We’ve already noted that a sandwich is not a great model for feedback. There are two other pitfalls that we’d do well to avoid as well. The pitfalls of giving feedback are:
- the feedback sandwich
- generalisations and
- back-channeling.
All of these have their own specific downsides, but they have one thing in common: they make it difficult to receive feedback.
The feedback sandwich divides attention and ends the discussion
Most of us have learnt the feedback sandwich as a way to give feedback in school: start with something positive, put the critique in the middle and end with another positive. I’ve heard that the Finnish Army teaches this model as well. The basic idea is admittedly good: soften the bitter taste of critique with positive notes to make it easier to receive. Unfortunately, the very opposite might happen.
We won’t hear the praise
In the feedback sandwich, well-meaning and honest praise doesn’t often get noticed. First the person receiving feedback doesn’t focus on listening to the praise because they already know to expect critique. “Yeah, yeah, that’s nice, but where’s the but?” After the critique, it’s hard to take in the praise because you’re still analysing the critique. Like this, the positive feedback often gets lost.
It’s even worse if the praise isn’t genuine, but forced or even made up. Then its only purpose is to cushion the critique. This makes the person giving feedback seem untrustworthy and not genuine. Made-up praise eats away at the trust in the workplace and doesn’t make it easier to receive critique.
We won’t hear the critique
There’s also the risk that the person receiving feedback only hears the positive feedback and skips over the areas for development. “It can’t be that bad if there was more positive than negative?” The feedback sandwich makes it possible to not take the critique seriously – which is not what the person giving feedback wants.
However, the worst thing is that the sandwich closes the conversation. If the uncomfortable message is hidden between two positive things, there’s no room for discussion. Feedback should begin a discussion, not end it. The person receiving feedback should get time to go over the feedback and ask more about it – not hurry to end the conversation and make the other feel better.
Instead of the feedback sandwich, it’s better to keep praise and critique separate, preferably in totally different discussions. If you have to give them at the same time, mark the difference clearly:
”These things went well. These things need to be improved.”
Generalisations lead us astray
Another common mistake in giving feedback is using generalisations:
- ”You always do that.”
- ”You never do this.”
We often go for generalisations because we’ve put off giving critique for too long. First, one small thing annoys us a bit, but it’s not large enough to bring up with the other person. Then it happens again and annoys us a bit more. Eventually, we get fed up and give feedback after weeks, months or even years of suffering in silence. At this point, it’s understandable that we end up generalising with “always” or “never”, because that’s how we feel.
The problem with generalisations is that no one always does something or never does something. That’s why the feedback often turns into an argument about the generalisation, not the main issue. The person receiving feedback probably remembers at least one case that negates the generalised claim – and uses it to dismiss the feedback entirely. That’s very annoying when we clearly remember numerous situations that support our claim. However, this is a time to look in the mirror. We’re claiming that they always or never. That’s not true.
We should resist our instinct to generalise and instead focus our feedback on one specific situation. We can of course say that the same thing has happened often, but that’s not always necessary. When using the Observation + Impact feedback model, one example is enough – and it’s often a lot more effective than a generalisation.
Back-channeling makes it hard to apply the feedback
The third pitfall is back-channeling, which in this case means not giving the feedback directly to the person but rotating it through somebody else, such as a team leader or HR.
Giving feedback can feel difficult and uncomfortable. Especially if there’s no direct feedback culture in the workplace, it’s very human to want someone else to take care of it. You can of course ask for help in giving feedback. Getting support can make it easier to begin a discussion and increase your confidence when a third party agrees that the feedback is necessary. However, that doesn’t mean that you can (or that you should) outsource feedback entirely.
Outsourcing feedback makes discussion harder
If we are not even present in the situation where feedback is given or try to run it entirely through a third party, we cannot have the necessary discussion with the person receiving feedback. The third party is not familiar with the situation. Even if you told them all the details, they have to be very specific with their wording to protect your identity. The feedback becomes general and unspecific: “I’ve been told that there was a situation where you behaved like this.”
The normal reaction for the person receiving the feedback is to ask: “Which situation?” They want more information to recall their own behaviour and think about the root causes. Without more specific information, it’s very difficult to accept and use feedback. Then you cannot analyse your own behaviour or improve it.
Sometimes one brave person can speak for others and say that they’re not alone with their experiences. Nevertheless, it would be good to have at least one concrete example so that the person receiving feedback can catch on and start to think about their actions.
Direct feedback is the fairest and most impactful
When you find yourself thinking that someone else could say something for you, always stop for a second and ask yourself: Could I say that myself? Or could I say it if I got a bit of help and support?
Giving feedback personally can be hard or uncomfortable, but it’s the friendliest and most impactful way to do it. Ultimately, it also strengthens the whole team. Differences of opinion and conflicts are inevitable. Handling them well makes the team stronger.
TL;DR This isn’t the way to give feedback
- The feedback sandwich ends the discussion.
- Either the praise or the critique probably gets ignored. False praise also eats away at trust.
- Generalisations often lead to dismissing the feedback.
- No one always acts a specific way or never does something. That’s why a generalisation is almost always not true.
- Giving feedback through a third party makes it harder to use it.
- The person receiving feedback often wants to know which situation it was that they did badly in.
- Universal, anonymised feedback is not as impactful as personal feedback.