 |
|
|
|||||
Delivering feedback as a leader can feel challenging, but with the right training and awareness, you can set yourself up for success. In this article, industry leaders share the common mistakes theyve observed and practical tips that can help you communicate feedback more effectively and constructively to foster a more productive work environment. Focus on Behavior, Not Character When feedback judges the individualand not the actiona 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 behaviorand not the individual’s character, personality, or worththe 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. Nancy McGuire Choi, Chief Operating Officer, The Nebo Company Use the ‘SBI-A’ Model for Effective Feedback Delivering difficult feedback is one of the most common skills we are brought in to teach leaders. A common mistake I see leaders make when delivering feedback is relying on the outdated “sandwich method” where they wrap constructive criticism between two pieces of praise.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. Bailey Parnell, Founder & CEO, SkillsCamp Adopt Data-Driven Framework to Externalize Feedback 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 also recommend the SBI-A Model to help with this. 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 Balance Empathy and Directness in Feedback A common pitfall when providing feedback is failing to strike a balance between being empathetic and direct. To address this issue, I’ve adopted the radical candor approach, which has now become integral to my company’s culture. It helps find the middle ground between ignoring people’s feelings, which only strengthens misunderstandings, 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 feedback, 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 results, and choose an “intend to” perspective instead of waiting for instructions. Anton Pavlovsky, Founder and CEO, Headway Inc Allow Time for Reflection Before Correction The greatest feedback mistake that leaders make is addressing issues on the spot rather than hearing the person out first during emotional moments. When a caregiver commits a mistake, healthcare managers tend to move directly to 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 iternalize instructions. The best way to provide feedback is by requesting the individual to discuss their thought process before you give them your observations. When a nurse makes a wrong decision when prescribing medication, the prompt, “Walk me through your decision-making,” will help identify a lack of knowledge, system malfunction, or external factors. This approach has helped us retain 34% more of our staff in 18 months since employees feel that they are heard and not judged. Stephen Huber, President and Founder, Home Care Providers Address One Issue at a Time The most frequent fault that I commit as a leader is that I often present feedback in the form of a performance audit rather than a conversation. I will sit down with someone and lay out a laundry list of problems, throwing everything out there simultaneously regardless of the context or time. I learned this lesson the hard way at the beginning of my career with a junior developer who failed to meet project deadlines. Rather than addressing the pattern in the moment, I accumulated all the missed deadlines to review during our monthly check-in. Both of us got bogged down in the conversation, and nothing fruitful was achieved. My practical trick: The rule of one thing. Identify which single issue is the most significant and should be addressed, then talk about it within 48 hours of realizing it happened. Do not use the feedback sandwich technique. Here is what works: “I observed that the API documentation for the client project was three days late. Can you explain to me how that happened so that we can avoid this in the future?” Then be quiet and listen. This short-term intensive approach has reshaped my team’s response 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. Rahul Jaiswal, Project Manager, Geeks Programming Transform Feedback into Two-Way Conversations 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 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 two-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 cocreating the path forward. It builds trust, alignment, and growth, and increases performance, morale, and retention. Anu Mandapati, CEO, Qultured Connect Feedback to Future Growth 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 being 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. However, 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. Dr. Isabel Bilotta, Director, People & Performance, Deutser Provide Clear Accountability in Feedback 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 60.” 