Structuring Feedback Sessions

𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗜 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗿𝘂𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝗮𝗺? There was a phase where I thought “good feedback” means being direct. So I was direct. And slowly, I started noticing something painful. People were doing the work. But they were shrinking.  • They stopped sharing drafts early.  • Stopped asking questions.  • Stopped taking bold ownership. Not because they were weak. Because feedback started feeling like a verdict, not guidance. That’s when I learned something as a founder and as a leader: 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗺𝗲. So I changed how I speak. Here’s the structure I use now: 1. Name the intention first “I’m saying this because I want you to grow here.” 2. Talk about the behavior, not the personality Not “you’re careless”, But “these details were missed.” 3. Make the impact clear “This affects trust, timelines, and how the team relies on you.” 4. Ask for context before judgment “What made this hard?” Honestly, Sometimes it’s overload. Sometimes it’s unclear expectations. 5. Set the next standard in a simple, repeatable way “Next time, use this 2 minute checklist. And share the draft earlier.” 6. End with belief “I’m telling you this because I trust you can handle it.” 𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿, 𝗜 𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴. Feedback is not a punishment. It’s a leadership tool to build people who stay confident while getting better. #Leadership #TeamCulture #Management #Founders #PeopleFirst

Ensuring Students Act on Feedback Feedback is only as valuable as the action students take in response to it. Too often, feedback becomes a passive exchange,teachers give comments, students glance at them, and then move on to the next task without making meaningful improvements. To truly accelerate progress, we need to create structures that ensure feedback leads to independent development. Here’s how: 1. Build Dedicated Feedback Lessons into Your Scheme of Work If feedback is to be effective, there must be time for students to engage with it properly. This means moving beyond a quick ‘read your comments’ approach and embedding dedicated feedback lessons into the scheme of work. By protecting this time within the curriculum, feedback becomes a continuous, structured process rather than an afterthought. 2. Use Targeted and Specific Feedback Vague comments like ‘be more analytical’ or ‘develop your explanation’ don’t give students a clear direction. Instead, feedback should be precise and actionable. For example: • Before: ‘Your analysis is weak.’ • After: ‘To strengthen your analysis, explain why this event was significant and link it to a wider consequence.’ Or Pose questions to help students develop their answer or guide them to the correct knowledge. Pairing feedback with examples or sentence starters can help students apply improvements more effectively. 3. Teach Students How to Use Feedback Students need to be explicitly taught how to engage with feedback. This includes: • Modelling the process – Show students how to act on feedback by walking them through a worked example. • Guiding self-reflection – Use prompts like, ‘How does my answer compare to the model? Where can I improve?’ • Encouraging peer support – Structured peer review can help students identify strengths and areas for development before teacher intervention. I often like to highlight a weak paragraph in a green box so students know what area to precisely improve/re-write, as you can see below. 4. Use Feedback Trackers to Monitor Progress Instead of feedback disappearing into exercise books, encourage students to keep a feedback tracker where they record teacher comments and their own reflections. They can then set targets for the next piece of work and review previous feedback to ensure they’re improving over time. Feedback is most powerful when it becomes part of the learning process, not just an add-on. By allocating time in the curriculum for feedback lessons, making guidance explicit, and encouraging students to take ownership, we can transform feedback from words on a page into meaningful improvement. The ultimate goal? Students who no longer just receive feedback, but actively use it to progress.

It's performance review season, which means clients are nervous about the same thing: "I need to give tough feedback, but I don't want to hurt them. How do I be honest without being harsh?" Clients feel stuck in an impossible choice between: ▪️ being kind OR being candid ▪️ caring about someone OR holding them accountable ▪️ being seen as nice OR being effective. The tension is real… but there is a way out. Effective feedback lives in what polarity theory calls "the third way" – the space where compassion and accountability aren't in opposition, but instead overlap. 🔹🔹 Here are 5 techniques to try: 1. Check yourself Some self-reflection is key. Ask yourself: Am I trying to help this person grow, or am I venting my frustration? What assumptions am I making about their motivations? Can I approach this with genuine curiosity? Your energy matters as much as your words. Even a brief reflection will help you show up more centered and connected. 2. Ground yourself before the conversation Before the conversation – take 30 seconds to feel your feet on the floor. Notice your breath. Feel your body. You can't deliver grounded feedback if you're anxious. People feel your nervous system before they hear your words. 3. Use the COIN+ structure I added a “+” to this popular feedback framework: ▪️ Connection/Context: Connect with the other person so they feel safe. Set up why you're having this conversation. ▪️ Observation: Describe what you saw (facts, quotes or patterns from 360 feedback, not interpretation). ▪️ Impact: Share the effect it is having on others or on bottom-line results ▪️ Next Steps: Agree on the path forward – what needs to shift ▪️ + Inquiry: Ask for their perspective along the way 4. Use "AND" to hold complexity AND is a magic word. It acknowledges complexity and nuance. It creates space to include their truth and yours. "I hear that you feel like you achieved all your KPIs, AND I see from the 360 results your team feels that you are not communicating proactively or delegating effectively." The word "but" erases. The word "and" includes. Feedback isn't about being right – it's about understanding together so we can chart the way forward. 5. Lead with curiosity, follow with clarity The most effective feedback balances two things: ▪️Genuine care for the person (they feel your support) ▪️ Clear expectations (they know exactly what needs to change) When you lead with "help me understand what happened," you create safety. When you follow with "here's what I need to see going forward," you create clarity. 🔹🔹 That combination – curiosity + clarity – is the third way. You don't have to choose between caring and accountability. You get to do both. (Image is part an actual client polarity map) When you show up grounded, clear, and genuinely curious, feedback becomes a gift, not a weapon. What's your biggest challenge with feedback? Leave a comment and I will share an idea about what might support you to lean in this year.

