Most feedback conversations are built around correction, because correction is what feels urgent and actionable to prepare in advance. A manager sitting down to plan what to tell you runs through the list of things that need to change, sequences them, maybe softens the language a little, and walks in with that list ready. Whatever positive observations exist tend to travel separately, if they travel at all: mentioned in passing, tacked on at the start as a warm-up, or quietly dropped when the meeting runs long and the corrective items feel like the part that actually has to get said. You leave with a snapshot that’s technically accurate and still somehow lopsided, because the version of you that got written down is the version that had problems attached to it.

There’s a second layer under that one, and it’s the part I find more interesting: good performance is often invisible by design. Nothing went wrong, so nothing registered as worth mentioning. A deviation from expectation is memorable precisely because it deviates. Meeting the expectation, even meeting it well, just looks like the absence of a problem, and the absence of a problem doesn’t generate a note in anyone’s head unless someone goes looking for it.

Asking is the going-looking. When I ask if there’s anything else, I’m not fishing for compliments (though I won’t pretend it doesn’t feel nice when one shows up). I’m asking because I’ve learned, across enough of these conversations to trust the pattern, that there’s something positive sitting in there that didn’t make the first round, not because it wasn’t true, but because nobody had built it into the plan.

I’ve written before that advice is autobiographical: a story about someone else’s context, offered to you as though it were built for yours. Feedback has a cousin version of that problem. It isn’t a complete account of your performance. It’s an account of whatever was salient enough in your supervisor’s head that week to write down, and salience is not the same thing as significance. The good work you did competently and without drama is real. It just doesn’t announce itself the way a missed deadline does.

The part I actually want to talk about, though, is the ambush. Unprompted feedback, even well-intentioned feedback, has a way of landing on you rather than with you. You sit there absorbing whatever arrives, with no say in its pacing or its scope, bracing for whatever comes next because you don’t yet know how much more there is (a bracing that costs more than people realize if uncertainty is already expensive for your particular nervous system). The moment I ask if there’s anything else, the dynamic changes, even though nothing about the substance has changed. The request came from me. I opened the door. Whatever walks through it now is something I invited rather than something that happened to me, and that single shift in authorship is most of the difference between a review and an ambush.

It costs about thirty seconds. It’s one sentence, asked at the end of a conversation that’s already happening anyway. And more often than not, it turns up something true and kind that was never going to make it into the room on its own.

Job search advice has the same context problem as any other advice. Someone got hired because of a referral they had, a market that was hiring, a specific gap in their resume that happened to match a specific gap on a hiring manager’s whiteboard that week. They tell the story afterward as a method (five things I did to land my dream job), because a method is more shareable than a shrug, and because most people, in good faith, misattribute their own outcomes to the parts of the process they controlled rather than the parts they didn’t. That’s the ordinary version of the problem, and it was the whole subject of the first post.

The job search version has an extra layer, and the extra layer is money. Losing a job is one of the more acute forms of vulnerability a person can experience in professional life. Your income is gone or going. Your identity, if you’re anything like most people in tech, is tangled up with your title in ways you don’t notice until the title disappears. You are anxious, you are scrolling more than usual, and you are, for a window of time, unusually open to anyone who sounds certain about a way out. That is precisely the emotional state an entire content industry has learned to target, and it targets it with a specific, recursive product: financial freedom, sold to you in the form of a $47 PDF that teaches you how to sell $47 PDFs.

I want to be precise about what that actually is, because the packaging is designed to obscure it. It is not a skill. It is not an asset. It is a replica of the sales funnel itself, handed to you as though it were the destination, when it is actually just another copy of the machine you already stepped into by watching the video. You buy the map, and the only landmark on the map is the gift shop where they sell the maps. It is a beautifully drawn map. It is laminated. It has testimonials. It was made by someone who has, in a meaningful number of cases, never actually been anywhere except the gift shop.

This is not a new scheme. It is one of the oldest ones there is, wearing a hoodie and calling itself a personal brand. What’s new is the delivery mechanism: an algorithm that has learned, with some precision, exactly which faces to put in front of you the week your employment status changes on a professional network. It doesn’t need to know you lost your job. It only needs to know you started looking at job postings, and searching “how to negotiate severance,” and pausing a half-second longer than usual on a video with a rented car and the word “freedom” in the caption. The targeting is the product. The PDF is just the receipt.

I said something like this in a comment a while ago, on someone else’s post about being laid off and not looking: if I have to choose between interviewing and grifting, interviewing seems a little better. I still believe that, and I want to be honest that I also went and built something in the space between those two options. I started a consulting business, not because I had cracked a formula, but because I had a specific set of skills and a specific set of people who needed them, and that combination happened to be enough to keep the bottom from totally dropping out. I am aware of how close that description sits to the thing I am criticizing. The difference, and it is the whole difference, is that nobody is buying a story from me about how I did it. They are buying the work.

That is the test, and it is the same test from the first post, just aimed at a sharper target. Ask what the person is actually selling, not what they say they’re selling. If the answer is a service, or a skill, or a thing that exists independent of whether you go on to sell it to someone else, you are looking at ordinary commerce, and ordinary commerce is fine. If the answer is a copy of the pitch you just watched, dressed up as a shortcut to the freedom the pitch itself promised, you are not looking at advice, and you are not looking at a business. You are looking at a chain letter with a landing page.

