“I’ve got some feedback for you, I will speak to you on Monday”
That is the exact text that I received at 4:47pm on a Friday afternoon. That is why it has a negative vibe. Because in many organisations feedback isn’t used as feedback, it’s used as control, judgement or a power play.
In 2001, when I was a physical training instructor (PTI) at an Army training regiment, I felt like I had a part to play and a script to follow in the theatre of military discipline. “These recruits are subhuman” I’d been told by a new colleague, “just thrash them, it is the only way they will learn”. On several occasions I acted out my part, instilling good old military discipline into any young recruit who behaved in any other way than perfect! I did what was done to me in training and what I’d seen others do. I just gave them a proper bollocking and a barrage of profanity.
I was technically correct in everything I said. The errors had happened, the consequences were real and they needed to improve. I’d deliver it the way I’d watched corporals and sergeants deliver feedback for years, direct, firm, no-nonsense. What I also noticed was that every time, the recruit could shut down completely, nodding mechanically but clearly not listening.
I’d walk away satisfied that I had performed my part and that I had “addressed the issue.” They would walk away feeling angry and unfairly treated. Invariably within a few days the same mistake or behaviour would happen again.
This lasted about 3 weeks before I realised two things. First, the bollocking approach didn’t feel authentically me. I was performing a version of leadership I’d observed rather than leading in a way that felt genuine. Second, and more importantly, it didn’t actually work. Nothing had changed except that I’d upset a recruit and probably made the problem worse.
So I tried something different. The next time I needed to address an issue, instead of telling him what he’d done wrong and what he needed to do differently, I asked him what had happened and what he thought he could do about it. I didn’t know it at the time, but what I was doing was coaching. It was a bit of a trial which took some discipline on my part but it felt natural, and more importantly, it actually worked.
I’ve shared this many times and reflected on it a lot because it captures something fundamental about feedback. The content of your feedback matters, but if your delivery triggers defensiveness, nothing will change. You might as well be talking to a brick wall.
Over 20 years on, I understand that effective feedback is not about being right, it is about being heard. Those are not the same thing.
The Feedback Problem
Most leadership development around feedback focuses on courage. “Have the difficult conversation.” “Don’t avoid conflict.” “Be direct.” All of that is important but the problem is not that leaders avoid giving feedback. It is that when they do give it, they do it poorly. They dump information on people, make assumptions about intent, focus on the past rather than the future, and then wonder why the other person becomes defensive or disengaged.
Let’s just say a leader notices a problem, they let the frustration build over weeks or months, then finally decide to “have the conversation”. They deliver the feedback and it triggers exactly the defensiveness they were trying to avoid. The conversation ends with both parties frustrated, the issue unresolved, and the relationship slightly more damaged than before.
It is not courage or avoidance that is missing, it is the right technique to avoid negative reactions. Feedback is a skill, and like any skill, there are ways to do it well and ways to do it poorly.
What Makes Your Feedback Land as You Intend?
The first thing is that when you give someone feedback, you’re not just sharing information. You’re triggering a threat response. Their brain is scanning for danger and interpreting your words through a filter of self-protection. This is not them being a snowflake or being oversensitive, it is biology and if you ignore it, you will fail.
The second thing to understand is that most feedback doesn’t work because it combines observation with interpretation. You saw someone do something, your brain made assumptions about why they did it, and you delivered those assumptions as fact. The other person just hears judgment that they do not recognise as fact and immediately become defensive.
I learned this through trial and error with recruits. Early on, I would say things like, “You are not trying,” or “You are not a team player.” I would probably call them a lizard and swear at them, and I thought I was directly addressing the behaviour. What I was doing was telling people that their actions were intentional, and predictably, they just shut down.
One of the civilian (PTIs) pulled me aside after watching me dish out another subjective personal attack on a recruit (like everyone else was doing to my eye) and said something like “Stop telling them what they are doing wrong. Describe what you saw and ask them what was going on.” I didn’t get what he was saying but it stuck with me, and changed everything.
A Framework That Works
The most practical structure I’ve found for giving feedback is SBI-I, which stands for Situation, Behaviour, Impact, Intent. It was developed by the Center for Creative Leadership, and it works because it separates facts from assumptions and creates space for two way conversation.
Situation means anchoring your feedback in a specific moment. Not “you always” or “you never,” but “in yesterday’s team meeting” or “during last week’s project review.” This makes the feedback concrete and reduces the threat response because the person knows exactly what you’re referring to.
Behaviour means describing what you observed, not what you interpreted. “You interrupted Steve three times” is an observable behaviour. “You were disrespectful” is an interpretation. The first is hard to dispute because it happened. The second triggers defensiveness because it’s a judgment about character or intent.
Impact connects the behaviour to outcomes the person cares about. This could be impact on results, on relationships, on team dynamics, or on their own goals. “When you missed that deadline, the project got delayed by two weeks and we lost credibility with the client” makes the consequences clear without being accusatory.
