Some years back, I had to provide constructive criticism to one of our teachers—someone who was well-seasoned, talented, but also more senior than me and set in his ways. The curriculum had recently changed (with some controversy), incorporating large segments of content on postmodernism, civic grievances, and other progressive-minded adjustments. While he certainly did indeed cover the material, he approached it through a critical worldview, which caused some students to complain to their parents and say things like, "Mr. Beaupre thinks it's stupid, and so do I." Rather than coming on strong, I started our conversation with positive affirmation of his skills and passion, asking open-ended questions about the new changes and what he felt his role was. Using active listening—by actually processing his words rather than just waiting to talk—I learned about his generational assumptions while he considered the reasons for the new educational standards. After some back and forth, we agreed that they could bring about good, especially if he served as a facilitator rather than a barrier. Empathy is certainly a mighty tool, a force that can smash walls and promote understanding.
I once had to give tough feedback to a team lead who didn't realize their blunt tone was shutting others down. They weren't trying to be harsh. But in meetings, people stopped speaking up. Morale was dipping, and it was clear something had to be addressed. We sat down for a one-on-one. I started by highlighting their strengths, what they brought to the team. Then I shared a few examples of what I'd noticed. I didn't frame it as a problem. I asked how they felt things were going. They admitted they hadn't realized how their tone was affecting others. They thanked me for bringing it up in a way that didn't feel like a personal attack. Over the next few weeks, they began actively seeking feedback from peers and even asked to join a communication workshop we had coming up. What I learned: Emotional intelligence is about delivering it in a way the other person can hear and act on. My advice to others: never underestimate the power of pausing before speaking, naming what's working first, and making room for dialogue. That's where real change begins.
Once, I had to give tough feedback to a team member who kept missing deadlines and slowing down our project. Instead of jumping straight into what they were doing wrong, I stepped back and really looked at how they were doing overall. I could see they were burned out, which made me take a completely different direction during the conversation. Rather than starting with their mistakes, I acknowledged the hard work they'd been putting in and the challenges they were dealing with. I asked them directly: "Are you feeling overwhelmed? Is something outside of work making this harder for you?" This turned the whole thing into us working together to solve a problem instead of me lecturing them. It's always us vs the problem, not me vs them. This made the tough feedback much easier to deliver and let us focus on actually fixing things. I made sure they knew they could talk openly with me and that I wanted to help, not just criticize. So, my best advice would be to start with empathy. Figure out what's really going on with the person and ask questions that show you care about why they're struggling, not just what they're doing wrong.
As a business coach who's worked with hundreds of executives, I've learned that the toughest feedback conversations often happen when I need to end client relationships that aren't working. I had a client who kept circling the same problems week after week--each session became elaborate explanations of why change was impossible rather than actual change. My body was telling me the truth before my mind caught up. I noticed physical tension after our calls, cold coffee sitting untouched, and that heavy feeling in my office. Instead of pushing through with more strategies, I recognized this was my nervous system registering the disconnect between what I knew needed to happen and what I was avoiding. I waited until I felt calm and centered, then drafted a message that was kind but direct. I acknowledged that our current approach wasn't creating the change she deserved, and continuing would only deepen stuck patterns for both of us. The key was framing it around her success rather than her failures. My advice: trust your body's signals before your mind creates elaborate justifications. When you align with what you already know needs to be said, your physiology shifts--the brain releases vigilance, muscles soften, and you can communicate from clarity instead of tension. This isn't woo-woo; it's how your nervous system works when truth and action match.
A Reflective Approach to Emotional Intelligence: How Therapeutic Cards Open Deeper Conversations One exercise I often use to develop emotional intelligence — in both individual and group settings — involves working with therapeutic reflection cards. A tool I recommend is KEYS to your relationships, created by Peter Shogun Trnka. It's a set of 90 cards, each with a key question and visual illustration, designed to help people access deeper self-awareness. What makes KEYS effective is that it opens conversations that might otherwise stay hidden. Rather than teaching a skill or technique, it invites a person to reflect on emotions and patterns that are often subconscious. This reflective space helps people see their reactions in a broader context, leading to more conscious and authentic responses — which is the core of emotional intelligence. For HR and L&D professionals, the key takeaway is that emotional intelligence isn't built through instruction alone. People need safe, guided spaces to explore their own emotions without judgment. KEYS is one way to facilitate that process, whether in one-on-one coaching or in team dynamics where self-awareness and mutual understanding are crucial. Though working with emotions can be uncomfortable, the insights gained are always valuable — for the individual, the team, and the culture they help create.
