When feedback judges the individual-and not the action-a poor outcome is almost guaranteed. "You're not a team player," is an example of feedback that makes an assertion about a person's character. The receiver of this feedback is likely to experience a "fight, flight or freeze" response because the feedback conversation has just become deeply personal. As a result, the feedback will not be heard by the receiver, and therefore misses the opportunity to promote learning, growth or improvement. Moreover, the leader has lost trust and credibility with the receiver, when a different approach could have strengthened the relationship. Conversely, when feedback focuses on the observable behavior and the impact of that behavior-and not the individual's character, personality or worth-the conversation looks and feels different. For example: "In today's meeting, you talked over your colleagues on three separate occasions," gives the receiver the context for the feedback and the observable behavior. "The effect was that half of the team stopped participating, which means we're missing their input and we aren't creating the conditions for our best work," describes the impact of that behavior on the organization. When the feedback is behavior-focused, the receiver is better positioned to stay open to the message and is more likely to understand how to change their behavior in the future.
Delivering difficult feedback is one of the most common skills we are brought in to teach leaders l. A common mistake I see leaders make when delivering feedback is relying on the outdated "sandwich method" where they wrap constructive criticism between two pieces of praise. While it might feel kinder, in practice it often backfires. Unskilled leaders end up glazing over the constructive feedback and confusing people about the real message, making it seem like the issue isn't a big deal. A far more effective strategy is the SBI-A model: Situation, Behavior, Impact, Alternative. Start by describing the situation and the specific behavior you observed. Do not assume you know their intention. Then, explain the impact of that behavior on the team, the work, or the organization. You may offer them a chance to explain their intention. Finally, offer an alternative for how the situation could be approached differently in the future. SBI-A Example: - Situation: "In yesterday's team meeting..." - Behavior: "...you interrupted two colleagues before they finished sharing their points." - Impact: "When that happened, others shut down and we lost potentially valuable contributions." - Alternative: "Next time, please try to pause and let others finish before jumping in with your perspective." This method keeps feedback specific, actionable, and free from mixed messages.
The most damaging mistake leaders make when delivering feedback is emotional transference. This happens when the leader, feeling anxious or uncomfortable about the potential for conflict, unconsciously makes the feedback about their own feelings rather than the employee's growth. Instead of a calm, objective conversation, it becomes an emotional event where the employee is forced to manage not only the feedback but also the leader's discomfort. The focus shifts from the employee's behavior to the leader's emotional state, which immediately triggers defensiveness and erodes trust while eliciting in many cases an emotional response from the employee. The most practical tip to avoid this is to adopt a simple, data-driven framework that externalizes the feedback, making it objective and actionable. One way to think about this is "beyond the emotions, you are okay, don't shrink from action" I recommend the SBI Model to help with this: Situation: State the specific context. Where and when did the behavior occur? (e.g., "In the Tuesday morning project meeting...") Behavior: Describe the exact, observable behavior. Avoid judgments or interpretations. (e.g., "...when you presented the Q3 data...") Impact: Explain the tangible consequence of the behavior on the team, the project, or the business. (e.g., "...the team was unclear on the next steps, which caused a delay in the timeline.") From a behavioral standpoint, this model works because it de-personalizes the feedback. It separates the person from the behavior, shifting the conversation from a character judgment ("You were confusing") to an observable event and its outcome. This lowers the employee's natural defenses and creates the psychological safety needed for them to truly hear the message. Ultimately, this structure allows a leader to live the principle that clarity is kindness. By providing a clear, factual account of the situation, the behavior, and its impact, you give your employee the gift of awareness and a clear choice about the impact they want to create going forward. You owe that to your people, to lead. Beverly Flores Founder & CEO, Thyme Out Consulting Beverly Flores is an award-winning leadership strategist who helps high-achieving leaders build courageous, people-first cultures. After a 24-year Fortune 100 career, she now uses her proprietary EEI (Energy, Enthusiasm, and Intensity) framework to help leaders move from burnout to breakthrough.
The common pitfall when providing feedback is failing to strike a balance between being empathetic and direct to a fault. To solve the issue, I've adopted the radical candor approach, which is now integral to my company's culture. It helps find the middle ground between ignoring people's feelings, which only strengthens misunderstanding, and being overly concerned about the emotional side, which may prevent one from actually communicating change and creating an environment for growth. We have an internal saying that reflects our culture: every team member can take any feedback but strives to provide the best possible. In this equation, the best possible stands for honest, detailed, and thoughtful, and should not, in any case, be mistaken for merely pleasant enough to avoid conflict. The game-changer for any leader is also being ready to ask for and receive feedback before giving it to the team. Such a first step boosts trust and maximizes the value of any input that follows. This approach also contributes to a leader-leader model, empowering everyone, regardless of their role, to contribute ideas, drive innovation, learn from mistakes, take 100% responsibility for the result, and choose an 'intend to' perspective instead of waiting for instructions.
