The “shit” sandwich and other approaches to giving feedback

Feedback Isn’t the Problem. The System Around It Is.

One of the issues that regularly surfaces in both coaching and mediation is feedback.
Not the concept itself, but the mess that often surrounds it:

• Feedback delivered badly.
• Feedback received badly.
• Feedback avoided entirely.

By the time I’m involved, the actual comment someone made weeks earlier is rarely the real issue. What we’re dealing with is the system of reactions that formed around it. And that’s where things get interesting.

The pattern I see again and again

Most organisations still treat feedback as a communication skill.

• Teach managers a model (and there are plenty of useful ones).
• Run a workshop (lots to be gained by practice).
• Maybe introduce a template conversation structure through annual performance processes and forms (structure can provide clarity and slow the brain down when things get tense)..

These are all good ideas.. But what unfolds in practice is much more complex.

Feedback sits at the intersection of multiple human systems (all of which can be fragile depending on what is going on more generally for the person inside and outside of work)..

• Identity: how people see themselves and whether the feedback is landing on something central to my identity
• Status: perceived hierarchy or expertise (if you are more senior to me and have the capacity to influence my career, the feedback might sting more. Equally, the perception of being “shown up” by someone more junior or less experienced can also grate.
• Threat detection: my sensitivity to criticism (we know that some people are just naturally more sensitive).
• Trust and safety: whether people believe feedback is intended to help (what is the broader situation, does this person have your back generally?)
• Power: who gets to comment on whose behaviour (seniority, proximity to power, the impact the person can have – all of this goes into the melting pot).

It is no wonder that when those systems are misaligned, even beautifully delivered feedback can land like an attack. It assumes feedback is a message/content problem. More often, it’s one of the systems (or multiple). And of course, how the message is delivered (tone, delivery and intent all count towards how it lands).

Which leads us to the “Shit” Sandwich

Which is why the classic “feedback (aka shit) sandwich” has never worked particularly well. Those who’ve been through my leadership programmes know my views on that one. If you’ve never heard of this – lucky you – it is essentially sandwiching the negative feedback between two pieces of positive feedback.

Why it doesn’t work: people who are sensitive to negative feedback ignore the positives, whilst waiting for the “real” feedback. Those that are oblivious to the negative don’t hear the middle piece of the message. Either way – it dilutes trust (I don’t believe the positives, I think you are just buttering me up) or it makes the message murky and unclear.

Sadly, it’s true. Avoidance (or significant delay) is the default response

Because feedback touches identity and status, many people simply avoid it.

• Managers delay conversations. Often, until it’s too late to do anything useful.
• Colleagues talk about the issue everywhere except with the person involved.
• Organisations quietly tolerate behaviours that everyone knows need to be addressed.
• Avoidance becomes the operating system.

Ironically, the thing meant to help people improve becomes the very thing that prevents improvement.

A small sign of progress

Which is why I was genuinely delighted to hear about something happening in my daughter’s university course.

She’s four weeks into her first semester, and her first major assessment isn’t an essay or an exam.

It’s a semester-long assignment on how to give and receive feedback well.

Even better.. they didn’t mention the feedback sandwich.

If we start teaching this earlier, we might begin to normalise something organisations still struggle with: feedback as part of everyday work, rather than an event that signals trouble.

The real shift organisations need

In healthy systems, feedback isn’t dramatic. It’s ordinary.

• People say what needs to be said.
• Others hear it without assuming an attack.
• And conversations happen while problems are still small.

That doesn’t happen because people memorise a feedback model. It happens because the system supports learning rather than defence.

When that’s the case, feedback becomes what it was always meant to be:

• A tool for growth.
• Not a weapon.
• Not a punishment.
• Just information that helps people get better.

And when that happens, organisations start learning faster.

The Takeaway

Feedback is traditionally focused on the person giving it, with little to no concern for those on the receiving end. We can make a difference when we get the person giving the feedback, not only models, tools, structures, and forms, but also the insight to consider some of the dynamics above and contemplate how the person on the other end might reasonably receive the feedback.

AND we can help each individual within an organisation with their self-awareness around how they take feedback and how they deal with perceived conflict, and provide them with tools to manage this IN ADVANCE of the situation.

FINALLY, we can make sure that we are are buiding realtionships and teams where there is trust and psychological safety.