How to give feedback to your subordinate?

When leading a group, you’ll inevitably need to provide feedback to your subordinates. Whether positive or negative, both types are crucial for a team’s proper functioning. How you convey this feedback is paramount, especially when it’s negative. I’ve observed managers either avoiding difficult feedback sessions or handling them poorly, which often worsens situations instead of improving them. Frequently, these sessions devolve into heated arguments where neither party remains calm. Rather than collaboratively identifying root causes and improving processes, they end up blaming each other for poor results. Even in the best-case scenario, managers might misuse their authority to force decisions on subordinates, leaving them unhappy and dissatisfied.

How you conduct yourself in a feedback session depends on many variables: the type of feedback (positive or negative), the subordinate’s experience level, the seriousness of the impact caused by missed goals, and the subordinate’s personality, among others. With so many factors at play, it’s challenging to define a concrete process for feedback. However, a baseline approach can be helpful. We’ll use the CEIDAR framework to add structure to our feedback meetings, which is explained below.

C - Context

The first step in giving feedback is setting the context correctly. It should be clear in both your mind and your subordinate’s mind what this feedback is about. Both parties should understand the parameters by which performance is judged and the relevant time frame. For instance, is this feedback for the last quarter or a recent assignment that wasn’t completed satisfactorily? Is it about individual performance or team leadership skills? This context must be communicated clearly to subordinates. Additionally, choose an appropriate time and place for delivering feedback—arrange a formal setting.

For example, you might approach your teammate like this: “Hey X, I’ve noticed we missed our hiring goals last quarter. I’d like to find the root cause and work on a solution together. Could we meet next Monday after lunch to discuss this?” This approach accomplishes several things:

1. It clearly states the topic you want to discuss.
2. It arranges a formal meeting.
3. It avoids blaming your subordinate for poor performance.
4. It expresses your intention to collaborate on finding a solution.

By framing the conversation this way, you’re setting a constructive tone for the feedback session.

E - Evidence or facts

When entering feedback sessions, bring facts to the table, not opinions. Facts are indisputable, while opinions vary widely. You want your subordinates to start nodding and giving you “micro-yeses” from the beginning—presenting evidence and discussing facts is the best way to achieve this. Remember that everyone tends to evaluate themselves positively and may have a different narrative in their minds, which can be completely at odds with yours. You might feel a subordinate isn’t performing well, while they believe they’re doing their best and aren’t at fault. The only way to navigate this misaligned perception is by presenting concrete facts.

Imagine you’re conducting a performance review with a sales executive who hasn’t achieved their sales targets. Avoid saying, “Hey X, you haven’t hit the sales target. I don’t think you’re working hard enough.” This is an opinionated statement, and X will likely contest it vigorously. Instead of focusing on missing the sales target, they’ll spend the rest of the meeting defending their work ethic and trying to prove you wrong. A better approach is to say, “Hey X, we were supposed to win 4 new accounts this quarter, but you only secured 1.” They can’t dispute this fact and will likely nod in agreement or say yes. This is precisely what you want—micro-yeses.

When you conduct meetings based on facts, the other person has only two options: accept or reject them. If facts are collected fairly and precisely, it leaves just one viable option—acceptance. This approach significantly reduces the likelihood of heated arguments and emotional outbursts.

I - Impact

In addition to presenting evidence, describe the impact of a subordinate’s performance while showing them the larger picture. For example, in the previous scenario, you might say, “X, we aimed to win 4 new accounts this quarter but only secured 1. This has significantly affected our sales pipeline, resulting in decreased revenue figures. Consequently, we’ve had to cancel bonuses and delay new recruitment by 3 months.”

Failures can also have intangible effects, such as team members feeling demotivated or even leaving. These negative impacts should be addressed when explaining the consequences of poor performance. However, it’s important to be cautious when discussing intangible effects, as they can be challenging to justify with facts alone.

Highlighting the impact adds weight to your statements and establishes the seriousness of the situation. It also helps justify any actions you’re considering regarding the subordinate’s performance.

D - Diagnosis

At this point, we’re midway through the feedback session. You’ve explained the context, facts, and impact of actions to your subordinate, but this is only half the story. Feedback should always be a two-way communication, with the person on the receiving end getting a chance to explain their perspective. Remember, they’ve likely been telling themselves different stories, and it’s crucial to hear their version—this is that stage.

In the diagnosis phase, you want to collaborate with your subordinate to uncover what led to the situation prompting this feedback session. Focus on actions and performance, not the person. Your goal is to understand the root cause so you can devise an action plan to address it. Let your subordinate do most of the talking; listen carefully and catch the clues. Be open to feedback yourself—don’t get angry if they blame you, the company, the environment, or the process for their poor performance. You’re here to fix the problem, not to fight with a person.

Sometimes, people are dealing with personal issues at home or in their social lives, and without giving them a chance to tell their story, you might not be able to uncover the real reasons behind them not meeting your expectations.

Additionally, if you discover that your teammates have been telling themselves a different story about their performance—one that’s significantly different from your assessment—you need to refocus on facts to align their understanding with yours. If you fail to help them grasp the real situation, your feedback might seem unfair to them. They won’t be receptive to your input, and despite your efforts to help, they may view your feedback as hostile.

A - Actions

Once a proper diagnosis is completed, you should be able to pinpoint areas for improvement and determine the next steps. If you’re still unsure about what actions to take, revisit the diagnosis phase until you have clarity. Remember, diagnosis is a two-way communication between you and your subordinate, where each party presents their own perspective. When handled properly, this process should lead to both of you reaching the same conclusion. In fact, subordinates will often suggest the next steps themselves. If this doesn’t happen, you may need to spend more time on diagnosis. A successful diagnosis will lead to a set of action items that both you and your subordinate can relate to.

R - Record

Document the feedback for future reference in written form. Use an email thread or your team’s/HR department’s feedback documentation system, if available. Ensure the feedback history is easily retrievable for all relevant stakeholders for future analysis, comparisons, or to determine whether any improvement was made. Never end the feedback cycle with verbal conversations alone. Additionally, avoid writing feedback in your records that could create confusion for you or others when reviewing it in the future.

When recording feedback, it’s crucial to track and document any pending actions needed to monitor progress. You want to avoid repeatedly giving the same feedback while your subordinate makes no effort to improve. Proper documentation will support you when it’s time for difficult conversations with your team member.

As stated earlier, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to feedback sessions. They can vary depending on context, the individual, and the seriousness of the outcome. However, CEIDAR provides a baseline structure for your feedback sessions. You can adapt it to your unique situation and refine it based on your past experiences, avoiding previous mistakes. This framework is versatile, working for both positive and negative feedback with minor adjustments.

← Go Back to Accelerate