We covered a lot of the interesting bits on the show linked to above, but here are a few of the things I found interesting. A lot of what she covers has been learned here over the years of forum activity (mirrors, 'billboards falling on your head', others see you better than you see yourself, etc.), but it's nice to have it all in one place - plus a few extra insights that tie it all together. These are culled from my highly truncated notes, so for more details, read the book! ;)
First, she points out the fact that there are two distinct types of self-awareness: internal and external (i.e., how others see you). And she points out that there is no correlation between the two. You can have a lot of internal self-awareness, and no external - and vice versa. Both are necessary, but the vast majority of people need feedback in order to gain external self-awareness.
She points out that the more experience, reputation, and prestige you have, the more likely you are to overrate your own abilities. She calls this "Steve disease" after one of her case studies. And it's not the same thing as Dunning-Kruger, where the least competent people are the most confident. Someone with Steve disease may be competent, but they still overrate their abilities (e.g., 99% of engineers think they're above average, 94% of professors, etc.). Leaders (CEOs, managers, etc.) are in the worst position - "CEO disease" - because not only are you more likely to overrate your self-image and abilities (past successes lead to overconfidence, making it harder to hear feedback), chances are you'll be surrounded by yes-men underlings who are afraid of giving objective feedback. She calls this latter the MUM effect: keeping mum about undesirable messages. The best way around this in a corporate setting is '360 feedback', which is an anonymous feedback system designed to give some basic observations. Anonymity eliminates the MUM effect. Some general advice: "Surrounding yourself with people who disagree with you is one of the most fundamental building blocks of leadership success." Only subordinates (not the managers and CEOs themselves) are able to accurately assess their bosses' performance and promotability.
She points out how hard it is to receive objective feedback, but that it's necessary. So we should be "braver but wiser", brave enough to discover the truth on our own terms. Paraphrased: "Receive feedback with grace, reflecting on it with courage, respond to it intelligently with purpose." You really need a positive mindset in order to do so, otherwise you're more likely to reject the feedback. That's where internal self-awareness helps, i.e., self-acceptance regarding what you know are your strengths - basically reminding yourself that you're not a TOTAL failure, you just have some things to work on. Just thinking about the things you KNOW are good about yourself makes it much more likely that you will receive negative feedback well and work with it. Same with reminiscing about good/happy memories - that makes us less defensive and less likely to be delusional. And we should be actively seeking and asking for it.
Common excuses for avoiding feedback: I don't need to ask (you do, because others are unlikely to give it to you), I shouldn't ask (e.g., because it would make us look weak - no, people are actually socially rewarded for asking for feedback and receiving it with grace), I don't want to ask (yeah, it hurts, but we can do it on our own terms, and she describes the ways we can do that). She recommends assembling a small group of people close to you to ask for feedback. You need to see these people regularly, so they can observe your behavior in action and then give feedback. She recommends not taking on more than 1 or 2 hypotheses at a time. E.g., she gives one example of a woman asking her chosen observers to tell her when she was and wasn't being abrasive. Then over the next month, and after, they had regular meetings to discuss it and give her examples. Take others' opinions seriously, but evaluate it and determine how and if to act on it. Don't just accept it without question. You have to understand the feedback and determine for yourself whether changing some aspect of yourself will be helpful or not. Just changing yourself based on feedback without doing that is to have external awareness, but not internal awareness. You have to know yourself and why it would be helpful or not to put any change into action.
On self-esteem: people with high self-esteem are actually more violent and aggressive. People who see themselves with rose-colored glasses are worse at dealing with criticism, failure and setbacks. And people see them as more deceitful, arrogant, defensive, thin-skinned. "There is an inverse relationship between how special we feel and how self-aware we are." Employees are good at spotting narcissistic leaders, and they're rated lowest in terms of effectiveness by their teams. Interestingly, there's a correlation between CEOs' narcissism and the size of their signatures.
As I mentioned in another post, introspection isn't useful and rumination is deadly. If you tend to analyze good memories, you'd be better of just reliving them in your imagination. "Analyzers showed less personal growth, self-acceptance, and well-being than those who relived happy memories." And ruminators "generally ignore or avoid feedback, lest it send them down the rabbit hole. They therefore tend not just to be poor perspective-takers, but also to be more narcissistic and self-absorbed than non-ruminators." Ask 'what' instead of 'why' questions. Journal according to the Pennebaker method, not as a way to vent. She also recommends writing an autobiography and gives a structured method to do so.
Mindfulness is helpful, i.e. self-observation, noticing what you're thinking, feeling, and doing without judgment or reaction. But people tend not to do this, and instead to be constantly distracted by something, e.g., their cell phones. But when we're not focused on the present, "We lose the ability to monitor and control our thoughts, feelings and behaviors."
On how to receive feedback: the 3R model: receive (mine it for possible truth), reflect (give yourself days or weeks to understand feedback, see if/how it will affect you long-term, how pervasive it is, if want to act on it), respond only after reflection.
Tools for dealing with delusion people: For lost causes who don't accept any feedback, there's not much to do except go with the flow and reframe things (e.g., see it as a learning experience, an opportunity to manage your own reactions). For people who are "aware but don't care" (i.e., know they're jerks but think it's effective and a good thing), you need to state your needs clearly, set clear boundaries, and walk away if necessary. And for people who are nudgeable, who just don't yet know they need to change, you can confront them (with compassion). Two quotes: "Being on a team with just one unaware person cuts the team's chances of success in half, and unaware bosses hurt their employees' job satisfaction, performance, and well-being." "By managing our own reactions, we often have more control than we think."
There's some good stuff in Chapter 9 on organizations, but I haven't taken notes on that chapter yet.
