The art of authentic feedback
Moving past the script
Giving and receiving feedback is an essential part of an engineering manager's life. Yet, it's a skill that many find challenging to master. Effective feedback can accelerate growth, build trust, and strengthen teams, while poorly delivered feedback can have the opposite effect.
Over the years, a variety of established techniques have emerged to help managers and engineers develop this crucial muscle. Each method offers its own perspective on how to structure and deliver feedback, aiming to make the process more constructive and less daunting.
In this article, we'll take a quick look at some of these widely used techniques, highlighting their strengths and limitations. More importantly, we'll introduce a novel approach, what we call the "Superpowers" method, which can help you deliver feedback in a way that feels more genuine, mature, and ultimately more effective for both you and your team.
What's Out There
BIO Model
The BIO model is a simple and effective framework for structuring feedback. BIO stands for Behavior, Impact, and Outcome. The idea is to focus on what was observed, the effect it had, and the result or consequence. This helps keep feedback objective and actionable, rather than personal or vague.
Behavior: Describe the specific behavior you observed. Avoid making assumptions or interpretations—just state the facts.
Impact: Explain the impact this behavior had on you, the team, or the project. This helps the receiver understand why the behavior matters.
Outcome: Share the outcome or consequence of the behavior. This could be positive or negative, and helps clarify the bigger picture.
For example:
When you interrupted the team meeting yesterday (Behavior), it made it difficult for others to share their ideas (Impact), which led to a less productive discussion (Outcome).
The BIO model encourages clarity and empathy. By focusing on observable actions and their effects, it reduces the risk of feedback feeling like a personal attack. However, it's important to use this model as a guide, not a rigid formula, otherwise, feedback can sound robotic or insincere.
BOOST Model
The BOOST model is another popular framework for giving effective feedback. BOOST stands for Balanced, Observed, Objective, Specific, and Timely. This model is designed to ensure that feedback is constructive, actionable, and delivered in a way that maximizes its positive impact.
Balanced: Provide a mix of positive and constructive feedback. Recognize what is working well, as well as areas for improvement.
Observed: Base your feedback on behaviors or events you have directly observed, rather than hearsay or assumptions.
Objective: Keep your feedback factual and free from personal bias or emotion. Focus on what happened, not why you think it happened.
Specific: Be clear and precise about what you are addressing. Vague feedback is hard to act on.
Timely: Give feedback as soon as possible after the event, while it is still fresh and relevant.
For example:
I noticed during yesterday's code review (Observed) that you provided detailed suggestions to help improve the module's performance (Specific). This was really helpful for the team (Balanced). However, there were a couple of comments that came across as abrupt (Objective). In the future, taking a slightly softer tone could make your feedback even more effective (Timely).
The BOOST model helps ensure feedback is fair, actionable, and delivered in a way that supports growth. By following these principles, you can help your team members understand both their strengths and areas for development, without undermining their confidence.
360-Degree Feedback
The 360-degree feedback1 method involves gathering input about an individual's performance from a variety of sources; peers, direct reports, managers, and sometimes even external stakeholders. The goal is to provide a more comprehensive and balanced view of a person's strengths and areas for improvement, rather than relying solely on a manager's perspective.
This approach is especially useful for uncovering blind spots and ensuring that feedback is not biased by a single viewpoint. By collecting feedback from multiple people who interact with the individual in different contexts, you can build a richer and more nuanced picture of their impact on the team and organization.
360-degree feedback is most commonly used as part of formal review cycles or development programs. It can help identify patterns in behavior, highlight consistent strengths, and surface opportunities for growth that might otherwise go unnoticed.
However, it's important to note that 360-degree feedback is primarily a tool for gathering information, not for delivering feedback directly. As a manager, you are responsible for synthesizing this input and presenting it in a constructive, actionable way. Care should be taken to ensure anonymity and to frame the feedback in a way that supports development rather than feeling overwhelming or punitive.
Shit Sandwich
The "Shit Sandwich2" is a feedback technique where constructive criticism is placed between two positive comments. The intention is to soften the impact of negative feedback by starting and ending on a positive note. For example, a manager might begin by praising an engineer's recent work, then mention an area for improvement, and finally close with another compliment.
