Feedback, especially from leaders, can be ambiguous. The 'Do, Try, Consider' framework clarifies intent: 'Do' is a required change, 'Try' is a suggested exploration, and 'Consider' is a low-priority idea. This helps designers prioritize and act on feedback without misinterpreting suggestions as commands.

Leaders can reduce team anxiety and prevent misinterpretation by explicitly categorizing input. 'Do' is a direct order (used rarely), 'Try' is an experiment, and 'Consider' is a low-stakes suggestion (used 80-85% of the time). This ensures a leader's random thoughts aren't treated as gospel.

Most managers fail at feedback by avoiding conflict. A better framework combines three elements: toughness (directly confronting the problem), kindness (offering support to improve), and clarity (defining specific actions and the potential positive outcome).

As leaders rise, direct reports are less likely to provide challenging feedback, creating an executive bubble. To get unfiltered information, leaders should schedule regular one-on-ones with employees several levels down the org chart with the express purpose of listening, not dictating.

As an organization scales, some leaders become skilled at managing up while being poor managers to their teams. Executives must conduct regular skip-level meetings with frontline employees to get direct, unfiltered feedback and catch these bad behaviors that would otherwise be hidden.

To avoid influencing their team's feedback, leaders should adopt the practice of being the last person to share their opinion. This creates a psychologically safe environment where ideas are judged on merit, not on alignment with the leader's preconceived notions, often making the best decision obvious.

To manage a CEO who generates a constant stream of ideas, a senior leader must act as a filter. Decide which ideas serve the company's growth and ignore those that are distractions, even telling the CEO you do so. This builds a relationship based on strategic alignment, not just pleasing the boss.

When a senior stakeholder proposes a potentially disruptive idea, direct resistance ('pushing') is counterproductive and strengthens their resolve. Instead, 'pull' them into a collaborative exploration. Acknowledge the idea, discuss the underlying problem it solves, and then gently steer the conversation back to how it aligns with the agreed-upon North Star, defusing tension.

When giving feedback, structure it in three parts. "What" is the specific observation. "So what" explains its impact on you or the situation. "Now what" provides a clear, forward-looking suggestion for change. This framework ensures feedback is understood and actionable.