Constructive Catalyst

A lot of people instinctively react negatively. They come from a defensive posture, no matter how the work is presented. This poses a challenge because it can also put you, the presenter, in the defensive posture. Now you’re reacting negatively in response in order to protect your ego and defend your ideas (or the ideas of the team for which you’re presenting).

But this backfires. You can’t fight fire with fire. You have to shift the reactive feedback into something more constructive. Reactive feedback, by its nature, is intangible—there are no properties by which you can work with it. So, like a chemist, you have to change its properties in order to work with it. You need to catalyze the conversation into something useable.

But how do you do this?

1. Don’t engage in the reaction, and stay curious to learn more.
2. Acknowledge their position to truly understand them.
3. Reframe in a new way to catalyze the conversion.

Don’t engage, stay curious

It starts with curiosity. Don’t get defensive. Be like water and approach the feedback with curiosity. Your first reaction should be a question—even if you start with Can you say more?

Some people spend time processing their thoughts before sharing them. Some don’t. This all depends on where they fall on the Reactionary Spectrum. So if they react, your job is to stay curious and ask them questions. Help them think out loud, process their reaction, and work through their emotion-driven feedback.

Show them you’re an ally in collaboration, not an enemy defending your position. The idea is the ultimate decider. Keep ego out of it. Stay curious.

Acknowledge their position

When a reaction is given, it’s often brash and laced with emotion, devoid of rich context or nuance. If you stay curious, you can surface enough context to acknowledge their position.

You don’t need to agree with someone in order to understand them.

One of my favorite ways to do this is by repeating back what someone said. Ask them if you can express what you believe their position is, and state it in your own words.

And then ask them if your rephrasing is correct.

Doing so provides a brief, but important respite from the negativity. You become an ally in understanding rather than an adversary in defense of your disagreement. Acknowledge them.

Reframe in a new way

At this point, the conversation should have shifted. You avoided engaging in their reaction, responded with curiosity, and acknowledged their position.

Now it’s time to reframe the conversation in a brand new way.

Present your position, leveraging the knowledge you just gathered and the trust you (hopefully) just gained from them. Providing your response in the context of what they shared is a helpful way to transition into an environment of positive feedback. You don’t have to agree with one another, but you do need to engage in civility and solutions-oriented thinking.

An example conversation

Here’s an example of how this might play out in a real conversation. We’ll use an example with design because it’s the most common. It’s also difficult to navigate because everyone thinks they’re a designer. This is compressed and trivial example, but shows the idea in practice.

Designer: “Here’s the new homepage design we’ve been working on.”

Stakeholder (reacting negatively): “I don’t like this at all. It’s way too busy and doesn’t match what we discussed. We need to start over.”

Designer (doesn’t engage, stays curious): “I appreciate your feedback. Can you tell me more about what specific elements feel too busy to you?”

Stakeholder: “Well, there are too many colors, the layout is confusing, and it doesn’t highlight our key product features like we talked about.”

Designer (acknowledges position): “So if I understand correctly, you’re concerned that the current design uses too many colors which creates visual noise, the layout doesn’t provide clear navigation, and our key product features aren’t getting the prominence they deserve. Is that right?”

Stakeholder: “Yes, exactly. I’m worried users won’t know what to focus on.”

Designer (reframes): “That’s really helpful context. The team was trying to create visual interest with the color palette, but I see how it might be distracting from the core message. What if we simplified to our primary brand colors only, restructured the hero section to immediately highlight our top three features, and streamlined the navigation? Would that address your concerns while still keeping the modern aesthetic we’re aiming for?”

Stakeholder: “Yes, that sounds much better. I like the modern look you’re going for, I just want to make sure our users can easily find what they need.”

Designer: “Great! I’ll work with the team to revise the design with these points in mind and share an updated version by Friday. Would that timeline work for you?”

Catalyze the conversation

Most of the time, harsh immediate responses are not indicative of the real feedback underneath. You have to dig in, to question, and work to uncover the core problem. As with this example, the solution isn’t as far off as the initial feedback indicates.

The designer didn’t get defensive, genuinely tried to understand the stakeholder’s concerns, acknowledged their position accurately, and then reframed the conversation toward solutions. This transformed what could have been a confrontational exchange into a collaborative improvement process. Be the catalyst.