The greatest feedback mistake that leaders make is to address issues on the spot rather than hear the person out first during emotional moments. When a caregiver commits a mistake, healthcare managers tend to move directly to the corrective action, which leads to defensiveness that inhibits learning. Military aviation led me to understand that debriefing is more effective than on-the-job correction since individuals require time to digest what occurred before they can internalize the instructions. The best way to provide feedback is by requesting the individual to discuss the process of thinking before you give them your observations. When a nurse makes a wrong decision when prescribing medication, the question walk me through your decision-making will help identify a lack of knowledge, system malfunction, or external factors. This has seen us retain 34% more of our staff in 18 months since employees feel that they are heard and not judged.
The most frequent fault that I commit as a leader is that I often present feedback in a form of a performance audit rather than a conversation. They will have someone they sit down with and lay out a laundry list of problems and throws everything out there simultaneously regardless of the context or time. I got this lesson the hard way at the beginning of my career with a junior developer who failed to meet project deadlines. Rather than dealing with the pattern at the moment, I accumulated all the missed deadlines to rate during our monthly check-in. Both of us got bogged down in the conversation, and nothing fruitful was achieved. My trick of practicality: The rule of one thing. Identify which one issue is the most significant and should be addressed and talk about it in less than 48 hours after realizing it happened. Do not use the feedback sandwich technique. Here is what works: I observed that the API documentation of the client project was late to the tune of three days. Explain to me how that happened so that we can avoid this in the future. Then be quiet without speaking. This is a short-term intensive approach, which has reshaped my team in regards to responding to directions. The reality is that people actually make changes because they are not overwhelmed by several areas of improvement in parallel. The discussion is not controlling and each problem is solved before it escalates to more serious issues.
One common mistake I see leaders make is treating feedback as a one-time "download" instead of a two-way conversation. Sometimes leaders deliver feedback as a a type of verdict. Something they need to get through quickly versus an opportunity to build trust, alignment and growth. If the leader's feedback feels transactional - the employee's curiosity and motivation shut down which makes their morale plummet. A practical tip: Shift from "performance policing" to "partnership." Instead of telling someone what they did wrong, frame feedback as a 2 way exploration. "Here's what I noticed, how did it feel from your side?" This simple shift transforms feedback into a two-way conversation that helps the other person feel seen and engaged in co-creating the path forward. It builds trust, alignment and growth and increases performance, morale and retention.
One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is delivering feedback without pointing to the real issue and without connecting that issue to the future. Too often, feedback gets stuck in the past, focused on what went wrong as opposed to framed as an act of service to help someone grow. Leaders may avoid conflict, downplay their message, or fail to highlight the one key behavior that needs to change to drive progress. But people care about their growth, their development, and their impact. That's why effective feedback must be more than vague commentary. It should be grounded in direct observation, placed in context, and connected to future outcomes. Done well, feedback answers three questions for the person receiving it: Why does this matter? Why should I care? And how will this help me develop? When leaders approach feedback this way, they transform it from a judgment about the past into a catalyst for growth and impact.
A big mistake that I see leaders make, including myself, is providing feedback without accountability. Let's say a direct report comes to you to tell you that they've completed a particular task, you have a look, and see that there are problems. Maybe those problems can be regarded as errors, or maybe you've seen what they've accomplished, love it, and want them to continue. Doesn't matter. When providing feedback or other guidance, a good leader makes sure to include the who, what, and when. Who should do the work? What should that work entail? And when should it be completed? The "who" when you're meeting with someone one-on-one is usually evident, but not always. Some leaders have a habit of speaking very passively and use language like, "We should be sure to do X, Y, and Z", without clarifying who "we" is. Simple fix: change "we" to "you". The "what" is usually pretty well-defined too, but not always. A manager who says, "I'd like to see improvement in how you do X," should be more specific. Better to say, "I'm glad that you're making 40 sales calls a week, but I need that to be sixty." The "when" is very often forgotten. To the manager, it might seem obvious: as soon as practicable or even possible. But that begs the question of what is practicable or even possible. Prioritization is something that the manager should better understand than the direct report, as the manager should better understand how the work fits into the overall picture. "I'd like you to be making 60 sales calls a week by the end of this month," is a good approach.
