I’ve written before about how good leaders give effective feedback when the stakes are high. That article articulates a method for structuring feedback to ensure you effectively deliver the content of your message so that it can be heard and so that it can actually help change behavior going forward.
But the content of a message is only part of the message.
Imagine someone praising you, but doing it while screaming in your face. Or, if you have trouble imagining that, just watch that classic scene in Forrest Gump.
The drill sergeant asks what his sole purpose in the Army is, and Gump says, “To do whatever you tell me to, drill sergeant?”
The drill sergeant screams in his face, “G*ddammit, Gump, you must be a g*ddam genius!”
It’s funny because it’s so atonal. You expect a drill sergeant to be yelling obscenities, but usually about how you’ve failed to understand or accomplish something at the right level. This illustrates a great point for our purposes, though, which is that feedback context dramatically shapes how it is received and how effective it can be.
Context can be as broad and all-encompassing as you care to make it, but here I want you to think about three key elements that help shape any feedback message. They are timing, titration, and tone.
Timing
Pretty simply, timing means paying attention to when you’re going to deliver feedback. Is it going to be in the morning or the afternoon? At the beginning of the week or the end of the week? Are you going to do it in passing, or schedule time to sit and talk?
All of these are good things to consider, and you might expand even further from this. What else does the person you need to speak with have going on? Can this feedback wait, or does it take priority over other considerations? Are you delivering good news, bad news, or both? Does that shape when you might deliver it, and in what sequence?
There’s some interesting, somewhat counterintuitive, research that can be layered into the timing of feedback. While the “feedback sandwich” of good-bad-good feedback is the old management cliché, 80 percent of people report preferring to just get bad news first. Typically, if we’re considering giving good news followed by bad news, we’re probably trying to manage our own internal friction and would be best served by exploring that dynamic before getting into the conversation (Blankenship and Sass, 2026).
Titration
Titration is a term that comes to us from medicine and has to do with how we think about dose-response. That is, how much treatment is needed to have the safest, most effective result. There’s that classic Seinfeld bit about our “maximum strength” medicine. As he says, “Give me the maximum strength. Give me the maximum allowable human dosage. Figure out what will kill me, and then back it off a little bit.”
Fortunately, feedback is rarely life and death in the same way, but it is important to consider how much is needed to be effective. If your timing is good, a little may go a long way. If you’re delivering early-stage feedback, you might focus on a quick burst of encouraging and/or corrective feedback to help build momentum and maintain high expectations. If you’re delivering mid- or late-stage feedback, you may have to be more deliberate about how much feedback is needed to help correct course.
Not enough feedback won’t be effective. Too much might kill the host. How much is right depends on when you deliver it and how you deliver it, which brings us to our final ingredient.
Tone
It is interesting to observe the feedback dynamics that exist on a team or in an organization. The typical pattern is that early feedback is withheld (both positive and corrective) because it seems unnecessary early on, or it can simply be uncomfortable.
That discomfort has a tendency to morph over time as the need for feedback grows and changes. As an executive coach, it is not uncommon to receive requests for coaching from people who have begun alienating their colleagues with their behavior but have never been told they’re having that effect.
The effect of tone in feedback tends to be a rather direct representation of the emotion that is involved. If you’re angry and don’t manage your anger, you may yell and cause the other person to shut down. If you’re delivering challenging feedback in too passive a way, the import of the message may be missed. Consider that how you deliver feedback will have as much of an effect as how much and when, and then prepare yourself appropriately.
The Three Essential Ingredients of Effective Feedback
Each of these elements of feedback has its own impact worth considering, and when you pull them all together, it can be a useful way of parsing through the dynamics that may be at play in a feedback conversation. And it can also feel overwhelming! A general message to take with you is to take time to consider the content of your feedback as well as the context, and then don’t shy away from the hard conversation—they always seem to have a way of getting harder over time.
By Ross Blankenship
Source: psychologytoday.com
Important decisions benefit from genuinely different perspectives. The job is not to eliminate bias, which is impossible, nor is it necessarily to reach consensus. Too much consensus can produce what I sometimes call ‘consenseless’: a conclusion sufficiently diluted for everyone to accept and no one particularly to believe.
One useful approach to seeing how significantly the chief financial officer’s role must change over the next decade is to weigh the questions finance leaders should be asking today—but often are not. A traditional CFO might ask, “How can we reduce costs?” By contrast, a strong CFO today is more likely to ask, “Which costs should we remove to fund growth and innovation?”
There is a significant risk in continuing to develop leaders for yesterday’s role. Leaders who are given more interpersonal responsibilities without the tools, time, or space to carry it will burn out. Organisations will lose talented people, and others will look at the role and decide they do not want it.
