Receiving some unsolicited feedback from a recent event got me thinking.

So often when we interact with others we are interested to know, or we reflect on, how it went. That can typically result in the creation of a mutual admiration society.

If both parties feel that things went well then that is probably what we are aiming at.
My observation would be that often we are more, perhaps too, interested in our own “performance” than the outcome that was achieved for the other party.

To provide some more context, the unsolicited feedback came from an attendee at an event that I was MC for.

The feedback email to the event organiser was entitled “twelve out of ten”. It went on to list the various parts of the event that created that assessment- “venue worked well, food was good, presentations on point and not too long.”

As part of my MC role I facilitated a 40 minute“fireside chat”. The specific feedback on that was “the fireside chat with Jeremy was great and well run by the man whose name I didn’t get. Sorry sir”.

Given the event was centred around the fireside chat with Jeremy I felt that feedback was bang on. It was about him - not me.

When asked by people for any tips on being an MC I often use the analogy of being a referee in a rugby match. At the end people should say “that was an excellent game. Who was the ref?”

I would suggest it is only when the ref is too involved that the feedback would be “the ref ( usually mentioned by name) dominated the game and we didn’t get to see the teams involved really do their thing”.

You may not be a facilitator, an MC or a referee but there’ll be no doubt that you interact with others. Perhaps there’s something to think about here for all of us?

PS - In case you’re wondering the event was hosted by Midlands Funds Management and “Jeremy” was Jeremy Corbett. The feedback is shared with their permission.

Cheers

Toddy