrated to protect us and lead us to ultimate development, or if corporate interests are the guiding force behind any advancements.
Think about Google Street view, a really cool tool we have all used at some point, either for laughs or directions. What has Google used it for? To relate the wifi networks it registers with the doors of the people who live in the houses. What used to be an internet IP is now connected to a real address. And then think about Elon Musk’s Starlink project with which he aims to provide internet to everyone I the world (you can put internet everywhere but still not everyone will be able to access it, I guess Musk didn’t consider this one anyway). Starlink covers the entire Earth just like Google Street View, but now with satellites in the stratosphere and therefore invulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, fires and wars as Peirano recalls. It is a point of inescapable vigilance.
I have no doubt that this same climate data that Google puts out there readily available is also being used by insurances to deny policies for climate-risk areas, while building companies are still given permits to sell cheap houses in non-insured land? And what happens when a climate change-denier government like Trump’s, puts down a tool used by cities, scientists, and policy workers to determine where development needs more funding, for instance?
Economist and former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis poses that technological companies have now overthrown capitalism and warped people and institutions against each other. In his newest work, he advocates for estate-regulated technology against “feudalism in a digital guise.” Even if we are oblivious to the invisible control, this consolidation of power, sustained by central banks and governments, mirrors the feudal structure of old, where a few elites control the resources that everyone else depends on – the tools that Kuhn mentioned, are not free or for the people anymore.
In my fellowship project, I am exploring alternative ways of climate change tracking and disaster mitigation. I am heavily relying on biometrics data – for example, can we create tools and methodologies to track bees’ behavior to map when a storm is coming? Can we create tools that are decentralized but still have some level of control for quality assurance? And can we create new modes of alert that do not require 10 people to re-send an email? The state’s duty is not just to help with post-risk aid but also ensure that the models for alert and preparation are human-centric and give freedom for people to self-manage their risk as much as they can.
SPACE FOR PLAY
I think it was in a podcast where I listened – again – about making time for play. Lately, since the beginning of the year, after 2 weeks of holiday during which I basically slept and ate for 80% of the time, and after being hit with a crazy bronchitis upon my return to the Netherlands, I have been neglecting play and only focused on work and constraint.
I am a total believer that structure is good, as long as it enables time to do the things you love and that do not lead to capital accumulation (i.e your job). I am a workaholic, and I enjoy my work challenges, and I have learnt over the past year to find satisfaction in finding the zone of focus rather than on the output. I also have other endeavors going on besides my work, but most of the time I fall prey to my own high standards and work mindlessly without making time for creativity.
Hence, starting these weekly notes are a way to embed play into my weeks. It is both an exercise of reflection I have wanted to start since I got promoted to Senior, but also a space for myself to make connections, pick my brain, write for a little bit at the end of the week, have fun while I do it, and expect nothing in return. If anything, I just hope this practice makes me a better writer and thinker, helps someone else learn together with me, and creates more connections. Simple ambitions but PLAYFUL!
This week I have been thinking on how to ease structure and rigidity and bad self-loathing in favor of spontaneity and joy. I feel it in my body when something makes me happy and I needed it – it’s like an internal wave of comfort and tranquility that I do not get otherwise while doing other stuff. Sometimes it’s random, as seeing a friend for one hour, or resting on the sofa after a workout, or having a nice bath. Other times it feels like a big hug when more intentional – when I refuse to be a slave of my own calendar or anxious thoughts and spend 1 hour singing along to Bad Bunny’s latest album. I won’t schedule ‘sing to bad bunny’ on my calendar but I’ll sure make time for it. Intentionality with play, that is.
WEEKLY CONSUMPTION
- Apple design conference -> This has been on my backlog for the whole week and just now I am getting around it. It’s a masterclass about design craft by Apple designers – no, they do not mention how they create devices that rob us from our beloved time. BUT! It’s a great window into high quality craft for any designer who’s feeling uninspired or disconnected from ‘beauty’ in their day to day work. I am watching and taking notes so I can share with my team.
- 50 Years of Training Endurance -> As I venture into my triathlon training (lol at me), and feel like a complete rookie juggling all of these sports and rules and the new club I’ve joined, I have been consuming athlete-related content. For starters, someone in my network shared this beautiful paper on 50 years of athlete research which I am still reading and hope to devour over the weekend.
- Constraints fueling innovation -> I am trying some different stuff at work, leading discovery for experience innovation across several products at once. It’s not easy and I’ll probably write about this another time, but lately I am thinking about working with constraints and how obstacles make you more resourceful and productive. This is a philosophy I’ve held all my life – that constaints just make you smarter. So I am looking forward to explore what do I come up with to get over the hurdles I am experiencing at the moment. To be continued!
- Listening to SZA & Bad Bunny’s new albums, on repeat, plus Sahalé and Four Tet on my rotation. Just finished Creation Lake by Rachel Kushner (3 out of 5), started Kirkegaard’s Either/Or (wow…. DENSE) and have Small Economics on my shelf – both books part of my 2025 quest to read more philosophy and economics. Wathed Babygirl (3 out of 5) and look forward to watching Queer tonight! Keep you posted.
Image -> Portrait of Cornelia, Clara and Johanna Veth 1885 by Jan Veth.Veth was young and still living at home when he portrayed his three sisters with painstaking honesty. His father assessed the likenesses of his daughters with equal candour: ‘My opinion of these portraits is, and will always be, that they are excellent likenesses, which are anything but flattering, and there are a few sharp edges, which I would rather have seen some-what softened.’
If you read this – give me your feedback please! Write to candelamartinezd@gmail.com
