A leader receives feedback on her delivery or approach rather than the substance of her work. This type of feedback, often subjective, suggests a personal failing: an inability to communicate effectively or manage relationships. It is worth examining whether the feedback is truly about an individual’s intrinsic style, or about an unstated expectation of a role or process.
Feedback can sometimes be a category error. It labels a behavioural trait, such as directness or perceived intensity, when the actual issue resides in an unacknowledged process gap or a misaligned scope of authority. If a manager is told she is too impatient, for instance, this might reflect that her direct reports lack the necessary information to complete a task, a problem of process rather than temperament.
This is not to say that all feedback on style is misplaced. Behavioural habits can certainly hinder effectiveness. An approach that consistently alienates colleagues or causes delays in critical workflows warrants attention. If specific actions repeatedly lead to tangible negative outcomes, such as missed deadlines or failed project deliveries, then personal adjustment is indeed necessary. The distinction lies in whether the feedback describes an impact directly linked to a specific, observable action that violates a stated expectation, or if it describes a subjective impression without clear connection to an outcome or rule.
Disentangling Feedback from Function
To disentangle this, consider the context. Has the individual been given a clear mandate for her decisions? Are the communication protocols for her role explicitly defined? Often, feedback on being collaborative or taking people with her arises when a leader steps into a role requiring influence without formal authority, or when established decision-making processes are opaque. The perceived style issue may then be a reasonable response to an unclear functional boundary.
For the individual receiving such feedback, the next step is to probe for specifics. Ask: Which exact action led to this impression? What was the desired outcome? What alternative approach would have been expected given the process? This clarifies whether the feedback points to a remediable action or an unstated tension in the role itself. Organisations, in turn, must ensure feedback mechanisms are precise. Training for managers on delivering actionable feedback, distinguishing between personal style and process adherence, is crucial. Job descriptions and role mandates should clearly articulate not just responsibilities, but also the expected means of engagement and decision-making authority associated with them.
Testing the Premise
Before internalising vague feedback as a personal flaw, test the premise. Identify a colleague whose approach is considered effective in a similar situation. Observe or inquire if their specific actions align with the feedback you received. If they employ similar directness or make similar decisions without similar critique, the issue may well be with the unstated expectations of the role or the process, rather than an inherent personal failing. This provides a basis for a more reasoned discussion with those providing the feedback.