One mistake I see leaders make when delivering feedback is failing to apply Theory of Mind (ToM)—the capacity to discern and interpret others' mental states, including beliefs, intentions, emotions, and desires. ToM helps leaders anticipate how recipients will interpret feedback and their emotional responses, influencing whether they actually "receive" it or reject it. I think most of us have been in a situation in which our supervisor gave feedback that felt one-sided, cold, and void of indication that they took even one minute to consider our perspectives. When that happens, we typically question the legitimacy of communication. Leaders and those entrusted in their care co-construct meanings during feedback conversations. Feedback conversations should be co-constructed dialogues, not one-way communications that violate relational trust. Applying ToM is critical to maintaining positive relationships and momentum toward goal achievement. I recommend leaders conduct a "Mental Model Check" before engaging in feedback discussions. Pause and ask yourself, "What is the goal of my feedback? What, specifically, am I hoping to achieve through this conversation? How will this serve the person? "What might be influencing this person's current capacity to receive feedback? (stress levels, recent events, workload)" After establishing your intentions and how the feedback will support the person receiving it, ask yourself, "What is this person probably feeling and thinking about [insert the feedback topic]? What do I know about how they take in and process information? What do they need from me to trust that I intend to help them? What must I do to adapt my communication to their preferences?" After considering these things, open the conversation with an invitation to dialogue that frames the person as an equal participant. Try something like, "Help me see your perspective on [situation]. I want to gain a better understanding of your perspective. What did you have in mind when [specific incident] happened?" Thinking through these kinds of questions stretches your empathy and forces you to imagine the other person's thoughts and emotions before presenting your own view, and they can go a long way in preventing misunderstandings and diminishing trust in working relationships.
Delivering The Feedback With Humor Even though it is well-intentioned, trying to ease tension or make the conversation less awkward usually backfires. When feedback is wrapped in jokes, employees often leave the conversation uncertain about whether the concerns raised were genuine or just casual banter. This ambiguity can lead them to question if their work or mistakes are being taken seriously, ultimately eroding trust. In some instances, what the leader intends as lighthearted can actually come across as dismissive or demeaning. A more effective approach is straightforward, respectful communication. I recommend focusing feedback on specific behaviors and their outcomes, completely avoiding jokes or sarcasm. Rather than saying with a chuckle, "Well, that report was a bit of a disaster," try: "The report contained several errors that created confusion for the client. Let's discuss how to prevent this in the future." This delivers feedback that is constructive, actionable, and clearly communicates the seriousness of the matter. In my experience, employees consistently respond better to honest, respectful feedback than to humor that obscures the essential message.
At Zapier, "Grow through feedback" is one of our company values and we really do stand by it! We rely on feedback to build trust, hold each other accountable, and improve our work. We also encourage all Zapier teammates (but especially managers and leaders) to develop a habit of regularly giving and asking for specific 360 feedback, both glows and grows. One common mistake I've seen leaders make is not being specific enough in their feedback requests. It's hard to give meaningful input when the ask is too broad: "Do you have any feedback about my work in the last quarter?" or "Here's a doc, let me know what you think." It's much easier to respond to a focused prompt. For example: "From your perspective, what went well and what could have been better about my planning and execution of our GTM Hackathon?" Or: "Do you think the questions I highlighted in yellow will drive a healthy debate between RevOps and Data on ownership?" Specificity makes the feedback process far more productive. The practical tip: be specific, consistent, and timely. Feedback doesn't have to be long or intense. Just acknowledge the behavior and impact, then follow up with a question or request. These quick moments of feedback, given regularly, build trust and foster a culture of continuous improvement. Over time, both leaders and their teams grow stronger because feedback becomes not a rare event, but a normal part of how you work together.
One of the biggest mistakes I've seen leaders make is giving feedback that isn't appropriate to the stage of the project. Feedback during the brainstorming phase should look very different from feedback given on a project that is mid-stage or near completion. To be constructive, leaders need to understand the timelines their team members are working under. A team member might be juggling multiple deadlines, coordinating efforts with others, or navigating variables outside their control. For example, feedback suggesting a major overhaul should take into account the time and opportunity cost involved, particularly if the person is accountable to other stakeholders. On the other hand, feedback that is overly narrow or prescriptive when a project still needs big-picture direction can be just as unhelpful. Surface-level details may be the first things to stand out, but effective leaders know how to prioritize feedback that drives progress at the right stage. Effective feedback should be calibrated to the project's context and framed as clear, specific, and actionable next steps.
