Giving feedback
Updated 24 September 2026
You have put it off for a fortnight. Every one-to-one, you decide this is the week, and every one-to-one ends with the roadmap and the weather. Meanwhile the thing you have not said sits in the room with both of you.
Two people, two versions of the same conversation. Priya has missed three check-ins in a row, and a client report went out on Tuesday without its pricing section. Marcus, the most capable person you have, told a colleague in front of six people that their work was the kind you hand in when you have not read the brief. Neither is being let go. Both need to hear something they will not enjoy, from you, this week.
Feedback sounds like the gentlest thing a manager does. It is the one they avoid longest, because it has two traps and they pull in opposite directions.
The first is going soft. You sit down with Priya wanting to know what is wrong, she tells you something about her life, and you are so relieved to have an answer that the missed check-ins and the missing pricing section never get said. The work is still late next week, and now she believes you did not mind.
The second is going to war. You raise Thursday's review with Marcus and he asks whether the work was bad. It was. Within a minute you are arguing about the brief, which is the conversation he wants and not the one you came for. Being right about the work is his home ground. The effect on the team is yours, and you have to stay on it.
Constructive criticism is not the midpoint between the two. It is naming the thing, then staying in the room.
Settle three things.
What you are naming. One behaviour, said in one sentence, with the example attached. For Priya: three check-ins missed, and the report that went out on Tuesday without the pricing section. For Marcus: what he said, to whom, in front of how many. Not "communication", not "attitude". A date is harder to argue with than a label.
What you do not know. With Priya you are guessing that something is wrong. Walk in ready to be told something you did not expect, and to hold the missed work alongside it rather than instead of it. With Marcus you know what happened. What you do not know is whether he has any idea what it cost.
What you need to leave with. For Priya: what is actually going on, and an agreement about the work that both of you could repeat. For Marcus: he has heard the effect on the team from you, and knows what changes at next Thursday's review.
Timing matters less than privacy. This week, in a room with a door.
Name it in the first sentence. Not after five minutes on the project, and not after "how are you finding things?", which invites "fine" and leaves you nowhere to go.
Priya, you have missed the last three check-ins, and the report went out on Tuesday without the pricing section. I want to understand what is going on.
With Marcus the shape is the same: what he said, where, and what has happened since. The pause afterwards will feel like a verdict. It is not. It is her deciding how much to tell you.
Knowing the opening line is the easy part. You can write it on a card. What you cannot read from a card is what you say in the ninety seconds after she answers, when it is not the one you planned for. That is the part worth rehearsing out loud.
Priya says "okay" and nothing else. The silence will pull at you to fill it, and the filler will be softening: it is not a big deal, everyone has weeks like this. Do not. Ask one open question and wait. If she still says nothing, tell her you are not going anywhere and the work still needs a plan, and wait again. Silence is not agreement.
Then you were right, and the relief is real. This is the moment the missed work usually vanishes. Acknowledge what she has told you before you say anything else. Then come back to Tuesday. Both things are true: something is hard for her, and the pricing section was not in the report. The second does not stop being true because the first is sad. What changes is the plan, not the standard. That is how you give this feedback without demotivating her: she hears that you listened, and that the work still matters.
Marcus asks whether you have actually read the work he was reviewing. Do not answer the question. The moment you say "yes, and it was weak", you are in his debate. Say once that the quality of the work is not what you are here about, and go back to what he said and to the two people who have asked not to work with him since. He will try again from another angle. Same answer.
It happens more often than new managers expect, and it is not a sign you were cruel. Stop talking. Offer a minute. Do not withdraw the feedback or apologise for it; both tell her that tears end conversations, and she will remember. When she is ready, say the one sentence again, gently, and carry on.
Acknowledge before you push. Whatever Priya tells you, and however Marcus reframes it, the first thing out of your mouth is proof that you heard it. Then you go back to the thing you came to say. The order matters. Push first and you are a manager who did not listen. Acknowledge and stop, and you are a manager who let the work slide. FirstSpar's debrief calls this acknowledging before you push, and it is the move both of these conversations turn on.
Specificity. You brought the example with you. Priya heard "Tuesday" and "pricing section", not "reliability". Marcus heard his own sentence quoted back to him, not "tone". Neither could reasonably say afterwards that they did not know what you meant.
Holding the line. When Marcus made it about the brief, you did not follow him there. When Priya's news made the missed work feel small, you named it anyway. The standard at the end of the conversation was the one you walked in with.
Empathy. Not sympathy, and not softening. You acknowledged what she said before you answered it, you gave him a minute when the meeting turned, and the person walking out knew that you had listened and that you meant it.
You will replay it. That is normal. The version in your head will have you harsher or softer than you were, so write down the same day what you said, what she told you, and what you agreed. Then do the thing most feedback conversations skip: follow up. Ask Priya on Thursday how the week is going. Tell Marcus, a fortnight on, what you have noticed. The conversation was not the feedback. The next month is.
You face Priya, a senior member of your team.
Priya has missed three check-ins in a row, and the client report went out on Tuesday without the pricing section. She replies to messages eventually, and briefly. You do not think she is coasting — you think something is wrong and she is not telling you.
Objective: Find out what is actually happening without letting the missed work go unnamed.
Written at Realistic · Listening first · Accountability · Clear expectations
You face Marcus, a senior member of your team.
Marcus is the most capable person you have. In Thursday's review he told a colleague their work was "the kind of thing you hand in when you have not read the brief", in front of six people. Two have since asked not to be scheduled with him. His work is not the problem.
Objective: Name the effect on the team without turning it into a debate about whether he was right about the work.
Written at Pressure Test · Feedback on behaviour · Holding your ground · Authority
Three spars a week on your own conversation, no account needed. The written scenarios and the harder pushback are Pro.
FirstSpar