Latest / Hiring & Firing with Fexingo: Recruitment, Performance, and Workforce Decisions / Why Senior Managers Are Failing At Feedback
Transcript
- Lucas: Let’s talk about the moment every manager dreads and every employee needs. It’s not the hiring process, and it’s not the exit interview. It is the mid-cycle performance check-in. Most companies spend millions on learning platforms and recruitment tools, yet their internal data shows that less than half of employees feel their feedback actually leads to meaningful change. That gap between intent and impact is where careers stall. Luna: Right, and I think a lot of it comes down to ambiguity. When feedback is vague, it feels like a personality critique rather than a performance metric. Lucas: Exactly. You hear things like 'you need to be more proactive' or 'your communication could be sharper.' Those are opinions, not instructions. A listener who just received that kind of note probably walked away confused and defensive, not equipped to fix the problem. The issue isn’t that managers are mean; it’s that they are imprecise. Luna: So how do we move from opinion to instruction? Is there a specific structure that works better in practice? Lucas: There is a model called SBI, which stands for Situation, Behavior, Impact. It sounds academic, but it’s incredibly effective when applied correctly. Instead of saying 'you’re lazy,' a manager using SBI says 'in yesterday’s client meeting, you didn’t bring the updated data, which caused the client to question our preparedness.' See the difference? One attacks character; the other addresses a reversible action. Luna: That feels much safer to receive. But does it still land well if the relationship is already strained? Lucas: It lands better because it removes the emotional guesswork. When you stick to observable facts, you strip away the assumption that the manager is attacking you personally. The problem is that many leaders skip the 'Situation' part entirely. They go straight to judgment because they are busy, or because they assume the employee knows what went wrong. Luna: I’ve seen that happen. The manager assumes context is shared, but often it isn’t, especially in remote teams where you can’t see body language. Lucas: That is a huge factor. In a physical office, you might catch a mistake early and correct it casually by the coffee machine. In a hybrid or fully remote environment, that casual correction disappears. Mistakes fester until they become patterns. By the time the formal review happens, the employee is shocked because they never got the micro-corrections that would have prevented the macro-issue. Luna: So the frequency matters as much as the format. Weekly check-ins become essential, not optional. Lucas: Absolutely. And here is where it gets tricky for mid-level managers. They are often promoted because they were good individual contributors, not because they were trained coaches. They don’t have the toolkit for these conversations. They default to either avoidance or aggression. Both are destructive. Luna: Avoidance is probably the bigger silent killer. People stay quiet hoping things will improve on their own. Lucas: They do. And the employee interprets silence as satisfaction. So six months later, when the manager finally brings up the performance gap, the employee feels blindsided. It creates a rupture in trust that is very hard to repair. We see this turnover pattern constantly in our data. It’s rarely about money; it’s about feeling invisible. Luna: What about the reverse? When feedback is too frequent, doesn’t it become noise? Or micromanagement? Lucas: That is a valid concern. Feedback should be rhythmic, not constant. Think of it like pruning a tree. You don’t prune every day, but you don’t wait five years either. The sweet spot is usually bi-weekly or monthly for deep dives, with lighter touchpoints in between. The key is making sure the light touchpoints are low-stakes. 'Hey, great job on that email draft' takes ten seconds. 'We need to talk about your entire quarter' takes hours. Luna: I like that distinction. Low-stakes reinforcement versus high-stakes correction. Lucas: Precisely. Most managers only do the high-stakes stuff. They hoard their critiques until the annual review, then dump them all at once. That is overwhelming and ineffective. Positive reinforcement, on the other hand, should be almost immediate. If someone solves a problem efficiently, tell them today, not in December. Luna: Does the medium matter? Is a written follow-up to a verbal conversation necessary? Lucas: Yes, it creates a paper trail that protects both parties. A quick summary email saying 'Just to recap our chat, here are the three actions we agreed on' helps memory retention. Humans are terrible at remembering verbal instructions after twenty-four hours. Writing it down forces clarity for the manager and accountability for the employee. Luna: That seems simple enough. Why