Why managers should stop giving feedback

And start using SBI.

One of my favourite questions to ask on a leadership programme is:

"What model do you use for feedback?"

The answer is often silence.

Then somebody says:

"The feedback sandwich."

On a recent programme with a large manufacturing organisation, one delegate called it the "poo sandwich".

Which is a much more accurate description.

The feedback sandwich has been around for years. Say something positive. Give the feedback. Finish with something positive.

The intention is usually good. Managers don't want to upset people. They want feedback conversations to feel supportive.

The problem is that feedback isn't supposed to make the manager feel comfortable. It's supposed to help the other person improve.

And this is where many managers get feedback wrong.

They think feedback is about telling.

In fact, most communication in organisations starts with telling. This is my message. This is my opinion. This is what I want you to do. Now listen.

The problem with that approach is that we end up doing all the work. We do all the talking, all the thinking and all the explaining, while the recipient simply sits there and listens. Or at least pretends to.

One of my favourite mantras is:

Ask first, tell later

That simple shift changes everything.

It gives some control back to the recipient. People become more open, more honest and far more likely to engage in the conversation.

They feel psychologically safe because they have a voice and, perhaps more importantly, they are involved in finding the answer rather than simply being told what the answer is.

The reality is that most people already know how they are performing. They know when things are going well. They know when they are struggling. They know when they are underperforming. So why not start there?

Imagine somebody has not hit their targets for six months.

Most managers spend their time preparing what they are going to say. The employee spends their time preparing their defence. Neither person is preparing for a conversation. They are preparing for a speech.

Instead, try asking:

"Tell me about your performance over the last six months."

Then listen.

Most of the time you'll get something like:

"Well, I know I haven't been hitting my targets and that feels very stressful. I just don't know what I am doing wrong."

Now we're having a completely different conversation.

The individual has acknowledged the problem. They've told us how they feel. They've identified that they need help. Most importantly, they've done a lot of the hard work for us because they have started to analyse the situation themselves.

Compare that to the traditional feedback sandwich.

"Thanks for coming into this meeting today. You are a valued member of the team and the way you always support others has been noticed by senior management.

The problem is we haven't hit targets for six months, so we need to fix that and get things back on track.

But I'm sure it will all work out fine in the end because we know how much you contribute to the team, so please don't worry."

Now ask yourself a simple question.

What is the key message?

For many people it sounds like this:

People value me.

People like me.

Senior management notices me.

Don't worry.

The actual performance issue gets buried in the middle.

That's why I have never been a fan of the sandwich approach. The ratio is wrong.

The conversation becomes more about making somebody feel comfortable than helping them improve.

Sometimes we have to be prepared to rock the boat.

Not because we want to criticise people, but because we want to help them see where they are at.

If somebody is going to improve, they first need a clear understanding of the current reality.

This is where SBI comes in.

Situation. Behaviour. Impact.

One of the things I like most about SBI is that it forces us to prepare.

That preparation changes everything. It improves our confidence, improves our credibility and improves the quality of the feedback.

Rather than relying on opinions and assumptions, we arrive at the conversation with observations and evidence.

Let's take the same example.

"Here's the situation. As a team, we're under pressure and we need to improve our success rate of hitting targets. We've only been a few percentage points away, so increasing production by 5% is achievable. As you said, you have not hit target for the last 6 months, so lets focus on what we can do to start hitting target.

The behaviours I've seen you demonstrate show why production has dropped off. You're planning your day when you get to work. I would suggest doing that the day before so you can hit the ground running.

I've also noticed that you drop off in intensity around 3pm. What could we do about that? We could add in a 10 minute break at that time. That may seen counterintuitive but a quick switch off and reset is known to increase productivity.

The impact of those two things has been a reduction in production and an increase in rejections. That's where the pressure is coming from and why you're feeling the stress of not hitting your targets."

Notice the difference.

There is no attack. There is no judgement. There are simply observations and consequences.

Because we started by asking for their perspective, the conversation doesn't feel like feedback being delivered.

It feels like a discussion about performance.

Now we can start exploring solutions.

Perhaps it's planning the day before.

Perhaps it's taking an additional 10 minute break when energy levels start to dip.

Perhaps it's something else entirely.

The point is that we're now focused on understanding what is causing the problem and agreeing what needs to change.