Replace a judgment with something a colleague can inspect
During a fictional project review at Fern Studio, a manager plans to tell a colleague, Eli, to “be more collaborative.” Eli might agree politely while leaving with no clear idea what to do differently. The manager needs a specific account of what happened and why it mattered.
SBI structures feedback around situation, behavior, and impact. The Center for Creative Leadership describes using it for both positive and negative feedback, with inquiry about intention helping turn a statement into a conversation. Fern Studio and the conversation below are hypothetical.
Prepare the example before the meeting
The manager chooses Tuesday’s design review rather than gathering every frustration from the past quarter. In that meeting, Eli moved to the next agenda item while a support colleague was still describing a customer constraint. The constraint was not recorded in the meeting notes.
The manager should check the account before presenting it confidently. What was directly observed? What was learned afterward? Did the agenda have a deadline everyone had accepted? Preparation helps avoid treating a partial recollection as an unquestionable record.
SBI: situation · behavior · impact
When and where
Situation
Locate a specific occasion both people can identify.
What was observable
Behavior
Describe actions or words without assigning a personality or motive.
What followed
Impact
Explain the effect, keeping observation separate from interpretation.
FrameworkWorld application
Conversation
Invite context and agree what to continue or change.
State the situation and behavior plainly
A possible opening is: “In Tuesday’s design review, while Noor was describing the support constraint, you moved the discussion to the next agenda item before she finished.” This names an occasion and an observable action.
“You dismissed support because you think their work is unimportant” adds a motive the manager cannot observe. “You are always dismissive” adds a general judgment that is harder to examine and easier to dispute.
Specificity does not require a courtroom tone. The purpose is to give both people the same event to discuss. Choose a private setting for sensitive feedback and explain why you are raising it.
Separate the effect from your interpretation
The manager continues: “The constraint wasn’t captured in the notes, and we had to reopen the decision the next morning. I was concerned that we were agreeing a design without understanding the support work.”
The missing note and reopened decision are effects the manager can discuss. Concern is the manager’s response. Neither proves Eli intended to exclude anyone, nor does it establish that Eli alone caused all the rework.
An accurate impact statement can include uncertainty: “I think this contributed to the gap, and I want to check what I missed.” That is useful when the chain of events is incomplete. Certainty should follow evidence rather than the manager’s authority.
Invite context before prescribing the fix
The manager asks, “What was happening from your perspective?” In the hypothetical case, Eli explains that the meeting was running late and he believed Noor had finished. This account does not erase the effect. It changes what the two people should investigate and agree.
Perhaps the team needs an explicit check before closing discussion. Perhaps the facilitator, rather than Eli, should handle agenda tradeoffs. Perhaps Noor had already put the concern in a document that nobody read. A conversation can reveal a process gap hidden behind an individual label.
| Instead of | Try | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Be more collaborative | Name the review and the interrupted contribution | Gives both people an inspectable event |
| You don’t respect support | Describe the missing constraint and reopened decision | Avoids claiming knowledge of motive |
| Don’t do it again | Agree how to check for unresolved concerns | Defines a practical next behavior |
These are original teaching suggestions, not a transcript of a real employee conversation.
Agree one next step and revisit it
The manager and Eli propose asking whether any constraint remains unresolved before moving a decision forward. They will review the next two design meetings and ask whether the support perspective was captured. This is a working agreement, not an invented improvement result.
SBI also helps reinforce useful behavior. If someone makes a dependency explicit early enough to avoid rework, name the occasion, describe what they did, and explain the benefit. “Great job” is pleasant but carries less information about what to repeat.
Match the tool to the problem
SBI cannot resolve unclear authority, missing skills, or structural overload by itself. A serious dispute may require fuller evidence and an appropriate organizational process. Repeating the formula more forcefully does not create trust or settle a contested account.
Use Situational Leadership to consider the support and direction appropriate to a particular task. Use a RACI Matrix when confusion concerns involvement and ownership rather than one person’s behavior.
For Fern Studio, the next useful action is a specific conversation followed by an observable working agreement. The feedback gives Eli something concrete to understand and respond to.
Sources and further reading
- Center for Creative Leadership, SBI Feedback Model & Talent Development Conversations. SBI is CCL’s named model; FrameworkWorld is independent and this guide does not replace CCL’s materials or training.