Head Therapist, Head Coach, Founder at Megan Rees, LPCC and Megan Rees, Coaching & Consulting
Answered 6 months ago
Research consistently shows that various types of bias often influence performance reviews, ultimately determining who gets promoted and who doesn't. One of the most effective ways to reduce bias is by improving the quality and consistency of day-to-day feedback. When managers focus on objective, contextual, and personalized feedback, they're better able to track progress over time which inspires lasting behavior change and more equitable evaluations. When designing learning programs for managers, I often use the SBI model (Situation, Behavior, Impact.) Because giving feedback can be stressful or awkward, this simple structure helps managers stay focused on observable actions and tie feedback directly to the recipient's work. Situation: the context in which the behavior occurred Behavior: the specific, observable action that's within the receiver's ability to improve Impact: how that behavior affected others or the work Here's an example: "During last week's client meeting when we unveiled our proposed solution (Situation), you interrupted your teammate's presentation and delivered the results yourself (Behavior). This threw off the team's well-rehearsed flow and didn't give your teammate the chance to highlight their work (Impact). I know you have a goal of becoming a manager, and one of our expectations for managers is that they empower their team to shine." Feedback like this works because it's not just about what went wrong, it connects to what matters to the individual. People are more likely to change their behavior when the change aligns with their personal goals and values. In this case, the feedback reinforces both the employee's aspiration to become a manager and how the company defines effective leadership.
One mistake I consistently see leaders make when giving feedback is that they deliver it from a place of unexamined emotions and subjective perspectives — not from 'objective' data. So, what they think is feedback... is often a personal projection. Here's what's really happening under the surface: Most leaders were never taught to distinguish between accurate observation and automatic and subjective reaction. And our automatic and subjective reactions are driven by our subconscous patterns formed in childhood. I love to use attachment theory to frame this in a simple, understandable way. If a leader grew up needing to overperform to earn approval (anxious attachment), their feedback may be extra critical, with an intensity, urgency, or pressure, even if the issue isn't critical. This is because for them, they had to earn approval - and often nothing less than perfect was 'good enough'. So often, feedback is nit-picky, harsh, and critical. Equally, if a leader learned to suppress emotion to stay safe (avoidant attachment), their feedback might be distant, cold, or overly blunt, and miss the human connection needed to land the message. They might even avoid giving feedback in the first place, because they are so uncomfortable with emotions and intimacy. These are two quick examples of unconscious blocks - protective patterns that once helped us navigate early relationships, but now distort how we lead, especially under stress. Unchecked, they inject bias into our feedback. They turn tension into huge blow ups, and honest observations into personal attacks. Practical Tip: Before you give feedback, ask yourself: "Am I responding to what's actually happening, or reacting to a story and interpretation in my head that could be subjective?" "Is this feedback clean, fair, and useful, or is it emotionally loaded and subjective?" High-quality feedback requires a neutral lens. It means separating the story your nervous system is telling you... from what's objectively true. Because when leaders give feedback from a wound, they create rifts and problems - and the feedback is often not that helpful, either! But when they deliver it with emotional clarity and attachment awareness, they build trust, maturity, and cooperation. That's how leadership scales.
I've witnessed firsthand how poor feedback delivery can make or break organizational success. The most harmful blunder I see leaders commit is giving feedback in the form of a sandwich - putting criticism between empty flattery. Doing so utterly dilutes the message and leaves employees wondering where the actual change is supposed to occur. We know that 57% of employees would prefer direct feedback from a manager over vague messages, but managers continue with that unfruitful approach anyway. I learned this lesson the hard way in my early years of being a budding entrepreneur. I had a worker whose quality of work was deteriorating, but I kept qualifying my criticism with generic praise. After three months of the "feedback sandwiches," the performance issues persisted, and the worker felt ambushed when we had to let her contract lapse. She told me later that she never suspected her work quality wasn't satisfactory because my contradictory messages created the impression that everything was all right. My do-it-now tip is uncomplicated but forceful: Start with specific comments, not judgments. Rather than "You must work on communications," I now say "There were three client emails left unattended for more than 48 hours this week." That way, individuals can take tangible steps they can do right away, rather than intangible ideas they cannot put into practice. "When leaders swap generic criticism with actual observations, they turn the dreaded conversation of feedback into a map of success." I hope you find it useful in your story. I've observed a shift in strategy for providing feedback to improve team performance by 40% in my organization, and I'm always eager to develop more customized strategies that are effective.