During a job search, this type of non-advice can cost you more than the forty-seven dollars.

The first is part two of “Most Advice Is a Memoir” (this one’s about job searching, and the very specific grift of being sold financial freedom in exchange for a $47 PDF that teaches you how to sell $47 PDFs).

The second is about feedback from supervisors (specifically, the one question I ask at the end of every review that turns an ambush into a conversation, and what usually shows up once I ask it).

Back to a normal schedule next week (probably).

Advice is autobiographical. Every piece of it. The person giving it to you is telling you what happened to them, what they concluded from it, and what they would do again. They are not, and cannot be, telling you what will happen to you. That gap is not a flaw in the advice. It is the nature of advice. The problem is that it gets delivered in the second person, as if it were meant for you specifically, and received in the second person, as if the recipient’s job is to apply it directly. And almost nobody says out loud: this is a story about me, filtered through my conclusions, offered to you as a suggestion. Try it on. It might not fit.

There is a difference between taking advice and listening to it. Taking advice means importing someone else’s conclusion without their context. Listening to advice means trying to understand what they learned and why they learned it, and then asking separately whether any of it applies to your situation. The first is a shortcut. The second is the actual skill. And the reason most people are better at the first than the second is that it’s much faster, and the person giving the advice usually seems pretty confident, and confidence is contagious in the specific way that other people’s certainty about your situation can temporarily feel like your own.

I have been given a lot of advice in my career. Most of it was well-intentioned. Some of it was genuinely good. A meaningful amount of it was, in retrospect, correct for the person who gave it and actively wrong for me, and I spent years trying to figure out why I couldn’t make it work before I understood that the advice had been generated from a different dataset than the one I was running on.

I am autistic. I have ADHD. I did not know either of those things for most of the time I was receiving the advice. The people giving it to me did not know either. So the advice was calibrated for a neurotypical person navigating a mostly neurotypical professional world, and I was applying it as if it had been calibrated for me, and then privately wondering what was wrong with me when it didn’t produce the expected results. “Be more visible in meetings” is solid advice if the reason you’re not visible is that you haven’t tried. It is not particularly useful advice if the reason you’re not visible is that you’re spending all of your available cognitive bandwidth processing the sensory environment and can’t simultaneously do that and perform spontaneous insight for an audience. Same advice. Completely different applicability.

This is the sharpest version of the problem, but it is not an unusual one. You do not have to be neurodivergent to receive advice that was generated from a different context than yours. The person giving it might have had resources you don’t have, or constraints you don’t have, or a network that made a particular move available to them that isn’t available to you. They might have operated in a different market, a different era, a different size of company, a different set of relationships with power. The advice might have worked for them because of something they are that you are not, and they may have no idea that’s why it worked, because most of us are not great at identifying which variables actually drove our outcomes.

Listening to advice, rather than taking it, means holding the conclusion loosely and asking about the conditions. Not in a dismissive way. Not in the way of someone who has already decided the advice doesn’t apply. More like: what was true for you when this worked? What would have to be true for me? Where does my situation match yours, and where does it diverge, and how much does that divergence matter? This is a richer conversation than the one most advice gives you access to, and it requires treating the advisor as someone whose experience is genuinely interesting rather than someone whose conclusions you are supposed to download.

The social dimension of this is complicated in a way I want to name. Advice often comes with an implicit expectation that it will be followed, and visibly not following it can feel like rejection. In mentor-mentee dynamics especially, in startup culture especially, there is a kind of performance of learning where you receive the advice, express gratitude, and then produce a future version of yourself that validates the advice. The alternative, which is receiving the advice, genuinely considering it, and then deciding it doesn’t apply to your situation, can come across as arrogance or stubbornness or ingratitude, even when it is none of those things. It is just an honest assessment of fit.

What I have tried to start doing, when advice is offered that I’m not sure applies, is saying something that is true: “That’s useful context. I want to think about how it translates to my situation.” This is not a polite brush-off. It is an accurate description of what I’m actually doing with it. I am listening. I am not automatically taking. And I have found that the advisors who are actually worth listening to tend to appreciate this, because they understand that their experience is one data point and not a prescription, and they were offering it as the former and hoping you wouldn’t mistake it for the latter.

The people who are least worth listening to are the ones who need you to follow the advice in order for the advice to matter. That is not advice. That is something else. The right trusted advisor won’t ask you to become smaller.

Not literally. (The lighting was fine.) But if you went back through my LinkedIn content from my startup years, you would find a person who was enthusiastic in a way that had no texture, supportive in a way that had no specificity, and aligned in a way that, now that I am outside of it and can see it clearly,…

Read more

The situation was not complicated. Someone had been leaving comments on my posts that were designed, with some precision, to make me look like I was out of my depth. Not hostile comments (those are actually easier to deal wi…

Read more

There is a name for what I’m describing. The nir…

Read more

Read more

Picture a leader who is, by any reasonable measure, the real thing. Not the LinkedIn version of empathic (which is to say: someone who posts about vulnerability and gives TED-style talks about psycho…

Read more

Read more

Read more

But the boardrooms and the “huddle spaces” of the startup world …

Read more

We talk a lot about …

Read more

Read more

Read more

Before the era of sleek smartphone inte…

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more

Read more