Have you ever left a feedback session feeling like it escalated into a battle? The feedback that you wanted to give led to a constant back and forth, a bit like debating who is at fault, and afterward, the actual critique was still valid but somehow didn’t get the attention it needed?

Giving feedback is rarely easy. As you grow in your career, you will increasingly find yourself giving feedback to others. Unfortunately, this is not a skill typically taught in schools (at least, I’m not aware of it). We often come from backgrounds where people mostly receive feedback but rarely have to give it. Furthermore, the feedback they do receive is often poorly delivered or impersonal. Standard phrases or overly general feedback are quite common. This becomes apparent when you are suddenly asked to give feedback to someone else. Even if the recipient is performing well, quality feedback can still be a deciding factor in their overall growth. It gets even trickier when someone doesn’t meet expectations and you have to deliver negative feedback.

Giving feedback is not about you #

I still remember a feedback session in our Team Lead track where we used role-play to train certain communication techniques. One of our aspiring team leads was struggling during the simulation, and afterward, we asked other candidates to provide feedback on the performance. Due to the poor performance, there were many points to address, and the candidates saw it as their task to point them all out, listing one issue after another. The candidates were so focused on the act of “providing feedback” that they didn’t consider whether it would actually help their peer. It felt almost like a competition to see who could find the most issues.

If you want to guide someone’s growth, you should always make sure to:

• Distill the issue that is causing the problem.
• Focus on a few key issues.
• Provide specific examples of what went wrong.
• Communicate clear expectations for future behavior.

Simple example:

“You haven’t been consistently delivering high-quality work. For example, when you added faceting for the color filter, your PR still contained TODOs and obvious logic errors. I expect more conscientiousness. Please review your PRs thoroughly before requesting a review. Your goal should always be to eliminate obvious mistakes.”

If you need to handle a sensitive situation or want to avoid overstating the issue, you can replace the clear expectation with a “wish” to avoid sounding too harsh. But: clarity is still essential. Ensure you don’t lose that focus even when softening your tone.

Negative feedback often creates conflicts #

Even if the feedback is prepared properly – and you should always write down negative feedback beforehand to think it through – the recipient can, and often does, react defensively. There are two common reactions:

• Blaming circumstances
• Countering with feedback (battle)

If someone blames circumstances, saying things like, “but I was told to hurry up,” or “the repo setup is so slow it makes me lose focus,” it is usually a sign of missing ownership. At its core, this is often a motivation problem that requires a deeper look into why they aren’t engaged. The worst response is to get bogged down in a long discussion about the details. Another common reason is a skewed view of how much these external issues actually impact their work. I often find that the recipient needs to work on their self-reflection. How much time does it really cost to do it properly? Did the situation really impact the work that much? One angle to address this is by highlighting that others are succeeding in the same environment. Finally, it’s possible there is a legitimate systemic problem that needs fixing. However, imperfect circumstances don’t justify poor quality. The session should remain focused on what the recipient could do differently, even when the situation is difficult ¹.

The second type of reaction is even more challenging. If you give negative feedback and the other person suddenly counters with, “But others also delivered low quality,” the situation has the potential to escalate. The worst thing you can do is join the battle. Even if you think their feedback is unfair, the current focus is their performance and meeting their expectations. In these moments, emphasize that the goal of the session is to help them grow. You should immediately stop any back-and-forth. A “feedback battle” completely negates reflection and turns a constructive session into a non-productive argument.

Why is this even happening? #

I see one necessary precondition for a successful feedback session: the recipient needs to believe that you want them to improve and succeed. Sessions can still “work” without that trust, but usually only because of hierarchy or fear. While these situations might give the illusion of progress, they often result in recipients who are unable to receive critique or give good feedback themselves later on.
Another reason why feedback sessions lose focus is frustration. This is often paired with counter-feedback that is personal rather than skill-based, such as: “I asked for help, but you didn’t do your job.” Frustration is often a symptom of feeling unheard, requiring an open dialogue. Yet, this discussion must go both ways: ensuring fairness while guiding the recipient towards better self-reflection. But that is a story for another time.

Ultimately, giving negative feedback requires trust, clear preparation, and good moderation to prevent “feedback battles.” Always focus on the intent: supporting long-term growth rather than seeking a quick fix. My greatest learning is: drop the need to be right, and you’ll find it’s much easier to help someone grow. Instead of just fixing a problem, you’re building a stronger, more trusting professional relationship.