isn’t everyone doing it? Lucas: Because it requires discipline. It’s easier to say 'let’s circle back later' and then forget. Or to assume the vibe was clear enough. But assumptions are expensive. In a business environment, ambiguity is a liability. If you want retention, you need precision. Luna: So precision is the new kindness in management. Lucas: I would argue so. Vague feedback is cruel because it leaves the person stranded. Clear feedback, even when it is negative, gives them a ladder to climb out of the hole. It says 'I see the problem, and I believe you can solve it.' Luna: That shifts the dynamic from adversarial to collaborative. It feels like a partnership. Lucas: Exactly. And that partnership mindset is what separates good managers from great ones. Great managers view feedback as a tool for development, not a weapon for punishment. When employees feel safe enough to admit mistakes, innovation goes up because people aren’t hiding errors. Luna: It also reduces the fear of failure, which stifles creativity. Lucas: Right. If I’m afraid that pointing out a flaw will result in a harsh critique, I will stop pointing out flaws. I will stop innovating. I will just do the bare minimum to avoid scrutiny. That is how companies stagnate. Luna: So the health of the feedback loop is directly tied to the company’s ability to adapt. Lucas: Spot on. Organizations that are slow to adapt usually have broken feedback loops. The information stops flowing upward because people are afraid to speak truth to power. And downward because managers are afraid to deliver hard truths. Luna: It’s a two-way street then. Managers need feedback from their teams too. Lucas: They absolutely do. And this is where many organizations stumble. They ask for anonymous surveys once a year, which is useless. Real-time feedback from reports is invaluable. It tells the manager where they are blocking progress. It turns the hierarchy into a network. Luna: That requires a lot of humility from the leader. Admitting you might be the bottleneck. Lucas: Humility is the cornerstone of effective leadership. If a manager cannot handle honest feedback from below, they will never accept constructive criticism from above. The whole system collapses. Luna: It sounds like building this culture starts with the manager’s willingness to be vulnerable. Lucas: Vulnerability is often misunderstood as weakness. In this context, it is strength. It signals that the goal is improvement, not dominance. When a manager says 'I messed up this timeline, here is how I plan to fix it,' it models accountability for the entire team. Luna: That sets a standard. Everyone learns from that example. Lucas: It does. And it makes the subsequent performance reviews feel like a natural continuation of daily work, rather than a quarterly tribunal. The tension drops, and the focus shifts to outcomes. Luna: So the takeaway is that feedback should be frequent, specific, bidirectional, and documented. Lucas: Frequency, specificity, bidirectionality, documentation. Four pillars. Get those right, and you solve most of the retention issues you see today. Luna: And if you ignore them, you lose your best people to confusion and frustration. Lucas: Without a doubt. The cost of bad feedback is higher than the cost of a bad hire, because it poisons the whole well. Luna: This has been a really useful breakdown. It makes me think about how I receive updates from my own team. Lucas: Good. Start small. Pick one direct report and try the SBI model next week. See if the conversation changes. Luna: I will. Thanks for walking us through that. Lucas: My pleasure. Before we wrap up, I want to mention something about how this show stays independent. We don’t run ads, and we don’t take corporate sponsorship. That means our content stays focused on what actually matters to your career, not what pays for the server costs. If these conversations have moved your work forward in some small way, consider supporting us directly. It keeps the lights on and the signal clear. You can find us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Thank you for keeping this space ad-free. Luna: We appreciate every bit of support. It allows us to dig deeper into these topics without compromise. Lucas: Back to the topic though. One last thought on implementation. Don’t wait for the perfect moment. The best feedback happens in the flow of work. Luna: Right. Don’t let the pressure build until it explodes. Lucas: Exactly. Catch it early, address it clearly, and move on. It builds momentum. Luna: Momentum is exactly what teams need right now. Lucas: Agreed. So, here is a question for you to take away. When was the last time you gave feedback that was so clear the recipient couldn’t possibly misunderstand it? Be honest with yourself. Luna: That’s a tough one. Probably longer than I’d like to admit. Lucas: Same here. Let’s try to beat that number next week. Luna: Deal. See you next time.