The Games Givers of Feedback Play and Why They Don’t Work
At my first job in human resources, I had the unpleasant task of digitizing all of the old performance evaluations. Consequently, I took the opportunity to read what leaders were writing in their reports about their people. I was shocked by what I read. Here are a few of the less disrespectful comments:
- “Since my last report, he has reached rock bottom and has started to dig.”
- “Works well under constant supervision and cornered like a rat in a trap.”
- “This young lady has delusions of adequacy.”
- “This associate should go far, and the sooner he starts, the better.”
Such comments made me wonder about the quality, clarity, and specificity of the feedback these leaders were providing to the people who were not meeting their expectations.
Giving feedback is one of the most important leadership skills — and one of the least mastered. Too often, people turn what should be a productive conversation into a confusing guessing game. Instead of offering insight that promotes growth, they unintentionally play games that protect their own comfort or control the outcome.
The result? The receiver leaves unsure, defensive, or discouraged — and nothing changes.
Here are some of the most common “feedback games” that undermine trust, learning, and accountability.
The “Sandwich” Game
People have been taught to use a “Compliment ➟ Criticism ➟ Compliment” sequence. Originally, leaders thought that using this process would soften the blow of critical feedback. However, this usually backfires because the compliments at either end of the sequence are seen as insincere and forced. Using this process often leads to the receiver discounting what might actually be good feedback. Instead of building confidence, this method usually creates more confusion than clarity.
The “Hide Behind the Forms” Game
In this game, the feedback giver fills out the right form, in the right manner, and at the right time — and then delivers the form. But rarely is the receiver given the opportunity for verbal exchange or discussion. Hiding behind the forms in giving this kind of feedback is a way of avoiding communication altogether. It creates a cold, impersonal environment that breeds distrust.
The “I Have to Tell You This” Game
In this game, the giver provides feedback out of a sense of obligation and hides behind the idea, “HR told me that I have to tell you this.” The source of the feedback seems to originate from someone above who is not to be questioned or confronted. This kind of feedback is devoid of opportunities for exploration and deeper understanding. It is more compliance-driven than care-given and may leave the receiver frustrated by a lack of clarity.
The “One and Done” Game
In giving this kind of feedback, the leader assumes that one conversation will fix everything. They drop the feedback, leave, and assume that everything will change from that point on. They don’t realize that change takes time, reinforcement, and accountability. If the receiver doesn’t come away with a concrete plan, follow-up, and support, they may feel abandoned and struggle to make the necessary improvements to achieve the desired results.
The “Grenade” Game
This kind of feedback feels like you’ve been handed a grenade — and then the giver disappears — boom! There is no discussion, no dialogue, and no follow-up. This often happens because the leader waits until the end of the quarter or year to dump all the negative performance results at once. Such a leader, by not having the courage to give feedback in a timely fashion, usually delivers it with a fair amount of frustration and emotion. The person on the receiving end feels crushed under the weight of feedback they wish they had received much earlier. This tactic creates resentment and anger, not results.
Giving feedback is one of the most important leadership skills — and one of the least mastered.
The “Guess What I’m Thinking” Game
In this game, the giver sends indirect or infrequent feedback, expecting the receiver to know what he or she is thinking. They may say things like, “You need to step it up,” or “You need to be more professional.” Who would know what that means unless the person giving the feedback followed up with specificity and concrete examples?
The “Poor Intent” Game
Instead of describing observable behavior or concrete actions that led to specific results, the giver uses broad generalizations to assign negative intent or motive to the person. They may say things like, “You just don’t care about the team,” or “You’re lazy.” Judging intent rather than detailing specific behavior triggers defensiveness in the receiver. Without specificity, the person feels blamed through broad generalizations that fail to describe the desired change in performance.
The “Keep the Peace” Game
Some leaders would rather keep the peace than say or do anything that might result in conflict of any kind. They tell themselves that their behavior is a measure of kindness that will maintain harmony, when in reality it is more about conflict avoidance. Unfortunately, without the feedback necessary to make changes, things stay the same — and often get worse.
The “Rescuer” Game
Some leaders are reticent to make others uncomfortable. Rather than delivering the feedback a person needs to improve and grow, they may minimize the feedback or try to fix the problem for them. Such “rescuing” attempts keep the person from owning their behavior and making the necessary changes to improve performance.
The “Gotcha” Game
When a leader takes every opportunity to be critical of someone’s performance, the person feels like they are waiting to be ambushed rather than supported and encouraged. When a leader is constantly giving criticism, it’s not feedback — it’s sabotage. The recipient of this kind of behavior stops taking risks, speaking up, or taking initiative. This lack of psychological safety causes them to constantly doubt themselves because of their fear of being called out for something.
So What’s the Alternative?
The most effective feedback isn’t a game — it’s a conversation.
Instead of protecting yourself, focus on connecting with the other person. Instead of trying to control the outcome, create openness and ownership. Feedback done well is about mutual respect, discovery, and growth — not manipulation or performance.
If you want to stop playing games and start creating results, remember this: Feedback isn’t something you do to people; it’s something you do for them.
Be direct, specific, and respectful — and ask more questions to gain understanding. In doing so, you increase the likelihood of finding a solution to your most complex performance challenges.
Want new articles before they get published? Subscribe to our Awesome Newsletter.