How to Give Feedback That People Actually Act On

By Dr Ayobami Gideon Babalola • Leadership & Executive Development

Most feedback given inside organisations changes nothing. Not because the feedback is wrong, and not because the person receiving it is unwilling to improve — but because the feedback itself is structured in a way that makes action nearly impossible.

I have sat through hundreds of performance reviews, both giving and receiving feedback, across educational institutions and business contexts in Nigeria and China. The pattern is remarkably consistent: feedback that feels thorough and well-intentioned, and that produces no observable change in behaviour six months later.

Here is what I have learned separates feedback that actually changes behaviour from feedback that simply makes the giver feel like they have done their job.

Why Most Feedback Fails

The most common feedback failure is vagueness dressed up as diplomacy. “You need to be more strategic.” “Your communication could be stronger.” “I’d like to see more initiative.” These statements are true often enough to sound insightful, and specific enough to feel like real feedback — but they give the recipient no clear picture of what to actually do differently on Monday morning.

The second most common failure is feedback that arrives too late to be actionable — a comment on how a project was handled three months after it concluded, when the specific decisions and context have faded from memory and there is no similar situation currently in progress to apply the lesson to.

The third failure, and perhaps the most damaging, is feedback that focuses entirely on the person’s character rather than their specific, observable behaviour — “you’re not a team player” rather than “in the last two sprint meetings, you spoke over three colleagues before they finished their point.” The first invites defensiveness. The second invites reflection.

The SBI-A Framework: Situation, Behaviour, Impact, Action

The most reliable structure I have found for feedback that produces actual change extends a well-known framework (Situation-Behaviour-Impact) with one additional, crucial element: Action.

Situation: Name the specific, recent context. “In yesterday’s client call…” not “You often…”

Behaviour: Describe exactly what was observed, without interpretation. “You interrupted the client twice before they finished explaining their concern.” Not “you were rude” — that is interpretation, not observation.

Impact: Explain the actual effect this had. “The client seemed frustrated and repeated their point more forcefully the second time.” This connects the behaviour to a consequence that matters.

Action: Agree together on what should happen differently next time — specific and small enough to actually execute. “Next call, let’s try waiting for a natural pause before responding, even if it feels like there’s a gap.”

Notice what this structure does: it removes character judgment entirely, anchors the feedback in a specific recent event rather than a vague pattern, and — critically — ends with a concrete next action rather than leaving the recipient to figure out the implication themselves.

Why the “Action” Step Is the One Everyone Skips

Most feedback conversations stop at Impact. The leader explains what happened and why it mattered, feels they have delivered clear feedback, and moves on. But without an explicit, agreed action, the recipient is left to independently derive what they should do differently — and people are remarkably inconsistent at translating “here’s what went wrong” into “here’s exactly what I’ll do instead.”

The Action step should be specific enough that both people could describe it identically to a third party. “Be more patient in client calls” is not specific enough. “Wait three full seconds after the client stops talking before responding” is.

Timing Matters More Than Most Leaders Realise

Feedback delivered within 24-48 hours of the observed behaviour is dramatically more actionable than feedback delivered in a scheduled monthly or quarterly review. The specific details are still fresh, the recipient can immediately connect the feedback to their own memory of the event, and — importantly — there is usually a similar situation coming up soon where the agreed action can be applied and reinforced.

This does not mean every piece of feedback needs an emergency meeting. It means leaders should build feedback into the natural rhythm of work rather than saving it exclusively for formal review cycles, where it arrives too late to connect to anything specific.

The Follow-Up Nobody Does

The final piece that separates feedback that changes behaviour from feedback that simply gets delivered is a brief follow-up after the agreed action has had a chance to be applied. Not a formal review — a quick, low-pressure check: “How did that land in yesterday’s call? Did the pause feel natural?”

This follow-up does two things. It signals that the feedback mattered enough to track, which increases the likelihood the recipient takes it seriously the first time. And it creates a natural opportunity to adjust the action if it did not quite work as intended, rather than assuming one conversation permanently solved the issue.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Compare these two approaches to the same underlying issue — a team member who dominates meetings:

Vague version: “You should try to be more inclusive in meetings and give others more space to speak.”

SBI-A version: “In this morning’s planning meeting, you spoke for roughly the first fifteen minutes before anyone else contributed. I noticed two people who normally have good input stayed quiet the whole time. For the next meeting, could we try you sharing your point in two minutes max, then directly inviting one specific person by name to respond?”

The second version is longer, more specific, and dramatically more likely to actually change what happens in the next meeting.

A Leadership Discipline Worth Building

Feedback that changes behaviour is not a matter of being naturally more direct or more diplomatic. It is a structural discipline — anchoring in specific recent situations, describing behaviour rather than character, connecting to real impact, and always, always ending with an agreed, specific action. Leaders who build this discipline consistently see feedback conversations move from awkward, occasional obligations to genuinely useful tools for growth.

What is the most useful piece of feedback you have ever received — and what made it actually land? I would love to hear examples in the comments.

JRZP LEADERSHIP MASTERCLASS

Feedback and performance conversations are a core module of the JRZP Leadership Masterclass. Register your interest at drgspeaks.jrzp.org/leadership