In this episode of the Agile Skills Library podcast, experienced agile coaches Paul and Geoff explore the art of giving feedback within teams. They discuss why feedback is vital for empowerment and self-management, highlight common pitfalls, and introduce practica models like Nonviolent Communication and AID. Sharing personal stories and actionable tips, they emphasize the importance of timing, environment, and tailoring feedback to individuals. Their informal, insightful conversation inspires agile practitioners to embrace feedback as a regular, constructive practice for team growth and stronger collaboration.
Paul: Hello, Geoff, welcome back.
Geoff: Hey, Paul. You alright?
Paul: Yeah, I’m good. And welcome back to all of our listeners as well. Welcome back to The Agile Skills Library, the podcast from myself and Geoff.
If you’re a first-time listener, here’s what this is all about. Geoff and I have put our heads together and written down as many different exercises, techniques and models as we can think of — things we’ve used, and still use, as agile coaches and leadership coaches.
We thought, you know what, we need to give all this away. So across a series of episodes, we’re going to share as much as we can remember, and as much as we’ve written down, about the different approaches we’ve tried in workshops, coaching and consulting engagements.
This episode is about feedback.
There’s so much to this topic that we’ve decided to split it into two episodes. So this is episode one of two, and this episode is focused on giving feedback — some exercises, theories and concepts to help teams become more effective at giving feedback in their own context.
So let’s get straight into it, Geoff.
We’ve called this one Giving Feedback. Why do you think giving feedback is so important for us to share with our listeners?
Geoff: That’s a massive question.
I think it’s absolutely crucial. The reason I think it’s really important is because of the culture that you and I are often trying to nurture within organisations. Even if we weren’t trying to create a culture of empowerment, agency, self-management and decentralisation, feedback would still matter.
Just getting feedback on performance and behaviour — even if it’s top-down — is crucial to getting better.
If I don’t know my impact on other people, on processes, or on outputs, then I can’t necessarily improve. I’m just blindly carrying on.
That’s useful in any organisation, and it becomes even more important in an environment where it’s not just about your line manager telling you what they think, but your teammates as well. If we’re creating a self-managing team, then we need to be able to tell each other how things are going. We need to be able to give each other that information, and take that information on board.
But it’s really uncomfortable. For the vast majority of people, it’s uncomfortable. And if we’re not skilled at it, if we don’t practise it, then we can often make things worse rather than better.
That’s why I think it’s important.
Paul: Yeah, I’d agree.
It’s part of a workshop that I run that generally makes people’s skin crawl at this point. Why do you think that is? Is it cultural? Is it that where there’s an absence of feedback, people seem to grow more fearful of using it?
Geoff: Well, you say cultural, and I think it would be really interesting if we get any international listeners here, because in a lot of the multicultural courses or workshops I run, there’s a massive difference.
It’s often stereotypical, but there are definitely some cultures where telling it like it is is ingrained from a young age, and people don’t take it personally. What can feel rude and disparaging in one culture can feel normal, liberating and generous in another.
I think the Brits are generally terrible at it.
Paul: I agree.
Geoff: And obviously we’re looking at it predominantly through that lens, but we’ve been lucky enough to see other cultures too. There’s the opposite as well — in some cases, we Brits may be better at it than others.
So yes, it’s fascinating, but I think mostly it comes down to ego. Not necessarily in an egotistical, bad sense, but people seeing feedback as a critique of them as a person and taking it too personally.
I think that’s at the heart of it a lot of the time.
Paul: Yeah, I agree.
However scary this stuff is, when Geoff and I introduce it — whether that’s in teaching or coaching — the benefit I’ve generally seen afterwards far outweighs the fear that was there at the beginning.
Where I’ve felt that feedback was essential in a team at a given point in time, it has often felt like the scariest thing to do in that moment. But when teams go through that very scary, very uncomfortable process, they generally come back and say, “You know what, that’s exactly the conversation we needed to have.”
And as a result, things get better. As a team, they come together and gel much more effectively, often off the back of that first difficult conversation.
Geoff: Timing — or maybe frequency — is a big part of it as well. Often because it’s uncomfortable, we delay it, defer it or avoid it. Then it just gets bigger and bigger until you’re having one huge conversation once a year.
That’s overwhelming. And it’s not timely. So then it feels bad, and that makes us defer and avoid it even more.
But if you did it more regularly — every day, every hour, whatever — then it loses its pain and stigma. It just becomes part of what we do.
Paul: Okay, good. Let’s put some meat on the bones here.
We’re going to start with some common traps, because they’re often the easiest way into the conversation.
When I start talking to groups about giving feedback, I’ll often ask them to think about times when they’ve been given feedback, or given feedback themselves, and the traps they’ve fallen into.
There are some very classic feedback scenarios and structures that I’m sure most listeners will have come across.