We once had a junior developer apply for a role that required a year of commercial Node.js experience. On paper, he didn't meet the bar - his background was mostly academic, plus some impressive personal projects, but no paid work. Normally, we could've sent a standard rejection email and moved on. But having been in this industry for two decades, I know how disheartening those first 50 or 100 "no's" can be when you're just trying to break in. So instead, we gave him something actionable: a shortlist of 10 companies we knew were offering internships for juniors. It took our recruiter a bit of extra time, but it was worth it. The candidate's reaction said it all. He thanked us for being the first company to offer more than a polite "no," and a month later, he even referred a senior colleague for one of our openings. It was a reminder that emotional intelligence in hiring isn't just about softening bad news. It's about looking for ways to leave the person better off than when they met you. That mindset has opened more doors for us than any recruitment tool ever could.
The challenge with delivering effective negative feedback is that becoming too blunt risks alienating your employee, possibly leading to a resignation or complaint, while adopting a more lenient approach could cause them to continue underperforming. To solve this, you should tackle the issue head-on, but ensure that they remain aware of the value they hold to your team as a whole. If you share some positive feedback or work that your employee has excelled in over the past few weeks, they can be more receptive to subsequent negative feedback with less risk of displaying an adverse reaction. You should also focus heavily on the wider impact of their output. If they've made a costly mistake, let them know the cost impact of their misstep. If your employee has underperformed or shown negligence, explain how their actions have led to other workers picking up the slack. Here, you must explain why their issues are negatively impacting the company and how it's costing the company money. These contextual explanations can help employees understand why their actions are a problem.
As the HR leader at Alpas Wellness I needed to handle a senior clinician who was creating workplace tension through their interactions with support staff. Their clinical excellence was outstanding but their communication approach damaged team morale. I started by controlling my anger to understand their point of view before giving feedback. The conversation started with recognition of their achievements and particular instances where their leadership benefited patients and colleagues. The acknowledgment served as a base of respect rather than being a form of flattery. I explained the issue through its effects rather than its nature by stating "Some staff become hesitant to ask clarifying questions when instructions are delivered abruptly. That slows down patient care." The feedback transitioned into a collaborative issue to address because both of us valued the outcomes. The emotional intelligence approach differed through its control of speed and voice and its decision to begin with empathy. Your feedback should connect to the values which the person already holds dear while demonstrating your commitment to their professional growth. People become more receptive to constructive feedback when they feel their strengths are recognized.
In the earlier part of my career, I had to give feedback to a colleague about their communication style. Because it negatively impacted the team's collaborative work. I started to think about how to deliver the tough feedback. But rather than simply focus on the issue, I understood that I needed to consider how the person would be processing my feedback. I set up a private meeting. At first, we talked about what I appreciated in their work. Then I proceeded to gently describe the specific behaviours that created issues. I tried to keep our focus on the impact, rather than the intent. What made this example of feedback effective was that I understood their emotional state as we moved through the conversation. I could tell when I elicited defensiveness, and I paused to check in with how they interpreted my feedback and tried to listen actively to their response. This moderating of emotion shifted the conversation from confrontation to collaboration. What I did differently was slow the process down, focus on the relationship, and create space for dialogue. Remember that when you are giving tough feedback, it is critical to anchor the conversation in respect and recognition of the shared objectives. Emotional intelligence is always about trying to intervene without softening the message. So, build the trust, not the walls.
