Same-Side-Of-The-Table Criticism
Deliver hard performance feedback so the person leaves feeling backed rather than judged.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 82%
Shear learned this by watching Andy Jassy while Twitch was inside Amazon, and names it as something he has deliberately tried to become good at. The structure is a stack of affirmations that are meant and specific - I know you are amazing, I know your plan is good or that you are clearly capable of making a good one, I know you are working hard, I know you are smart and have a great team, and we have a huge opportunity - immediately followed by an unresolved contradiction: and yet the results are not what we wanted. The critical move is positional. Rather than sitting across the table looking at the results and judging you, Jassy comes to your side of the table and asks what this is, how did we wind up here, how have I failed you that I did not say something earlier, help me understand. Shear is precise about the failure mode: exactly the same words from someone insincere read as either fake, or as an accusation that you were not competent enough to catch it yourself. He says it works because it is genuine, that it was extremely effective on him, and that he saw it work on other people too - while noting he cannot claim it works on everyone.
Origin
Shear observed it repeatedly from Andy Jassy after Amazon acquired Twitch, alongside Jassy's ability to remember everything he had been told in a prior meeting.
Core principles
- 01Affirm first, and mean every item
- 02Leave the contradiction unresolved rather than diagnosing it
- 03Sit beside the person, not opposite them
- 04Share the failure, including your own late warning
- 05Sincerity is the load-bearing element, not the script
How to run it
- 1
Establish the belief stack
Convey, specifically, that you know the person is amazing, that their plan is good or they are clearly capable of making a good one, that they are working hard, that they are smart and have a great team.
Pro tip Each item must be something you could defend if challenged, or the whole move reads as setup.
- 2
Name the shared opportunity
State that there is a huge opportunity in front of you both. This frames what follows as a gap against a prize you both want rather than a personal shortfall.
Watch out Skipping this makes the next step land as an isolated accusation.
- 3
Present the contradiction without resolving it
Say that given all of the above, somehow the results are not what they should be, and that you are confused and do not know what is wrong. Withhold your theory.
Pro tip The unresolved gap is what makes the other person start explaining rather than defending.
- 4
Physically and rhetorically change sides
Move from evaluating the result to examining it together: what is this, how did we wind up here, how did I fail you by not saying something earlier. Shear describes this as coming to your side of the table.
Watch out The same question from a judging posture reads as 'you were not good enough to catch this'.
- 5
Ask for help understanding
Close by asking them to help you understand how you both ended up with results neither expected from a plan you both thought was good. The ask is for explanation, not for a defence.
Pro tip Shear's reaction was to want to go and fix it immediately, while still feeling supported.
In the wild
Shear describes the pattern: Jassy conveys that he knows Shear is amazing, the plan is good, the team is great and the opportunity is huge - and yet the results are not there, and he does not know what is wrong, but they are in it together and he has Shear's back.
→ Shear came away feeling believed in and simultaneously apologetic - sorry to have failed at something he clearly could succeed at - and motivated to go fix it, rather than defensive.
Common mistakes
Running the script without the belief
Shear says the reason it works is that it is genuine. From someone who does not mean the affirmations, the same sequence comes off as insincere and the recipient discounts everything that follows.
Letting 'how did I not catch this' read as blame
Shear flags this precise hazard: when others attempt the move, the self-implicating question can land as I do not blame you because you were clearly not good enough to have caught this. The intent has to be a genuinely shared question.
Assuming it works on everyone
Shear is careful to say it was super effective on him and he saw it be effective on some others, but he does not know that it works universally. Treating it as a guaranteed technique ignores that some people read any affirmation stack as manipulation.
Is it for you?
Best for
Executives and managers who must confront bad results from people they genuinely rate
Not ideal for
Cases where you do not actually believe in the person or the plan, since the move depends on being sincere
From the transcript
“instead of looking at this and then judging you, he comes to your side of the table”
“How did we wind up with not the results we wanted, with a plan that I thought we both thought would seem good? Like help…”
“because it is genuine, it's super effective”
From the episode
Emmett Shear: Life After Twitch, Jeff Bezos Lessons & AI Doomsday Odds
Emmett Shear