The famous one is the praise sandwich — or, less politely, the shit sandwich. That’s where you receive feedback, but it’s sandwiched between two nice pieces of feedback. The thing the person really wanted to say gets somewhat lost in the middle.
It dilutes what they actually wanted to communicate, because people tend to remember the beginning and the end of the conversation. I can remember emails I received years ago where you could almost cut and paste the beginning, middle and end of the sandwich.
A few others to watch out for:
When you want to give someone feedback, but you say something like, “You know what Geoff was saying about you?” or “The talk in the office is that…”
What you’re really doing is disguising your own opinion as a group opinion because you’re not prepared to own it.
Especially when we’re nervous, we take ages to get to the point. We start with pleasantries, skirt around the issue, and build up to the feedback.
The person listening can sense that. That anticipation can actually make the feedback feel worse than it really is.
This is when you wrap niceties around something that is essentially the harsh truth you want the person to hear.
For example: “Geoff, you’ve got really bad dress sense, but you’re such a nice guy.”
Again, you’re hiding the actual feedback inside pleasantries, and that makes it harder for the person to hear what you really mean.
Geoff: Can I give you a couple more traps?
Paul: Go for it.
Geoff: One is labelling and extremes.
I often say that always and never are two words to always remember never to use.
“You’re always late.”
“You never shave, Paul.”
They’re just not true, and people will focus on the part that makes them more comfortable. “Well, I do shave sometimes.” So they lose the impact of the feedback.
The other one is labelling. I’ve always tried to be conscious of this with my kids. Rather than saying, “You’re lazy,” I’d say, “That was an example of lazy behaviour.”
They’re not naughty kids. That was an example of naughty behaviour, but they are not naughty.
So try to avoid labels, and try to avoid extremes.
Paul: Yeah, that’s good. Love those.
So what we thought we’d do next is give you some genuine feedback models and structures that might help you practise giving feedback in a more structured way.
Paul: The first one, which I use a lot, is NVC — Nonviolent Communication. We should credit Marshall Rosenberg with the original creation of this structure.
Can you tell us a bit more about that, Geoff?
Geoff: I think it’s something worth looking into if you’re interested in things like therapy, because Rosenberg really used this as a therapeutic tool. He did a lot of work with children and used things like puppets and giraffes.
What we’re basically looking at is getting your information and your feedback across in a way that you can own, while also keeping it objective rather than subjective.
So it’s about getting the balance between objectivity and subjectivity.
Paul: Yeah, and that’s an essential part of it.
What I love about Nonviolent Communication is that it gives the logical part of our brain a nice, simple four-part structure.
Start with something you’ve seen happen that is not up for debate.
For example:
“Geoff, I noticed that you came into the room at quarter past nine, rather than at nine o’clock when the meeting started.”
That should be factual. It’s not based on my judgement or interpretation. I’m not saying Geoff is lazy or that he missed the bus. I’m simply saying that Geoff turned up 15 minutes after the event started.
Then say how that event made you feel.
For example:
“Geoff, being late for the meeting made me feel anxious.”
That’s my feeling. Geoff doesn’t get to debate that. I own it.
Then explore why you felt that way. What need was not being met?
For example:
“Geoff being late made me feel anxious because, as the organiser, I need to make sure we’re fully using the time we have available. If we don’t, I worry that people will feel rushed and that we won’t get to a good outcome.”
Finally, make a request for the future.
For example:
“Geoff, could I ask you to try to turn up on time next time, or even five minutes early, so we can make a good start?”
That request should be simple and reasonable. It all roots back to a factual event, and the important part is that it focuses on how it made me feel, rather than judging Geoff or telling him how he should feel.
Have I missed anything with that, Geoff?
Geoff: No, I think that’s pretty succinct.
You make a request to me, and it’s up to me whether I accept that request or not. I can turn it down. You can’t demand it from me, but you can request it.
Paul: Exactly. And I think the reason NVC is so good is that it makes it much harder, in a human-to-human interaction, to ignore someone’s emotions once they’ve clearly surfaced them and explained why they matter.
Paul: Have you got another model people might want to consider?
Geoff: Yes — a similar theme, but maybe a bit simpler and perhaps slightly less touchy-feely for some people.
The first one I ever came across was in a tiny little book called The Tao of Coaching by Max Landsberg. In it, he shares the three-letter model AID:
For example:
“In our last conversation, you raised your voice and started pointing your finger at me.”
That’s the action.
“That made me feel intimidated and defensive.”
That’s the impact.
“In future, I’d like you to keep your voice at a reasonable level and not point at me.”
That’s the desired outcome.
Quite simple.
Paul: Nice. Really nice.
Paul: One final one we’ve used quite a lot in training is The Perfection Game.
Do you remember where this originally came from?
Geoff: I think it came from the Core Protocols.
Paul: In the Perfection Game, you give a score out of 10.
A 10 means there is no feedback because it was perfect. If you give something an 8 out of 10, then you need to explain what would have made it a 10.
