I said what I said about feedback yesterday. But now I think about every manager out there who has been taught a “technique” for delivering feedback. I question whether these management/leadership techniques are valuable.

Let’s assume that a business houses systems, and the system of examination is between individual contributors and their managers. The individual contributors are producing outputs that support the businesses ability to create profit and the contributors ability to earn a livelihood. Most individual contributors I work with not only want a livelihood but want a career and skill development — they want growth.

Let’s assume that an individual contributor performs in a way that is sub optimal. A manager then provides “feedback” to correct the behavior. The feedback is delivered in a way that feels performative or templated. The goal of these techniques, like the “say something good, then bad, then good” method, are to keep a person positive and accepting of the feedback. People have come to expect that feedback, and they hate it.

Instead, I argue that managers should consider the systems that are their individual contributors. What feedback loops might their teams have in place that cause them to repeat or maintain behaviors (be they good or bad)? And once that managers develops an idea, how might that manager test their hypothesis/

The managers goal should be to help their teams establish self-regulating feedback loops that will elevate performance and help them achieve their goals. These leaders need to abandon the tried-and-hated playbooks of leadership academies and begin taking a look at the people in their charge.