While this approach is common among new managers and can make giving tough feedback feel less awkward, it has significant drawbacks. Many people quickly recognize the pattern, which can make the positive feedback feel insincere or manipulative. Over time, this erodes trust, as team members may start to anticipate criticism whenever they hear praise.
In the tech industry, the Shit Sandwich is generally discouraged. Authenticity and directness are valued, and feedback is most effective when it is honest and straightforward. Instead of relying on this formula, it's better to focus on delivering feedback with empathy and clarity, ensuring that both positive and constructive points are genuine and meaningful.
STAR Method
The STAR method3 is a widely used framework for both giving feedback and conducting behavioral interviews. STAR stands for Situation, Task, Action, and Result. This method helps ensure that feedback is grounded in context and focuses on specific examples, making it easier for the recipient to understand and act upon.
Situation: Set the scene by describing the context or background where the behavior occurred.
Task: Explain the specific task or challenge that was involved.
Action: Describe the actions taken by the individual in response to the situation or task.
Result: Share the outcome or impact of those actions.
For example:
During the last sprint (Situation), you were responsible for refactoring the authentication module (Task). You proactively identified legacy issues and communicated your plan to the team (Action), which resulted in a smoother deployment and fewer bugs reported (Result).
The STAR method is effective because it encourages feedback that is concrete and actionable, rather than vague or general. By walking through each step, you help the recipient see exactly what they did well or where they can improve, all within the context of real work situations.
Beyond formulas
Many of the feedback models above can be helpful, but they often assume the recipient isn't already aware of their own strengths and weaknesses. In reality, most engineers are thoughtful, capable professionals who are doing their best and have a good sense of where they excel and where they can improve.
When feedback is delivered in a way that feels overly formulaic or scripted, it can come across as disingenuous or even patronizing. People are quick to pick up on unnatural or insincere communication, which can erode trust between managers and their teams.
This is similar to the concept of the "uncanny valley4", a term from robotics and animation describing how something that appears almost, but not quite, human can feel unsettling or off-putting. In the same way, feedback that closely follows a formula but lacks genuine intent can feel unnatural and inauthentic. Team members can sense when feedback is being delivered just to tick a box, rather than to truly help them grow.
Often, when engineers make mistakes, it's not because they lack ability or awareness, but because their greatest strengths are being overused or misapplied. For example, someone who is extremely passionate about their work might sometimes come across as blunt or impatient. Another engineer who is highly detail-oriented might struggle to see the bigger picture.
This is where the Superpowers method comes in. By recognizing and naming these strengths, and acknowledging how they can sometimes go too far, you can deliver feedback that feels both genuine and constructive, helping your team grow while honoring what makes them unique.
Superpowers
Superpowers is not a formal feedback method or framework; it's a mindset shift. The idea is to observe and recognize the unique strengths each engineer brings to the team. This approach is inspired by concepts like CliftonStrengths5, which emphasize identifying and leveraging individual talents.
The key is to notice what someone does exceptionally well, their "superpower", and then reflect on how that strength, when overused or applied in the wrong context, can sometimes create challenges. For example, an engineer who is extremely fast at delivering code (superpower) might sometimes sacrifice quality for speed if not careful. Similarly, someone who is highly detail-oriented might struggle to see the bigger picture when their strength is taken to the extreme.
By framing feedback around superpowers, you acknowledge and celebrate what makes each person valuable, while also providing constructive guidance on how to balance their strengths. This helps feedback feel more genuine and supportive, and encourages engineers to grow without feeling diminished.
This approach is about seeing the whole person: honoring their strengths, understanding their impact, and helping them channel their abilities in ways that benefit both themselves and the team.
Conclusion
Giving effective feedback is one of the most important responsibilities of an engineering manager, but it's also one of the most nuanced. While established frameworks like BIO, BOOST, 360-degree feedback, and STAR can provide helpful structure, the most impactful feedback goes beyond formulas. By focusing on each person's unique strengths, and understanding how those strengths can sometimes create challenges, you can deliver feedback that is both genuine and constructive. The Superpowers mindset encourages trust, growth, and authenticity, helping engineers feel valued for who they are while supporting their ongoing development. Ultimately, the goal is to foster a culture where feedback is not just a process, but a meaningful tool for personal and team success.