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. Steven Rothberg, Founder and Chief Visionary Officer, College Recruiter Apply ‘Theory of Mind’ in Feedback One mistake leaders often make when delivering feedback is failing to apply Theory of Mindthe 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. Most of us have likely been in a situation where our supervisor gave feedback that felt one-sided, cold, and devoid of any indication that they took even a moment to consider our perspectives. When this happens, we typically question the legitimacy of the communication. Leaders and those entrusted in their care co-construct meanings during feedback conversations. These conversations should be co-constructed dialogues, not one-way communications that violate relational trust. Applying ToM is critical to maintaining positive relationships an momentum toward goal achievement. I recommend that leaders conduct a “Mental Model Check” before engaging in feedback discussions. They should pause and ask themselves: “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 (e.g., stress levels, recent events, workload)?” After establishing their intentions and how the feedback will support the person receiving it, leaders should further reflect: “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 aspects, leaders should open the conversation with an invitation to dialogue that frames the person as an equal participant. They might try something like, “Help me see your perspective on [situation]. I want to gain a better understanding of your point of view. What did you have in mind when [specific incident] happened?” Thinking through these kinds of questions stretches one’s empathy and forces leaders to imagine the other person’s thoughts and emotions before presenting their own view. This approach can go a long way in preventing misunderstandings and strengthening trust in working relationships. Sandra Buatti-Ramos, Founder, Hyphen Innovation Avoid Humor When Delivering Feedback 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. Dimi Baitanciuc, Co-Founder & CEO, Brizy.io Request Specific Feedback for Improvement “Grow through feedback” is one of our company values, and we truly stand by it! We rely on feedback to build trust, hold each other accountable, and improve our work. We also encourage all teammates (especially managers and leaders) to develop a habit of regularly giving and asking for specific 360-degree feedback, both strengths (glows) and areas for improvement (grows). One common mistake I’ve seen leaders make is not being specific enough in their feedback requests. It’s challenging to provide meaningful input when the request is too broad: “Do you have any feedback about my work in the last quarter?” or, “Here’s a document; 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 improved 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 lengthy or intense. Simply acknowledge the behavior and its 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. Julianna Kobs, Executive Business Partner, Zapier Tailor Feedback to Project Stage 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. Luke Marsh, CMO, Innago Encourage Honest Feedback for Team Success I once asked our customer service team lead to share feedback on the manager. The manager was a recent hire, while the team leader had been with us for more than three years. She decided to be kind and didn’t give the objective truth. The manager’s performance deteriorated, which negatively affected team morale. We received more requests for paid time off and mental health days. We were forced to hire part-time workers to meet deadlines, incurring an extra expense. Employees were clashing with each other, and we only learned about this during the team lead’s exit interview. She shared the objective comments on the manager that she would have given months ago. It is okay to want to be kind and have your coworkers’ backs. However, when we ask for feedback, we are not asking for it as a form of punishment. We want to know areas that need our attention, training, or improvement to enhance our services and team spirit. Jacky Fischer, CEO, 3 Men Movers
Category:
E-Commerce
Here are two high-level truths essential to understanding the present and future of robotics. First, we want robots to work for us. Second, when it comes to work, humans have three historical blueprints for recruiting labor: animals, through the process of domestication; other humans, through employment, but also subjugation and outright enslavement; and machines, through the development of physical systems for performing actions. Why does this matter to understanding the present and future of robotics? While weve created an astonishing diversity of machines in the broadest sense, those first two blueprints for recruited laboranimals and other humanshave so far dominated our conception of robots. Today our most celebrated robots, all of them marvels of design and engineering, are machine evolutions of animals and other humans. You can see the echoes of those same dogs and draft animals we recruited as labor thousands of years ago in this dog and this dog, another dog, and this mule. And you can see our adoration of humanoid robots in Agility Robotics Digit, Boston Dynamics Atlas, Teslas Optimus, and Unitrees G1.There are straightforward reasons for