A three-step structure for feedback: state a neutral observation ("What"), explain its impact ("So What"), and suggest a collaborative next step ("Now What"). This focuses on the work, not the person, making the feedback more likely to be received well and acted upon.

While often maligned, research found the "feedback sandwich" (positive-negative-positive) is effective. However, the crucial element is starting with a compliment or expression of respect. This primes the recipient to be more receptive to the difficult feedback that follows. The positive end is less critical.

For skills a person hasn't yet mastered, you can't use their own past successes in feedback. Instead, show a video of a respected peer executing the skill perfectly. This creates an aspirational blueprint and mirrors the belief that they too can achieve it.

A meta-analysis of feedback research shows effectiveness hinges on the target, not the tone. Criticizing a person's identity triggers defensiveness. Instead, focus feedback on specific, controllable actions ('your approach to this task'), which empowers the individual to make adjustments.

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.

To prevent defensiveness when giving critical feedback, managers should explicitly state their positive intent. Saying "I'm giving this because I care about you and your career" shifts the focus from a personal attack to a supportive act of leadership aimed at helping them grow.

According to the "Feedback Fallacy" research, focusing on weaknesses creates a stress response and yields flat results. In contrast, identifying what someone does well and encouraging more of it leads to a 17% performance improvement. It is more effective to analyze and replicate successes than to fix failures.

Frame difficult conversations by separating the problematic behavior (e.g., being late) from the person's identity (e.g., being lazy). This 'good person who is struggling with X' approach prevents defensiveness and allows for a productive discussion about the issue.

Borrowing from filmmaking, view communication slip-ups not as failures but as different "takes." This reframes errors as opportunities to try a different approach next time, reducing fear and encouraging experimentation and growth.