🤦🏻 “How We Run Design Critiques at Figma” (https://lnkd.in/eERQmRnY), an honest case study by Noah Levin with helpful techniques and templates to run more effective design critiques ↓ 🚫 Most critiques are an avalanche of unstructured opinions. ✅ Good critiques are inspiring, and give you a plan of action. ✅ Critiques work best with 2–6 people in the room. ✅ Explain the problem before showing any work. ✅ Reiterate previous findings, decisions and research. ✅ Explain how far you are: 30%, 60% or 90% done. ✅ Explain what kind of feedback you are looking for. ✅ No Keynote/Powerpoint: Figma link + Observation mode. ✅ Assign a note-taker to capture key points (Google Doc). ✅ Show what you want to show: feedback is shaped by that. 🚀 Critique formats: 🎡 Round-the-room: everyone voices their feedback (2min / person). 🍿 Popcorn: freeform comments for flowing conversation. 🥁 Jams: for early explorations with brainstorms, group sketching. 🫱🏻🫲🏾 Pair design: for deep collaboration on a problem (small groups). 🤫 Silent critiques: for a large volume of written, structured feedback. 📋 Paper print-out: for complex flows and reviewing more at once. 📣 FYI critiques: for sharing context and invite feedback later. Design critiques are about applying critical thinking. It’s about how well a current iteration of design does what it’s trying to do. However, designers alone often don’t have the full picture. Don’t necessarily reserve critiques to design teams only: invite developers and stakeholders and PMs for early feedback. Don’t ask what people think — ask how well the design tackles a specific problem. And probably the most important thing is to enable a flowing conversations. Invite everyone to ask, to doubt, to scrutinize, but stay on point and gather structured feedback: that’s when good critiques emerge. Useful resources: Practical Design Critique Guide, by Darrin Henein https://lnkd.in/ey_cGKuc Mastering Design Critiques, by Jonny Czar https://lnkd.in/e_BYwNwf Anti-Behavior in Design Critiques, and How To Handle Them, by Ben Crothers https://lnkd.in/e4UrpsPs --- ⛵ Figma and Miro Templates Design Critique Meetings Guide (Figma), by Overflow https://lnkd.in/dE85MUAK Design Critique Template (Figma), by Janus Tiu https://lnkd.in/dCYp2MSY Design Critique Meeting (Figma), by Rodrigo Javier Peña https://lnkd.in/dP_8pCug Design Critique Playground Template (Miro), by Miroslava Jovicic https://lnkd.in/eryJShRd #ux #design