this. First, as a species weve done a lot of work designing the world for us and our animal helpers, so it makes sense to design robots resembling ourselves and those animals for work in those spaces. As an example, this humanoid robot from Under Control Robotics is designed to work alongside humans in human workplaces such as warehouses and construction sites, a machine enhancement of human-like capabilities. Second, we have an innate tendency in our psychology toward anthropomorphism. Our brains are hardwired through evolutionary adaptation to discern complex social signals. A major reverberation of this adaptation is that we tend to anthropomorphize the stuff around us, affixing human characteristics to non-human things. Its why we have trains with faces in Thomas & Friends and why Star Wars C-3POa machineis anxious and chatty. Its also why many people name their cars and Roomba vacuum cleaners. The pivot Heres the pivot ahead, though: there are important spaces in our future that arent designed for us. Anthropomorphized animal- and human-like robots are designed to replicate human and animal capabilities, but those capabilities are based on physiologies that dont have the same advantages for work in outer space, in oceans, on the blades of wind turbines, or inside volcanoes. While nature certainly has many highly specialized adaptations, the physiologies of humans and animals are simply not made for maneuvering inside gas and water pipes; they cant be dropped from aircraft without parachutes or thrown into battlefields; they arent well-suited for fighting lithium battery fires inside a landfill. Humanoid and animal-inspired robots also tend to be complex, power-hungry, and expensiveunhelpful traits for the scale of work well need them to do. For these kinds of work, our future needs weird robots. This means radically self-reliant robots with unconventional form factors designed to work in extreme environments.Here are three speculative, weird robots well need in the near future.Space BallMultiple companies are currently building low-Earth orbit space stations that will continue human presence in space beyond the International Space Stations planned decommissioning in 2030. A big promise of these commercial endeavors is the opportunity to conduct science experiments in space for industries developing advanced materials, medicine, and other technologies. Tending to these experiments where theres no air or atmosphere will require robotic form factors capable of maneuvering in zero gravity and operating in temperatures that fluctuate between negative 85° Fahrenheit and 257° Fahrenheit. What might that look like? A spherical robot, applying electrostatic forces to affix itself to surfaces, with a dexterous array of pivoting grippers, sensors, and cameras that emerge when its not rolling from one spot to another.Here on earth, this same kind of robot might someday help search and rescue teams conduct reconnaissance by rolling across steep and rugged terrain in any kind of weather and at nightconditions in which its not safe for human and canine teams to work. Seabed SeederSeagrass meadows, which are highly effective blue carbon sinks, also play outsized roles in protecting coastlines from storm surges, improving water quality, and nurturing commercial fish stocks. Those roles will only grow in importance as we work to mitigate the effects of climate change. Globally, weve already lost nearly 30% of seagrass meadows and were currently losing about 7% each year. Reversing that through restoration will require planting roughly two football fields of seagrass every hour. Planting native seagrass, while also removing invasive seagrass species, will require robots capable of working across underwater terrain in dynamic currents for long periods of time. What might that look like? An aquatic planter with independently sensing legs, topped with a helix-like underwater turbine to self-generate power from the currents. This same kind of robot might eventually patrol urban waterways, removing trash and plastic waste before it can reach our oceans. Bridge BlobThere are more than 600,000 bridges in the United States and approximately a third of them are designated structurally deficient as of 2024. Those bridges are crossed by 168.5 million motorists every day. At the present rate of repair, itll take more than 50 years to fix these bridges, so were going to need a lot of help. While the bulk of research into particle-armored liquid robots is focused on biomedical applications, their unique propertiescapable of navigating tiny fissures in concrete and other materials, enduring harsh conditions, and yet deformablemeans they could eventually be used with bridges to inspect, apply coatings, and remove contaminants. What might that look like? Thousands of tiny armored blobs working mostly unseen to hel bridges and other big infrastructure self-heal.Farther into the future, this same kind of robot might continuously clean your homes roof, windows, and siding, working year-round to remove moss, algae, and dirtno ladders required.
