The term "strategic" is often a catch-all excuse used by managers during performance reviews when they fail to provide concrete, coachable feedback. It's a sign the leader needs to clarify their own expectations before they can effectively coach their team member.
Related Insights
When leaders are not fully present in meetings, their fragmented attention results in poor guidance. When the team inevitably fails to deliver on these unclear instructions, the leader often blames the team's competence instead of their own lack of focus.
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.
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.
Many professionals, especially in execution-focused roles, think strategically but are perceived as tactical. Their failure is not in thinking, but in articulating their strategy, programatizing their work, and knowing when to communicate it. This gap between thought and communication leads to the negative label.
A leader's failure to deliver difficult feedback, even with good intentions, doesn't protect employees. It fosters entitlement in the underperformer and resentment in the leader, leading to a toxic dynamic and an inevitable, messy separation. True kindness is direct, constructive feedback.
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.
Before labeling a team as not resilient, leaders should first examine their own expectations. Often, what appears as a lack of resilience is a natural reaction to systemic issues like overwork, underpayment, and inadequate support, making it a leadership problem, not an employee one.
People are more willing to accept and incorporate feedback about traits they see as secondary, like being "well-spoken" or "witty." Tying feedback to core identity traits, such as kindness or integrity, is more likely to be perceived as a threat and trigger a defensive response.
Instead of offering unsolicited advice, first ask for permission. Frame the feedback around a shared goal (e.g., "I know you want to be the best leader possible") and then ask, "I spotted something that's getting in the way. Could I tell you about it?" This approach makes the recipient far more willing to listen and act.
When given unclear feedback like 'be more strategic,' don't ask for a definition. Instead, ask for concrete examples: 'What would it have looked like for me to be strategic?' or 'What would you have done differently?' This forces managers to provide actionable guidance instead of abstract criticism.