 |
|
|
|||||
You are constantly getting feedback from others about your performance at work. A client may be happy with their interaction. A colleague may walk away from a meeting upset. You get comments on a report you have written, an email discussing a presentation, or thoughts on the way you interact with colleagues. In the best of worlds, the feedback you get is clear and easy to understand. Good feedback has three characteristics. It specifies the behavior you engaged in. It provides a clear and accurate assessment of the consequences of that behavior. It suggests actions you may take in the future that would be better suited to the occasion. The further that the feedback you get deviates from this formulation, the harder it may be to understand the feedback or to recognize how it applies to you and what you should do about it. When you get feedback you dont understand, it is often valuable to get more information in order to ensure that you are able to learn from the experience and improve. Ill dig into how to address the three components of good feedback in a moment, but first a word about asking questions related to feedback. It is important to start any questions by pointing out that you are asking for clarification. Do not argue that the feedback wasnt warranted. There is no easier way to ensure you never get feedback again than spending your time trying to convince someone that you did nothing wrong in the first place. 1. Ask about what went wrong Sometimes the feedback you get is difficult to process because it is not clear about what you did wrong. That can happen because someone assumes you already know. More often, though, it happens because someone criticizes your motivation rather than your actions. They will talk about your attitude or intent. Typically, when people try to assess your motivation or intent, they get it wrong, and so the description of the feedback doesnt ring true for you. Rather than arguing about your motivation or the situation, ask for a clearer description of what you did. To the extent that you believe your motivation or intent was different than what was described to you, it is okay to clarify your motivation, but you should start with a phrase like, I can see how you would think I was trying to . . . when discussing your motivation, so that youre not trying to make the other person feel like they completely misread the situation. 2. Ask about the impact At timesparticularly early in your careerunderstanding the consequences of an action can be the most important part of the feedback you get. You may have done something that you thought was going to lead to a different outcome, but you are getting feedback that was clearly not the case. In addition to understanding the consequences of your action, if youre talking to a more knowledgeable colleague, it can also be helpful to get their sense of why the action had the impact it did. In order to get better at predicting the impact of your actions, it is important to understand the relationship between what you do and what happens next. 3. Ask about the future You may have a clear sense of what you did and what happened as a result, and still feel like the feedback has not given you knowledge of what you should have done instead. Sometimes the person giving feedback simply hasnt been clear about their recommendations for future actions. Other times, the person giving you feedback also does not know what should have been done instead. When you are confused about what you should do differently in the future, you may go back to the person who gave you feedback for advice. However, you might also find a trusted mentor to review the situation and help you walk through other ways that you could have handled it. Often, someone further removed from the specifics (and perhaps someone with more experience than the individual who gave you feedback) can give you clearer advice on better alternatives for the future.
Category:
E-Commerce
Pharma stocks took a fresh hit on Friday following a report in The Washington Post that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reportedly plans to link COVID-19 vaccines with the deaths of 25 minors. Moderna shares fell 7.4% Friday to their lowest level since March 2020. The drop brought the drugmakers year-to-date slump to more than 44%. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company is one of two manufacturers of approved mRNA coronavirus vaccines. The other mRNA COVID-19 vaccine maker, Pfizer, saw its own shares fall 3.9% on Friday. Shares of its partner on the shot, BioNTech, tumbled 7.3%, while stocks in another vaccine maker, Novavax, were down 3.6%. The pharma companies stock slump stands in contrast to the market as a whole, with the S&P 500 rising more than 12% this year. FDA officials reportedly plan to present the data at an upcoming vaccine advisory panel meeting, according to the Post. The panel makes recommendations to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as it sets vaccine schedules and guidance, and its recommendations have historically guided insurance coverage for vaccines and state policy. The data is apparently based on self-reported adverse events collected in a federal database called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The database contains unverified reports and is not designed to conclude that a vaccine caused a death. The FDA didnt immediately respond to Fast Companys request for comment. Vaccine policy in U.S. shifting under new administration U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired all of the members of the vaccine advisory panel, which