Intent is where most people skip ahead to solutions, and that’s a mistake. Instead of telling the person what to do differently, you ask them what was going on. “Help me understand your thinking” or “What was happening for you in that moment?” This shifts the conversation from judgment to curiosity and creates the conditions for genuine dialogue.
For example, someone in your team commits to a tight deadline without checking with anyone first. The rest of the team are frustrated because it impacts them, they now had to drop other priorities to meet a timeline they’d had no input on.
You could say, “Why did you do that? You have thrown us under the bus and given us more work to do.” That would be an interpretation, and it would trigger immediate defensiveness.
Instead, you could say, “In this morning’s briefing, you committed us to a three-week timeline without checking with the team first. The team now have to drop other work to meet that deadline, and there’s frustration because they weren’t consulted. Help me understand your thinking. What led you to commit to that timeline?”
That opens a conversation and you find out they’d felt pressure from the senior managers in the room and thought saying yes would make us look responsive. They hadn’t considered the downstream impact on the team. Once you talked it through, they understand the issue and you can agree a better approach for next time. If you lead with judgment, none of that will happen.
Looking Forward, Not Backward
One limitation of traditional feedback is that it focuses on the past. You’re telling someone what they did wrong in a situation that’s already happened and can’t be changed. Marshall Goldsmith introduced the concept of feedforward, which shifts the focus from past mistakes to future improvement.
Instead of saying, “Your presentation yesterday lacked structure and clarity,” you say, “For your next presentation, what if you started with the bottom line, the recommendation, and then walked through the supporting data? That way, people get the answer up front. What do you think?” The first version triggers defensiveness. The second creates forward momentum and feels supportive rather than judgmental.
Listen!
Feedback is not a one-way download of information. If you’re doing all the talking, you’re probably doing it wrong. The most important part is listening, not just to what the person says, but to what’s underneath it.
There’s a concept in negotiation theory called diagnostic listening. You’re asking yourself: what does this person really care about? What are they afraid of? What’s not being said?
I learned this during my time as Regimental Sergeant Major, realising that a soldier’s surface complaint was rarely the actual issue. Someone would say, “I don’t think this training is useful,” and if I took that at face value, I’d launch into a defence of why the training mattered. That never worked.
What I should have asked was, “Help me understand, what would make this training more valuable for you? What do you need that you’re not getting?” That question uncovers the real issue and prevents solving the wrong problem.
Check Your Assumptions
The Ladder of Inference, developed by Chris Argyris at Harvard, explains how we unconsciously filter what we hear through our own biases. We select certain data to focus on, add meaning based on our assumptions, draw conclusions, form beliefs, and take action. This happens in milliseconds and is mostly unconscious. We all have a different story and we are all prone to biases:
Attribution Error: When I make a mistake, it’s because of circumstances. When you make a mistake, it’s because of your character. We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions.
Recency Bias: We remember recent events more than patterns over time, so our feedback is skewed toward what happened this week, not the last six months.
The Horns/Halo Effect: One negative trait colours everything. One positive trait blinds us to weaknesses.
I fall into these traps all the time because I am human. I hear someone say something, my brain interprets it through my own experiences and triggers, and I respond to what I think they meant rather than checking if I was right.
The antidote which I work on constantly is to ask yourself: what else could this mean? What am I assuming? Then ask them: “Tell me more. Help me understand. What am I missing?” This is particularly important in feedback conversations because emotions run high and our brains default to threat detection.
Practical Application
Before your next difficult conversation, sit with these questions:
· What specific situation and observable behaviour am I addressing?
· What assumptions am I making about their intent?
· What outcome am I hoping for, and what does success look like?
· Am I describing what I observed or what I interpreted?
· Am I listening to what’s underneath their words?
A Final Thought
Feedback is not about being right or winning an argument. If you think that it is, good luck to you. I believe that it is about creating the conditions for someone to hear what you’re saying, understand why it matters, and choose to do something different. I also think that it is about the other person leaving feeling that they have been listened to.
That requires separating observation from interpretation, creating two way discussion, focusing on the future rather than dwelling on the past and delivering your message in a way that reduces threat rather than amplifying it.
Most leaders know feedback is important but many haven’t developed the skill to do it well. Learn the technique, practice it deliberately and you’ll find that difficult conversations become…conversations
That’s what leadership communication is really about.
“I’ve got some feedback for you, I will speak to you on Monday”
It ruined my weekend!
Reflective Questions:
- Think of a recent feedback conversation that didn’t land well. What assumptions did you make about the other person’s intent that you didn’t test?
- How often do you ask “Help me understand your thinking?” before jumping to solutions?
- What’s one upcoming feedback conversation where you could use SBI-I? Write out the Situation, Behaviour, Impact, and Intent question before you have the conversation.