Category:
E-Commerce
Despite being one of the most celebrated and influential architects of all time, Frank Lloyd Wright has never had what may be one of the top indicators of cultural importance: a Hollywood biopic. That may soon change, as the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation has recently struck a licensing deal with Hollywood production company Galisteo Media to bring Wright’s story to the big screen as a movie. “He was the greatest American architect. He was incredibly ambitious and headstrong and visionary. He also was a flawed person, and his life was filled with triumph and tragedy,” says Rob Rosenheck, cofounder of Galisteo Media. “This is a big gap in American popular culture that we don’t have a feature film about Frank Lloyd Wright.” Galisteo’s deal focuses on the 1920s, a period in Wright’s life when he relocated to Los Angeles and embarked on a series of innovative residential designs. Designed using novel textured concrete blocks, these homes came to be known as Mayan revival architecture and launched a nationwide trend throughout the ’20s and ’30s. This was also a turning point in the life of Wright, who died in 1959 at the age of 91. Wright had gone West in his early 50s in the wake of the devastating 1914 tragedy in which his mistress and six other people were murdered in Wright’s Wisconsin home, Taliesin. “The murders at Taliesin are a critical moment in Wright’s path,” says Rosenheck. “They’re an essential part of the story, and they are the inciting incident that propels him toward coming to Los Angeles.” Wright’s time in L.A. was transformative, leading to a reinvention of his approach to architecture that resulted in some of his most famous work, from the Mayan revival homes to the Guggenheim Museum and Fallingwater. Rosenheck and Gailsteo Media cofounder Cindy Capobianco are intimately familiar with Wright’s works from this era. Since 2019, they’ve owned and lived in the Ennis House, a Wright-designed private residence from 1924 located in the Loz Feliz area of Los Angeles. Known for its appearance in the film Blade Runner, it was one of the four textile block homes Wright built in the Los Angeles area during this period. When Rosenheck and Capobianco bought the house from billionaire Ron Burkle for $18 million, it was the highest price ever paid for a Wright-designed residence. And the house had some baggage. Its concrete block construction method, while innovative in the early 1920s, was prone to structural decay, especially after sustaining significant damage in the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Rosenheck and Capobianco, founders of Lord Jones, an early cannabis company that helped establish the market for cannabis and CBD-infused health and wellness products, had the means to keep the historic house in good shape. The couple also has experience in the film industry. Their production company was behind Lover of Men, a 2024 documentary film exploring Abraham Lincoln’s romantic relationships with men. Living in a Wright house and learning more about his life and work, they were surprised to realize there had never been a feature film about him. “It just was natural for us to think about producing a film about the life and work of Frank Lloyd Wright,” says Rosenheck. As stewards of the Ennis House, Rosenheck and Capobianco have an ongoing relationship with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. They began talks about a potential licensing deal last year. In July, the two groups announced that they’d reached a deal for Galisteo to have exclusive rights to produce content about Wright’s life, focusing on the period of his life in Los Angeles. Galisteo declined to share details on the financial terms of the deal. “Engaging in new media is not only beneficial in terms of shining a light and making people aware of Wright and his significance, and really ongoing contributions to architecture and the built environment. But it’s also resonant with Wright himself. He was a person that engaged robustly with media,” says Joseph Specter, CEO and president of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. That ethos is behind other partnerships the foundation has made in recent years. The organization has made a varied range of licensing deals celebrating and expanding the work of Wright, collaborating with brands including Airstream, Steelcase, and New Balance. Specter says this is the first licensing deal focused specifically on storytelling. “The similarities between those licensing deals and a project like this are about creating awareness, excitement, and deeper understanding about who he was, and how his work even affects our lives today,” says Specter. A former professional opera singer who ran the Arizona Opera for a decade before joining the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation earlier this year, Specter says he is not nervous about handing Wright’s life story to filmmakers. “What I found most exciting about that work was to empower people who were creators, directors, designers, choreographers, and ultimately performers to do their best work,” he says. Rosenheck says Galisteo has developed a treatment for a feature film about Wright and he has been meeting with writers, directors, and actors to try to find the right collaborators for a project. He’s optimistic a film could be in the works soon, as well as other projects, from TV series to podcasts. “Everyone’s aware of Frank Lloyd Wright. Everyone’s aware that this story has not yet been told, and it’s been on people’s wish lists,” he says. “Every time we talk to an actor or a director or a writer, everybody has a vision for it, everybody has passion for it. And everybody understands the stakes that are involved in getting the story right.”
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||