So if I gave Geoff’s dress sense an 8 out of 10 today, I’d need to give him two ways to improve it.
What I like about it is that it forces you to be constructive. You’re not just criticising — you’re recognising what works and identifying what would make it even better.
That’s the essence of the model.
Paul: It would be useful now to give listeners some general tips, not attached to a specific model, but things to bear in mind if they want to improve how they give feedback.
What would be your top tips, Geoff?
Geoff: One thing is: offer feedback rather than inflict it.
That example was a good one, because I didn’t ask for feedback on my dress sense.
Paul: No, I did not. I just inflicted feedback on you.
Geoff: Exactly. You went around inflicting your help on me whether I asked for it or not.
So I think, generally, offer feedback first. It’s quite difficult for someone to say no if you ask, “Would you like some feedback?” but it’s still better than just throwing your opinions at people uninvited.
Another tip is to frame it. Why are you giving me this feedback? How is it meant to help me? What’s the bigger purpose or context for it?
Then there’s an interesting paradox. I encourage people to personalise their feedback, in the sense that it should be relevant to that individual and not generic. But at the same time, I also encourage them to depersonalise it, because it’s not really about the person’s identity — it’s about the behaviour.
So make it relevant to me, but keep it focused on behaviour rather than labels.
Paul: I was also thinking about preparing someone.
Giving people some warning that feedback is coming can help create the right environment for it. Rather than catching them off guard with, “Oh, and by the way…”
You can say something like:
“I’m going to give you some feedback on your presentation at the end of this, if that’s okay.”
That makes it less of a shock.
I also think timing is really important. It’s not usually a great idea to give feedback at the end of a heated argument when emotions are raw.
Sometimes it’s better to sleep on it and come back to it the next day in a calmer state and maybe even in a different environment.
The environment matters too. Sometimes feedback lands better side-by-side rather than eye-to-eye — for example, on a walk rather than in a formal room.
What’s your take on that, Geoff?
Geoff: My general view — and we’ll come back to this when we do an episode on receiving feedback — is that I tend to defer to the preferences of the receiver.
If they like direct eye contact, do that. If they prefer not to look you in the eye, respect that. If they prefer written feedback over verbal feedback, think about that too.
It’s more likely to land if it’s more palatable to the person receiving it. So I try to take my own comfort levels out of the equation and meet them where they are.
Paul: Yeah, I think you’re right.
Another general tip is simply to own it. Don’t be afraid to own your feedback and own how something made you feel.
Geoff: That’s a big part of it.
A lot of my work is around the psychological traits you need to master in yourself, and one of the things that holds people back in giving feedback is people-pleasing.
They don’t want to upset people. They want to say nice things. They talk about “bad feedback” when what they really mean is feedback about something someone could improve, rather than praise.
But feedback done well is a gift.
There’s a useful question in all this:
Do you like this person enough to tell them the truth, rather than just tell them what they want to hear?
You probably have a few friends who tell it like it is. They won’t hold back because they care about you. Then you have other people who won’t tell you the truth because they’re worried about losing your friendship or they don’t think the relationship is strong enough.
That people-pleasing tendency gets in the way. But actually, feedback done well is one of the most generous things you can offer someone.
Paul: Yeah.
I’ve written down a note for myself here: little and often.
Those three words still make me shudder because it’s what my mum used to say when she was trying to get me to revise for my GCSEs. But with feedback, it really applies.
If you can get into the habit of giving small amounts of feedback on a regular basis — and that includes highlighting positive behaviours, not just things someone should change — then it becomes much easier over time.
Create regular, short opportunities for feedback in an everyday setting and you’ll be surprised how much easier it becomes later to give harder feedback in a one-to-one conversation.
That would be my general tip: little and often.
Geoff: Yeah — avoid the once-a-year visit to the comfy chairs.
Paul: We used to hate those chairs, didn’t we? Our old boss would say, “Come and sit in the comfy chairs, Geoff. I want to give you some feedback.”
And you’d know what was coming. Usually around appraisal time too. It would all feel like a build-up to what you needed to improve, based on a whole year’s worth of notes you could barely remember.
No wonder people ran away from it.
Paul: Okay, that’s probably enough for this episode.
Just to remind people, we’ve got so much on feedback that we’ve had to split it into two episodes. So stay tuned and make sure you’re subscribed for the next instalment, which will be much more about receiving feedback.
At the end of that episode, we’ll also have a downloadable template for you to use — a practical exercise you can run with your team or your colleagues to help everyone get better at feedback.
So stay tuned for that.
Geoff: And it would be terrible of us, in an episode on feedback, not to invite people to give us feedback on this episode.
So please do let us know what you liked, and use whatever model you like.
Paul: Absolutely. Love that.
Hopefully we’ll catch up with you all on the next episode.
That’s all for now. Cheers, Geoff.
Geoff: Cheers, Paul.