I recall an instance where a plumber had done a major roof repair job to a repeat customer. Although the job was technically sound, the cleaning up was hasty and the rubble was left on the driveway of the client. Rather than emailing or being harsh on him, I requested him to walk into the office, and sit down with me. I began by praising the aspects of the job that he completed successfully, including completing early and under budget at the $18,000 mark. Then I stated what the client actually observed upon coming home without using judgmental words. I ensured that I maintained a calm tone and gave him time to digest what I was saying. It was a difference in letting him have room to counter and elaborate before providing a solution. He acknowledged that he was running to another emergency call and had not considered that the driveway would be relevant to the client. We collectively established a mechanism whereby pictures would be taken of all job sites before moving. I would recommend to be specific and emphatic. When they know you see the entire picture and not the mistake in a vacuum people are more willing to be corrected.
I had to give critical feedback to a teammate whose work was consistently late, and the team got a bad taste in their mouth. I didn't push them to correct their mistakes openly. I acknowledged their effort and stress. I told them, "I know you've been under a lot of pressure, but I appreciate your work. " I then asked, "So how does this work without overworking you? " This gets people out of their shells, and they talk about what kind of problem they were having. We came up with a solution together. My advice is "Appreciate the person's efforts instead of scouring for weaknesses"; it builds trust and reminds people that, while they may still have work to do, your feedback should be "supported" rather than "criticism".
I had to write a letter to a contractor once whose site workers abandoned a job site without securing it and this left the homeowner at a risk of damage by a rainstorm. It needed to be handled in a strong manner, yet I was aware that entering into the situation with frustration would close the conversation down without any success. I began by meeting in person instead of sending an email, which would have enabled me to perceive body language and establish a relaxed mood. I explained the precise event and its effect on the client without exaggerating or minimizing the facts and then waited a few moments to allow the client to digest before continuing to talk. The difference I made was I asked him to share the day with me as he saw it and then we transitioned to what had to change. That provided me with information regarding scheduling gaps and communication breakdowns which I would not have gained had I spoken first. After explaining this to him, I drafted a step by step procedure with timelines to ensure that all sites were secured before the crew left with spot checks by my team. What I would recommend is not to take the rough feedback as a one way delivery. When you give the other person room to express themselves, you tend to find underlying problems that can be resolved and the repair process turns into a cooperative one as opposed to a hostile one.
The emotional intelligence traits of self-regulation and empathy helped me deliver tough feedback effectively to two of the 12 writers I managed at a digital media company in the insurance industry. While our editor had grown increasingly frustrated with a young writer's argumentative nature and a senior writer's lack of technical skill, he only wanted to complain and wasn't willing to work with them to fix the situation. I understood his frustration, but having gained emotional intelligence from years of working with different generations of team members with diverse learning styles, I took the lead in creating a customized approach for each writer, giving them an opportunity to improve. After reviewing their articles and the editor's comments, I created a proposal for my manager that addressed each writer's specific challenges and issues. I suggested finding out their learning style to implement proper personalized re-training, creating a "cheat sheet" of common problems they had to check off before submitting an article, and editing their articles myself during a probationary period. My manager approved the proposal, and as I worked with both writers, they expressed their appreciation of my willingness to help them and listen to them. They both improved to the point where they could successfully submit their articles to our regular editor again.
I was once required to talk to a property owner whose holiday let was always performing poorly because of lack of maintenance. I would not send an email but would organize a face-to-face meeting in the property. Taking them through the space on a walk enabled me to point out the chipped paint, broken light fittings, and worn linens in a manner which felt collaborative, as opposed to accusatory. I started with things that had been performing well and then transitioned to the problems and connected each to a direct effect on guest reviews and revenue. I had solutions costed out, e.g. repaint at 400 and replace linens at 150, and so it was less a criticism and more a way forward. I would recommend that one be honest along with practical solutions and that the feedback be given in the setting where the problems are found. It makes the discussion realistic and makes the other individual feel that the changes are not far fetched.
The performance review of one of the team members was one moment when I experienced that the emotional intelligence allowed me to provide straightforward feedback to my fellow employee who was not performing well. As opposed to being rude and judgemental, I acknowledged the situation empathetically and knowingly. I approached them as individuals with concern and gave constructive feedback as well as rewarding them with respect to the effort. The tip I can offer to the person is never to forget about the feelings and the side of the other with regards to providing any harsh feedback. Although one should realize that it is important to be empathetic and offer support rather than simply direct mistakes.