Avoiding the Dreaded Feedback Triangle
Feedback is a gift. When it comes from a place of positive intent, it is selfless and noble. In its best form, the feedback provider is spending their precious, nonrenewable resource of time to help the recipient become better. It can help someone uncover a blind spot, discover a new way of doing something, or realize the relative severity of their behaviors on other people.
In its worst form, feedback can be destructive, especially when it comes from a place of malice, politicking, punitive judgment, or venting.
There is one particularly invasive, destructive type of feedback: the dreaded feedback triangle. This is a situation where a person with feedback shares it with a third party (typically the recipient’s manager) to give to the feedback recipient. Here’s an example.
Two people, named Interrupter and Offended, are in a meeting. Interrupter interrupts Offended twice. Offended feels angry and frustrated about this interruption. Instead of addressing the situation in the “here-and-now” moment, Offended goes to Interrupter’s manager after the meeting to complain about feeling disrespected and frustrated. Let’s consider the most common potential outcomes after the creation of this feedback triangle between Offended, Interrupter, and Interrupter’s manager.
Scenario 1:
Interrupter’s manager delivers the feedback to Interrupter in their next one-on-one meeting. Interrupter’s manager thinks they are helping both Interrupter and Offended, but they really aren’t. First, Interrupter’s manager lacks context. They’re simply playing a game of telephone. Second, Interrupter is upset that Offended didn’t try to resolve the issue directly, before sending it up the management chain; making the situation more consequential. Third, this gives Offended the impression that going around Interrupter is okay, rather than mustering the courage to directly provide the feedback. Not only does the feedback fail, but the relationship between Offended and Interrupter worsens. A bad precedent has been set, and Interrupter’s manager has enabled Offended to abscond the courageous, noble pursuit of providing feedback. Instead they have contributed to a culture where indirect backstabbing is okay. Even worse is if Interrupter’s manager delivers this feedback from an “anonymous source” because then Interrupter has no context on how to react and may now feel paranoid.
Scenario 2:
Interrupter’s manager sits on the feedback and does not deliver it. In this case, Interrupter does not get the information they need to better understand the situation and work on making improvements. Offended is left to stew on the situation … and possibly blow up the next time Interrupter interrupts. Not good.
Scenario 3:
These outcomes get even worse in the mutated cousin of the feedback triangle, the feedback square. This is when Offended gives feedback about Interrupter to Offended’s manager. Interrupter gives feedback about Offended to Interrupter’s manager. The two managers hash it out before delivering the suboptimal, contextless feedback separately to Interrupter and Offended.
So how can one avoid this situation?
First, where possible, deliver feedback in the moment. In our example above, the moment Interrupter interrupts for the second time, Offended can say in a caring but direct way, “when you interrupted me, I felt upset and a little angry. I’m excited for your input, but would it be possible for me to complete my line of thought before we engage in discussion?” In this scenario, Offended has delivered their feedback directly to Interrupter with the appropriate level of severity, feeling, and actionability. Perhaps Interrupter has no idea that they had interrupted. Now, Interrupter appreciates Offended’s feedback in uncovering one of their blind spots and can choose to adapt their behavior. Or at the very least, this direct feedback opens a dialogue between Offended and Interrupter to co-create a solution.
Second, managers can help stop feedback triangles before they occur. Interrupter’s manager could have asked Offended to share their feedback with Interrupter directly; and followed up by coaching and role playing with Offended on how to deliver the feedback in a direct, caring way. This equips Offended with the skills, confidence, and permission to have a fruitful conversation with Interrupter.
There are exceptions to these rules. For example, if there is a possible HR violation, then Interrupter’s manager may have to tell the HR team and let HR handle the situation. Or, if there is a wide gap in the power hierarchy between Offended and Interrupter, such as if Interrupter is a department head and Offended is a junior employee, then it may be appropriate for a manager to mediate the conversation.
Feedback helps a person understand the implications of their behavior and creates a deeper, closer relationship between the feedback giver and recipient. But, the dreaded feedback triangle dooms these goals. Straight lines are the most efficient path between two points, and the same is true with feedback. Avoid the dreaded feedback triangle.
Thank you Phil Stern for your contributions — and direct feedback — on this article