is known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Kennedy installed seven new members who have criticized vaccines in the past. Kennedy is reportedly considering appointing seven more members to the committee who share his skepticism of COVID vaccines or the pharmaceutical industry, Politico reported. And last month, the FDA imposed new eligibility restrictions on COVID-19 vaccines that critics say has severely limited who can get the shot. ACIP is due to meet on September 18 and September 19, and the committee is expected to discuss vaccines for COVID-19, as well as hold votes on recommendations for vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) and hepatitis B, as well as COVID-19. Pharma companies criticize restrictions on shots Modernas CEO Stéphane Bancel said at a WIRED health summit that recent changes in U.S. vaccine policy represented a step backward. Moderna, in a statement to Barrons on Friday, noted that the safety of its COVID-19 vaccine is rigorously monitored by the company, the FDA, and regulators in more than 90 countries. Those safety systems have not identified any new or undisclosed safety concerns in children or in pregnant women, the company said. And in a statement to Bloomberg, Pfizer said that extensive data supports the safety and effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine, and cited its successful administration to more than one billion adults, adolescents, and children. Both drugmakers didnt immediately respond to requests for comment from Fast Company.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration on Friday announced that it plans to stop requiring more than 8,000 polluters to report greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys proposal would see industrial facilities like coal-burning power plants, oil refineries, and steel mills no longer have to track and report the amount of carbon dioxide, methane, and other emissions they emita requirement that had been in place since 2010. The agency said that U.S. businesses could save as much as $2.4 billion in regulatory costs over the next decade as a result of the change. Some experts have argued that the societal costs of emissions from companies in the U.S. could run into the tens of trillions by 2050. The EPA in its release said that requiring facilities to report emissions had no material impact on improving human health and the environment. It comes after months of work by the Trump administration to dismantle various federal programs designed to combat climate change and cuts to research funding to study the phenomenon. The administrations efforts to pull back on climate change is at odds with the broad scientific consensus that human-driven warming is linked to extreme weather and health risks. A study published in Nature this past week, for example, showed that 180 of the worlds biggest fossil fuel and cement producers made 213 extreme heatwaves between 2000 and 2023 more likely and more dangerous. What does greenhouse gas reporting do? Since 2010, the greenhouse gas reporting program has collected emissions data from about 8,000 of the largest industrial facilities in the U.S. from 47 different source categories. In turn, this information has historically been shared with the United Nations, but for the first time in nearly 30 years, the Trump administration missed an April deadline to submit data on U.S. climate emissions. As part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, the United Nations has required industrialized countries to reduce their emissions to combat climate change. U.S. President Donald Trump announced on his first day in office that the U.S. would withdraw from this agreement for the second time (Trump pulled the U.S. out of the agreement during his first term). The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to improve air quality, Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, said in a statement. Instead, it costs American businesses and manufacturing billions of dollars, driving up the cost of living, jeopardizing our nations prosperity and hurting American communities. Unlike other mandatory information collections under the Clean Air Act, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is not directly related to a potential regulation and has no material impact on improving human health and the environment. By reducing the overall regulatory burden, current regulated parties will be able to focus compliance expenditures on actual, tangible environmental benefits, an EPA spokesperson told Fast Company in a statement. Certain oil and gas facilities will still be required to report emissions data as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, although the EPAs proposal would allow these facilities to suspend reporting until 2034. Critics point to cost of losing data Environmental advocates criticized the proposal as hampering future policy making. With this move, theyre taking away the practical and material capacity of the federal government to do the basic elements of climate policymaking, a former EPA official under the Biden administration told The New York TImes. The proposal would eliminate data that the public, states, and local policymakers have depended on for more than 15 years, leaving Americans in the dark about where pollution is coming from, David Doniger, a senior strategist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, told The Associated Press. Before this proposal is finalized, the EPA will hold a virtual public hearing and accept public comments for 47 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||