Blog
The Uncomfortable Truth About Giving Feedback That Actually Works
Nobody likes hearing this, but most managers are absolutely hopeless at giving feedback. There, I said it.
After seventeen years watching executives stumble through performance conversations like they're defusing a bomb, I've come to one inescapable conclusion: we've overcomplicated something that should be fundamentally simple. We've turned feedback into this mystical art form that requires special training, perfect timing, and the emotional intelligence of a therapist.
Rubbish.
The Three-Bucket Reality
Here's my controversial take that'll probably annoy half the HR departments in Australia: all feedback falls into three buckets, and if you can't identify which bucket you're using, you're wasting everyone's time.
Bucket One: Stop Doing This - Direct, immediate, non-negotiable. Think safety violations, harassment, or that bloke in accounting who keeps microwaving fish in the office kitchen.
Bucket Two: Start Doing This - Future-focused, opportunity-based. Usually tied to career development or business needs.
Bucket Three: Keep Doing This (But Better) - The trickiest category because it requires nuance. This is where most people mess up spectacularly.
I learned this framework the hard way during a particularly disastrous feedback session with a senior developer in my Melbourne office back in 2019. I'd prepared this elaborate sandwich approach - praise, criticism, praise - and watched her eyes glaze over completely. She walked away confused about whether she was performing well or poorly. That's when I realised the sandwich method is corporate theatre, not effective communication.
The best feedback I've ever received was from my first boss who told me bluntly: "You interrupt people in meetings. Stop it. Here's how." No padding, no psychological manipulation, just clear direction.
The Australian Advantage (And Disadvantage)
We Aussies have a natural advantage in feedback conversations because we're generally more direct than other cultures. But we also have a massive blind spot: we confuse being blunt with being helpful.
I've seen Melbourne CEOs deliver feedback that would make a sailor blush, thinking they're being "refreshingly honest." Meanwhile, their Perth counterparts wrap everything in so much diplomatic language that employees need a translator to understand what's being communicated.
The sweet spot exists somewhere between Brisbane's laid-back approach and Sydney's corporate intensity. And yes, I'm making generalisations about cities, but anyone who's worked across Australia knows there's truth in these regional differences.
Why Your Feedback Framework Is Probably Wrong
Most organisations use some variation of the GROW model or SMART criteria for feedback. These aren't wrong per se, but they're incomplete. They focus on structure while ignoring the psychological reality of how humans actually process criticism.
Here's what actually matters:
Timing trumps technique. The best-structured feedback delivered at the wrong moment is worthless. I once watched a brilliant operations manager deliver perfect constructive feedback to an employee whose father had just been diagnosed with cancer. The employee heard nothing except criticism during an already difficult time.
Frequency matters more than formality. Those annual performance reviews? They're archaeological expeditions through past behaviour, not development tools. The companies doing this right - and I'm thinking specifically of Atlassian's approach here - have moved to continuous feedback cycles.
Context beats content. You can say the exact same words to two different people and get completely different outcomes based on their personality, career stage, and current life circumstances.
The Tools Everyone Ignores
Let me share the three handling office politics techniques that transformed my feedback conversations:
The Assumption Audit
Before every feedback conversation, I write down three assumptions I'm making about the situation. Usually, at least one of them is completely wrong. This simple exercise has saved me from countless embarrassing misunderstandings.
The 24-Hour Rule
Never give feedback when you're emotionally charged. I don't care how urgent it feels. Sleep on it, discuss it with someone you trust, then decide if it's still worth addressing. This rule alone has prevented more workplace drama than any conflict resolution training.
The Boomerang Question
End every feedback session by asking: "What feedback do you have for me about how I delivered this?" Most managers never ask this question because they're afraid of the answer. But it's the fastest way to improve your feedback skills and build trust simultaneously.
The Uncomfortable Statistics
Here's a fact that'll make you squirm: according to research I came across last year, roughly 69% of managers avoid giving negative feedback because they fear damaging relationships. Meanwhile, 83% of employees say they'd prefer honest feedback over positive feedback that isn't actionable.
We're literally creating the opposite of what people want because we're projecting our own discomfort onto them.
What Actually Works in Practice
Forget the corporate training modules for a minute. Here's what I've observed actually working in real Australian workplaces:
Be boringly specific. Instead of "your communication needs improvement," try "in yesterday's client meeting, you interrupted the customer three times when they were explaining their budget constraints." Specific examples eliminate confusion and defensiveness.
Use the redirect technique. Rather than saying "you're wrong," try "I see it differently" or "here's another perspective." It's not about being soft; it's about keeping their brain in problem-solving mode instead of defensive mode.
Time-bound everything. "I'd like to see improvement in this area" is meaningless. "Let's revisit this in two weeks" creates accountability and urgency.
The best feedback conversations I've had felt more like effective questioning for call handlers problem-solving sessions than performance evaluations. Both parties left knowing exactly what needed to happen next.
The Follow-Up Failure
Here's where most people completely drop the ball: they give great feedback, then never mention it again. They assume the conversation was enough. It never is.
Follow-up isn't checking up on people like a micromanager. It's creating opportunities for success and course correction. I schedule follow-up conversations in my calendar before the initial feedback session even happens. This ensures it actually happens rather than getting lost in the daily chaos.
The Technology Trap
Every month, some new feedback app or platform promises to revolutionise how we give feedback. Most of them are solutions looking for problems. The challenge isn't technological; it's psychological and cultural.
That said, I'm genuinely impressed with how some companies are using simple tools like Slack or Microsoft Teams to normalise ongoing feedback. When feedback becomes part of daily workflow rather than formal events, it loses its intimidating power.
Real Talk About Difficult Conversations
Sometimes feedback conversations are genuinely difficult. When someone's performance is significantly below standard, when personal issues are affecting work, or when there are potential legal implications, you can't nice your way through these situations.
I've had to deliver feedback about body odour, inappropriate jokes, and work quality so poor it was affecting entire project timelines. These conversations require courage, not technique.
The key is separating the person from the behaviour. You're not attacking them; you're addressing specific actions or outcomes that need to change. This distinction makes all the difference in how the message is received and acted upon.
Sometimes people don't respond well to feedback regardless of how skilfully it's delivered. That's their choice, not your failure.
The Generational Reality
Let's address the elephant in the room: different generations prefer different feedback styles. This isn't about stereotyping; it's about recognising communication preferences shaped by different cultural experiences.
Many experienced workers prefer direct, straightforward feedback. Younger employees often want more context about how their work fits into broader organisational goals. Neither approach is wrong, but using the same feedback style for everyone is ineffective.
I've learned to ask people directly how they prefer to receive feedback. Some want immediate course correction; others prefer scheduled conversations where they can mentally prepare. Accommodating these preferences isn't weakness; it's practical leadership.
Where Most Training Gets It Wrong
Corporate feedback training usually focuses on techniques and scripts. But the real skill is reading situations and adapting your approach accordingly. You can't script authenticity or genuine care for someone's development.
The managers who excel at feedback share one common trait: they genuinely want their people to succeed. When that foundation exists, technique becomes secondary. People can sense when feedback comes from a place of support versus judgment.
Other blogs you might find helpful:
The truth about feedback is simpler than we've made it. Most people want to do good work and improve their performance. They want clear direction, honest assessment, and support for their development. When we focus on providing these things rather than perfecting our delivery technique, feedback conversations become collaborative rather than confrontational.
Stop overthinking it. Start having real conversations.