“So…I want to do a 360. On myself. Live. With the team.” That’s how it started. Our CEO had just raised a big round. The business was scaling fast. Like any founder under pressure, he craved real feedback. Not surveys. Not sanitized updates. He wanted truth. From his team. In real time. Cue nervous laughter. (Mine. I was three weeks in as the new Chief People Officer.) We all know: live, unfiltered feedback is like handing the mic to your in-laws at your wedding and saying, “Go for it.” But he was serious. And bold. So I built a leadership session to make it safe and real. No anonymous forms. No buzzwords. Just one question: “What’s it like to be led by me?” But I didn’t ask it directly. Too vague. Too HR-town. Instead, we started here: “Which A-players are close to quitting?” Silence. Then: “Taylor’s halfway out. She’s been pushing for clarity for months.” Suddenly, we weren’t talking about people. We were talking about leadership signals. Next up: “What toxic behaviors do I accidentally reward?” Turns out: hero culture was thriving. Late nights, chaos saves, skipping process = praised. Consistency and planning = ignored. “You reward chaos,” one exec said. “We have to break something to get your attention.” That landed. We worked through more prompts: → “Where do my decisions create unnecessary work?” (“Your 1am Slacks derail entire teams.”) → “What broken promises are breaking trust?” (“We say quarterly planning matters. Then we blow it up two weeks in.”) → “What metrics force people to cut corners?” (“Time-to-hire. We’re chasing speed and bleeding quality.”) We didn’t call it feedback. We called it data. The CEO didn’t defend. He listened. Asked questions. Said: “Wow. First time I’ve heard that. Thank you.” The team found their voice, because the questions weren’t personal. They were structural. Not “You’re exhausting.” But “What team burnout signs am I missing?” Not “You suck at communication.” But “Where do good ideas get sidelined in our team?” By the end, we had 15+ insights. Not just about the CEO, but how they worked as a team. That’s the thing: it’s never just about the leader. But the leader sets the tone. What the CEO learned: ✔️ Late-night brainstorms = chaos, not creativity ✔️ Silence on underperformance speaks louder than words ✔️ “Be scrappy” was read as “skip structure” What the team learned: ✔️ Feedback can be shared, not scary ✔️ Most pain is structural, not personal ✔️ Honesty is easier when it’s invited Today, the CEO has: ✅ Paired weekly planning with “do not disturb” time ✅ Started celebrating process, not panic ✅ Rewritten company values with the team ✅ Killed hero culture (with kindness) And he’s still asking questions. Because real feedback starts with real questions: 🔹 “Where do we look good but perform badly?” 🔹 “Where does our growth strategy miss the mark?” 🔹 “What quick wins do we overcomplicate?” Want to hear what people really think? Give them something real to respond to.

Unpopular opinion: A lot of Figma comments are not feedback. They’re anxiety. When the meeting has no structure, people “prove they helped” by leaving notes. So the file becomes a scoreboard. The problem isn’t feedback volume — it’s feedback with no structure. Before the meeting: 1. What exactly are we reviewing today (flow, copy, visual, IA)? 2. Do we need a decision today or just input? 3. Who has the final call? During the meeting: 1. First align on the problem and goal. 2. Then discuss big UX issues, then details. 3. If you suggest a change, explain why (user impact/constraint), not just preference. After the meeting: 1. Turn feedback into 5-10 clear tasks with owners. 2. Don’t leave the designer with 40 disconnected comment threads. A review is successful only if it ends with: “We decided X, and here’s what changes next.” What’s one small change you’ve made that instantly improved your design reviews? #uxdesign #productdesign #figma #designculture #collaboration

We overhauled the way we do feedback, and it’s transformed the company. Here’s how: We are kind of obsessed with feedback at Koru Kids. I think it’s essential to personal development and teamwork. But it took us a few iterations to land on a great system. Initially, we tried written 360 degree feedback. This had 4 problems: 1. People didn’t write that much - you don’t get much detail or many examples 2. And you can’t ask follow up questions when it’s written 3. Negative stuff came across really harsh at times, which was dispiriting 4. Plus there’s just something about writing stuff down that makes people go weirdly formal All in all, it wasn’t the empowering, trust-building experience we wanted it to be. So we tried an experiment, and we’ve never looked back. These days, all our feedback is given ‘live’ in a session held every quarter. - The subject decides who to ask for feedback, and gives them some questions to think about - Then, on the day, the subject sits in a private Zoom with their manager - One by one, each colleague comes in and answers the questions - The manager’s role is to take notes and manage the Zoom waiting room so the subject can concentrate on listening - At the end, the subject and the manager discuss the ‘themes’ that have emerged in the session Doing it like this has solved ALL FOUR of our problems: → It’s easier to speak than write, so people give WAY more detail → We can ask clarifying questions, so we really understand the feedback → People still give ‘constructive’ feedback, but they phrase it gently so it lands far better → The whole interaction feels very real, which builds trust I find new joiners usually dread their first feedback session…. but feel AMAZING afterwards. There’s nothing like knowing that you know exactly what’s on your team’s mind about your work. For a taste of this, check out the message Rebecca shared on our internal Slack. (Shared with permission.) I love creating people systems that make the world happier. Feel free to steal this one! What’s been your experience with feedback? 🔄 Repost to share the idea, and follow Rachel Carrell for more like this