Providing Business Coaching to CEO's, Directors, Senior Leaders, and Business Owners it is evident that providing feedback effectively is a perennial challenge. I reflect on my childhood to offer an analogy when seeking to provide feedback. I would be emersed with a puzzle and my mother would call out: 'Dinner's on the table.' This was code for come immediately. It annoyed me as I needed time to disengage from what I was enjoying. The same applies when a leader wants to provide feedback to a team member. Instead of saying 'can we chat in my office now' a preferable approach would be to ask them when it was convenient to meet to discuss some feedback. This helps to create the right environment and ensures the team member is present in the conversation, rather than, thinking about the report they were writing or the accounts they were about to close out. Once the discussion starts be sure to check in with the team member first, then clarify the purpose of the meeting. Some areas of feedback require a noticeably clear statement of what is or was unacceptable (e.g. arriving consistently late for meetings) but there are many other areas where it is more effective for the leader to adopt a posture of 'seek first to understand before being understood.' Asking a person to explain their version of events may result in the leader modifying or radically changing their feedback. Actively listening before making assumptions and arriving at a conclusion is mutually beneficial.
The delivery of poorly received feedback creates negative effects on team morale and halts team advancement. Leaders who concentrate solely on negative aspects deliver their criticism through a judgmental tone. Feedback functions best as a development instrument instead of a destructive tool according to my experience. The combination of starting with team strengths and presenting feedback as a shared development path enables teams to enhance their performance while strengthening their trust in each other. I implement the "Do, Not, Now, Next" method as my practical method for feedback delivery. The method requires you to start with positive aspects (Do) before showing what needs improvement (Not) and explaining its significance (Now) and providing guidance for future development (Next). The process of streamlining your work is outstanding so we should work on data presentation techniques for better clarity during the next attempt. The method delivers feedback that remains direct and respectful while maintaining a focus on development. The outdated "criticism sandwich" method feels artificial to most people but this method establishes a real partnership for achieving success. People become defensive when they receive criticism without proper context information. I concentrate on identifying the observed problem and work with others to establish its effects and develop a solution plan. The report contains solid data yet its current structure needs improvement so we should work together to find a better organization method for future reports. The approach transforms negative feedback into a professional team-based effort. Feedback serves to construct a better system together with others rather than focusing on individual weaknesses. Leaders should initiate their feedback with a positive statement about someone's strengths regardless of how small they seem. The practice of acknowledging successful elements creates a positive atmosphere which makes people more receptive to development opportunities. The goal is to demonstrate your commitment to their achievement through honest feedback rather than hiding the truth. Feedback should function as a precise tool for development which enhances potential instead of destroying it. Leaders who work with their teams to identify strengths before delivering feedback create an environment where performance improves through collaborative efforts.
Have you ever noticed how often leaders use the "feedback sandwich" when giving feedback? A compliment, then the real critique, then another compliment. Here is the pattern. Leaders think it softens the blow, but in reality people see right through it. The praise feels forced and the constructive point gets buried. Dan Martell says it best: the sandwich often confuses more than it helps. The Numbers Tell the Truth: Only 14% of employees say feedback truly inspires them. (Gallup) Just 19% of employees say the feedback they get is consistent, valuable, and growth-focused. (Workhuman) Studies show the sandwich shapes perceptions but does not actually improve performance. (Springer, Phys.org) Why this matters: If only 14% feel inspired, most feedback is not working. With only 19% saying feedback is valuable, the majority are not getting what they need to grow. Research shows the sandwich technique is outdated and ineffective. A Better Way: Inspect what you expect. Be clear. Start with context and why it matters. Share the feedback in a direct, actionable way. Then close by reinforcing your belief in the person and by asking them a question so they take ownership. Example: "I noticed our client reports have been late, which affects our team's credibility. Let's sharpen your editing process and set a mini-deadline two days before the final delivery. How do you think we can make that happen? I know you can do this and I want to support you to make it work." Clarity, sincerity, and a genuine question beat the sandwich every single time.
Some people take the idea of balance a little too far. We've all heard of the "compliment sandwich" -- give a positive, slip in the critique, then end with another positive. On paper it sounds nice. But in practice? It can fall flat. What happens when you're dealing with an employee who's genuinely struggling, or worse, has broken an important protocol? In those moments, dragging up a random positive just to cushion the message can feel patronizing. And even more concerning, it risks watering down the impact of real compliments. If I'm praising someone during a period when they're underperforming, how meaningful will that praise feel when they're actually excelling? Over time, they may start dismissing both the positive and the negative as meaningless. That's why my advice to other leaders is simple: put authenticity first. Don't get trapped in rigid rules about how feedback "should" be delivered. Authenticity doesn't mean harshness, and it certainly doesn't give you license to berate someone or unload your frustration. But it does mean cutting the sugar-coating and speaking to people as adults. Employees deserve to trust that when you speak, whether it's praise or correction, it's genuine.