I sometimes defend an application by saying that the person has du répondant1. The expression sounds vague, and it is, until you break it down. I have broken it down, because a criterion you cannot state cannot be discussed, and therefore cannot be challenged by the other members of a committee.
A project holder with responsiveness does five things.
They understand the feedback they are given
The first condition is the easiest to verify and the most frequently absent. Feedback given once is understood as it was given, without defensive rewording and without translation into something more comfortable. This can be tested immediately: ask the person to restate what they have just heard.
They seek it out
The second condition takes a little longer to observe. The person comes back for an opinion without being offered one, including when that opinion is likely to be unfavourable. I treat this as a reliable indicator, because it costs something to the person who initiates it.
They ask questions
The third condition deserves a clarification, because I long believed the opposite. For a time I thought the right signal was autonomy, meaning someone who returns with the work done and no questions. I have corrected that reading. Someone who executes without ever questioning the frame often executes the wrong thing diligently. What I look for is execution accompanied by questions, which implies that the person thought far enough ahead to meet a real difficulty.
They deliver what was asked
The fourth condition is factual. Between two sessions, the agreed work is done, and done in the agreed form. This is not about perfection. It is about whether a commitment made in a meeting produces anything afterwards.
They anticipate
The fifth condition is the one that genuinely separates people. They see the next question coming and have prepared it before it is asked. This capacity cannot be requested and is not easily taught. It indicates that the project occupies its holder’s mind outside the moments when they are being questioned.
Why this definition matters
These five points measure neither intelligence nor the quality of an idea. They measure the quality of the joint work that will become possible. Support is a working relationship, and a working relationship with someone who does not understand feedback, does not seek it, asks no questions, does not deliver and does not anticipate will consume a considerable amount of time for a weak result.
It is also a criterion I can defend in front of a committee, because it is observable. Each of the five points is either present or not. That is worth more than a favourable impression no one can argue with.
- Avoir du répondant: literally, to have assets that can serve as a guarantee; figuratively, to be able to reply and hold one’s ground under attack without being intimidated. Source: Dictionnaire de l’Académie française. ↩