Feedback about me. I rarely ask for feedback or evaluation specifically about me at the end of a session I have facilitated. I refer to sessions where the group determines the outcomes and invites me to facilitate discussion and decision-making processes. These are not training workshops. I don't ask for feedback about me because it makes the session about me. The session is because of, about, for, and by the participants. Yes, I am part of the group and play a specific role. However, asking only for an assessment of what I did and how I did it undermines the participants' ownership of the process. The participants leave thinking and feeling about me and not their work together. But! How do I learn what worked and didn’t work? How can I improve my skills as a facilitator? I ask questions such as: 🔴 How was today for you? 🔴 How did the session go for you? 🔴 What was our work together like? Questions such as these open all parts of the session for feedback and evaluation: the participants, the facilitator, the process, the flow, the methods, the place and space, the refreshments ... Sometimes, I ask these questions as a closing conversation; sometimes, in pairs with an invitation to call out answers; sometimes, in individual worksheets to hand in. I often use the Rose, Thorn, Bud method. 🌹 Rose: What worked well during the session (strengths)? 🌵 Thorn: What didn’t work and could be improved (challenges)? 🌿 Bud: What are your ideas from the session (possibilities and opportunities)? Sometimes I use these questions: 💡 Light bulb – insights ... What stimulated your thinking during the session? From facilitators? From participants? ❓ Question Mark – getting more … What more could have been done by all concerned, including you, to make the session a better experience? 👍 Thumbs Up - what changed … What has changed for you because of this session? What will you do differently now? From any of these questions or ways to ask them, I sense what I did to help or hinder. After the session, I debrief with the host or client. We can then discuss my approach, style, demeanor, behaviour, skills, competency, design, etc. How do you acquire feedback about your facilitation skills while helping the group reflect on all parts of the session? I enjoy learning and improving from your answers. #facilitation #sessions #conversations #feedback #meetings #learning #improving #skills #growth

Harsh truth: Most managers give feedback at exactly the wrong time. And it's costing you engagement, retention, and results. Here's what research shows: • Morning feedback is 25% more effective • Midweek feedback gets 40% better implementation • Regular feedback boosts engagement by 31% When I implement feedback systems in organizations, we use process confirmation: ↳ One process review monthly ↳ Clear documentation of correct execution ↳ Systematic improvement tracking The science-backed framework: ↳ Schedule feedback before lunch (peak brain receptivity) ↳ Target Tuesday-Thursday (avoid Monday blues) ↳ Keep specific issues to 5-10 minutes ↳ Document improvements systematically ↳ Follow up within 7 days This prevents the classic "waiting for annual review" problem. Instead, managers confirm processes regularly, catch issues early, and build trust through consistency. Start tomorrow: 1. Block 30 minutes before lunch for your next feedback session 2. Create a simple tracking template 3. Schedule one process review with each team member What's your biggest challenge with giving feedback? Reply below ⬇️ ___ 👋 Hi, I'm Sharon Grossman! I help organizations reduce turnover. ♻️ Repost to support your network. 🔔 Follow me for leadership, burnout, and retention strategies

𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗲𝗳𝘁 𝗮 𝟭:𝟭 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝘃𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗼-𝗱𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁? You're not alone. Let's transform these sessions from mundane task updates to meaningful career conversations that drive growth and engagement. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝟭:𝟭 𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: 𝗕𝗲𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝘂𝗽𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 As a professional who's experienced both sides of the managerial coin, I've come to realize the immense value of well-structured 1:1 sessions between managers and their direct reports. Unfortunately, I've also encountered my fair share of managers who viewed these precious moments as mere task update meetings, missing out on the true potential of these interactions. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠 One often overlooked aspect of 1:1 sessions is the importance of small talk. Starting the meeting with a casual conversation about non-work topics can help reduce tension and create a more comfortable atmosphere. This simple act can open the door for more honest and productive discussions. 𝘾𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙞𝙧 An effective strategy I've learned is to begin by asking your manager what's at the top of their mind. This approach serves two purposes: it allows your boss to offload any pressing concerns, enabling them to be more present for your discussion, and it gives you valuable insight into their current priorities and challenges. 𝙎𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙜𝙤𝙖𝙡𝙨 Each 1:1 session should have a clear purpose. While flexibility is important, having a general theme or goal for the meeting can help guide the conversation and ensure that both parties get value from the interaction. Some key topics to consider include: ✅ Career development: Discuss your long-term aspirations and how your current role aligns with those goals. ✅ Performance: Review recent accomplishments and areas for improvement, focusing on constructive feedback and actionable steps. ✅ Goals and progress: Evaluate your progress towards set objectives and adjust strategies as needed. ✅ Employee engagement and satisfaction: Share your thoughts on your current work environment, team dynamics, and overall job satisfaction. ✅ Skill development: Identify areas where you'd like to grow and discuss potential learning opportunities or projects that could help you acquire new skills. If you find your 1:1s consistently devolving into task updates, don't be afraid to speak up. Suggest a new format or propose specific topics you'd like to discuss. Remember, these sessions are as much for your benefit as they are for your manager's. #CareerDevelopment #EffectiveManagement #1on1Meetings #EmployeeEngagement #ProfessionalGrowth #LeadershipSkills #WorkplaceCommunication