The Way We Give Feedback is Wrong

The Compliment Sandwich doesn’t taste very good anymore.

Every leader faces the same pattern: you give feedback which you believe to be fair and accurate. You explain what needs to change, and then you set the proper expectations.

And nothing happens.

I've seen this happen to my kids when I'm trying to be a good parent. I've seen it happen to my players when I'm trying to coach them how to be better basketball players. And I've definitely seen it in some of prior direct reports.

When you give feedback in the traditional sense, often the work does not improve. The same mistakes repeat. The person nods in the meeting and then reverts to old habits. After a while, frustration sets in. You start questioning whether feedback works at all.

This is where many leaders drift into avoidance or bluntness. Either they soften the message to preserve harmony, or they double down on directness and accept the relational damage as the cost of accountability. Both approaches fail more often than we admit.

Feedback is one of the most critical components of leadership, yet the way in which we deliver it is often broken.

Research by psychologist David Yeager helps clarify what is actually happening in feedback conversations, especially with younger professionals. When someone with authority gives feedback, the receiver is not primarily asking whether the feedback is correct. They are asking a more basic question: do you think I am capable?

If the answer feels like no, learning stops. The nervous system shifts into defense. The feedback is filtered, minimized, or ignored. Not because the person is fragile, but because identity feels under threat.

This is not a generational issue and certainly not limited to just young professionals. Everyone faces this issue.

When feedback threatens dignity, it triggers self protection. When it signals respect, it activates effort. Most leaders underestimate how quickly their feedback crosses the line in either direction.

Why Feedback Feels Personal

Part of the problem is definitional. We use the word feedback as if it were neutral. In practice, it often collapses into criticism. And criticism is almost always experienced as judgment of the person, not assessment of the work.

This happens because leaders frequently blur the person with the process and the outcome.

When feedback targets the person, improvement becomes secondary. The real task becomes self defense. Shame replaces learning. Energy gets spent protecting identity instead of fixing the system. This is why feedback that is technically accurate still fails. You cannot improve performance while threatening dignity.

Feedback works when it is treated as an assessment of how a process performed relative to an expected outcome. Processes have steps. Steps produce results. And results can be evaluated.

People are not the process. They are the operators within it. Processes can be fixed without attacking the person executing them.

In practice, you stop saying things like “you are bad at follow through.” Instead, you start saying things like “the update did not reach the stakeholder by end of day, which delayed the decision.”

One statement assigns identity. The other identifies a system failure.

The Compliment Sandwich Doesn’t Taste Good Anymore

Many leaders sense the danger of threatening dignity, so they compensate with praise and niceties. The most common technique is the compliment sandwich.

Something positive. Something critical. Something positive again.

Research shows that people, especially those early in their careers, are not looking for niceness. They are looking for signals of respect. Praise that feels generic or unrelated to the core task does not provide that signal. It can even undermine it. A compliment sandwich says that I am softening this because I do not think you can handle the truth.

Yeager’s research identifies a simple but powerful alternative: wise feedback. Wise feedback holds high standards and makes belief in the person explicit.

In one study, teachers gave students critical feedback on essays. Half of the students also received a short note explaining why. “I’m giving you these comments because I have high standards, and I know you can meet them.” The feedback itself did not change. The framing did.

Students who received that signal revised their work at dramatically higher rates. They made more corrections. They engaged more deeply. The effect was strongest among students who had the least reason to trust authority in the first place.

Many leaders hear this and worry it could sound indulgent. (I'm right, I'm the boss, listen to me, why don't you get that??) Every person has inherent worth that does not rise or fall with performance. Leaders do not grant that dignity. But they can either honor it or threaten it through how they speak.

Feedback that confuses performance with worth oversteps moral authority. It claims the right to define someone’s value. Feedback that separates dignity from performance creates space for growth. The person remains intact. The system becomes adjustable. This is not softer leadership but a more disciplined leadership.

Most leaders treat feedback as an event, whether it's a conversation, meeting, or a document.

High performing organizations treat feedback as a system. Systems have inputs, incentives, and feedback loops. They produce predictable patterns over time. When feedback consistently signals high standards and belief, the system produces effort, learning, and trust.

One useful way to think about feedback is through the interaction of three forces: strengths, ego, and effort.

Strength matters, but it is rarely decisive on its own. Ego dampens learning while effort amplifies it. High ego shrinks the impact of feedback while low ego improves the implementation of feedback. With effort, the higher the input the more it multiples the intended outcomes, even if the overall strengths are lower.

This is why leaders should pay close attention to effort signals. Effort is evidence of belief. When someone works hard, they are already aligned with improvement.

Practical Feedback Takeaways

Separate dignity from performance. Make it clear, explicitly or implicitly, that feedback is about the work, not the person.

Anchor feedback in process. Describe what happened, when it happened, and why it mattered. Avoid labels.

State the standard. Clarity about expectations is motivating. Ambiguity is not kind.

Signal belief. Make it unmistakable that you expect improvement because you believe improvement is possible.

Respond proportionally to effort. Effort compounds learning. Notice it. Name it. Reinforce it.

To lead is to shape environments where people grow. Withholding feedback because it is uncomfortable shifts the cost to the organization, the team, and ultimately the individual. At the same time, careless feedback misuses power. Leaders are responsible not only for results, but for the human consequences of how those results are pursued.

Leadership is not about being liked (or feared!) It is about being effective in service of the mission and the people who carry it forward. Feedback is one of the few tools that can genuinely change trajectories, but only when it is delivered with clarity, discipline, and respect for human dignity.