A client told me recently that a department lead once said to her, almost casually, that she lacked emotional intelligence. It wasn’t written in a warning letter and it wasn’t delivered in anger. It was the kind of comment leaders often believe is insightful, a naming of what they think they are observing.

The problem is that a sentence like that does not function as guidance. It functions as a verdict. Years later she still cannot tell you what behaviour she was meant to change, only that she has spent an extraordinary amount of energy scanning herself in meetings, replaying conversations, softening statements before they leave her mouth and then second-guessing the softened version afterward. She did not become clearer. She became careful.

Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen write in Thanks for the Feedback that people struggle most with what they call identity feedback, input that lands not as information about a moment but as information about who we are.

When feedback crosses that line, the brain stops asking “what should I do differently” and starts asking “what is wrong with me.” The conversation may feel honest to the giver, but to the receiver it becomes unsolvable. Improvement requires a lever you can pull tomorrow morning. A personality conclusion gives you nothing to pull.

That is the quiet danger of trait language inside performance conversations.

Leaders are absolutely responsible for giving feedback. It is a crucial and teachable skill and, like any skill, it requires intentional practice, empathy, and clarity if the goal is professional growth rather than emotional reaction. But the moment feedback moves from describing an interaction to describing a person, improvement becomes theoretical.

You can adjust a behaviour because behaviour lives in the world. You cannot adjust a trait because a trait lives in interpretation. The employee is left holding an unsolved equation and the mind does what minds always do with unsolved equations – it keeps calculating.

What most leaders are trying to communicate in moments like these is almost always something practical.

• Perhaps the employee challenges ideas too abruptly in group discussions.
• Perhaps conclusions arrive before context.
• Perhaps speed of thought outruns the social landing of the words.

All of those are workable because they are observable. They can be described, practiced, and repeated differently tomorrow morning.

Effective feedback is specific, timely, and anchored in behaviour precisely because behaviour gives the brain a handle.

When we replace that handle with a personality label, we have not deepened the feedback, we have removed its usability.

Stone and Heen also note that feedback works best when it becomes a joint exploration rather than a pronouncement.

That requires listening, emotional steadiness, and the willingness to test understanding rather than assume it.

In practice, that means describing the moment, explaining the impact, and inviting the other person into the adjustment.

When that happens, trust increases because the path forward is visible. When it does not, people default to vigilance. They begin managing how they are perceived instead of improving how they work.

Many organizations avoid feedback because they fear discomfort, and many others deliver it in sweeping language because they believe naming a person accelerates change.

Both paths miss the same point.

Feedback works when it narrows ambiguity. A clear behavioural observation, delivered with composure and explained with context, prevents larger problems later because it gives someone a reliable way to succeed. A broad psychological statement, even if sincerely meant, quietly turns performance into self-monitoring. The employee does not grow more capable. They grow more cautious.

Leadership is not simply the act of noticing
patterns in people.

It is the discipline of translating what you notice into something another human being can actually perform. When feedback does that, it builds trust because the future becomes predictable. When it does not, people spend their energy managing themselves instead of improving their contribution.

Strategic Reflection Prompt

Think about the last piece of feedback you gave or received: Could the person clearly describe what to do differently in the very next similar situation, or did the conversation leave an impression about identity rather than an instruction about action?

About Giselle

I’m Giselle Hudson — Organization & People Development Sensemaker™, MCODE® Legacy Coach, writer and musician. I help leaders and independent professionals close the gap between strategy and execution by making invisible friction visible, so direction can finally translate into results.

If execution isn’t matching intent and you can’t quite see why, message me on WhatsApp. We’ll start with a brief Clarity Conversation to understand what you’re facing and decide together whether a focused Sensemaking Session is the right next step.