It’s 2026 and We’re Still Giving Perception-Based Feedback

Let’s talk about why this is a problem. I want to walk through this from two perspectives: the employee receiving the feedback and the coach helping them make sense of it.

I’m the coach. Your employee comes into a session and says, “My manager told me I come across as abrasive.”

So I ask what happened that led to that feedback. What meeting were they referring to? What was said? What examples were provided?

The majority of the time, there aren’t any. The feedback stopped at: “That’s the perception.”

This is not an uncommon coaching conversation.

Replace abrasive with disengaged, unapproachable, too outspoken, lacking presence, or “you need to be more strategic,” and the pattern is the same. The employee leaves unclear about what specifically needs to change and now feels like they’re trying to fix something they can’t quite see. When they come into coaching, they are rarely defensive or resistant to the feedback. They’re confused.

A significant portion of our session is then spent helping them build the courage to go back and ask for examples. Without examples, there is nothing concrete to improve. We are left speculating about tone, timing, body language, and intent.

I tell leaders this all the time: your employees want to know how to win. Most people genuinely want to grow and develop. They want to contribute at a higher level. What they need is clarity about what success looks like and the behaviors that will move them closer to it.

There is a role for perception-based feedback. We are not always aware of how we impact others, and social awareness is an important leadership skill. If someone’s communication style is creating friction in meetings or affecting collaboration, that deserves attention. However, perception without specificity is not development. It is ambiguity.

When a leader I am coaching wants to give perception-based feedback, these are the questions we walk through first:

• What specifically did you observe?

• How often does this happen?

• What impact is this behavior having on the team or the work?

  
  

If the answers to those questions are clear, the feedback can move from perception to something the employee can actually work with. What we want to avoid is feedback that cannot be supported with examples or that is driven by someone’s discomfort, including your own.

Let’s take the example from earlier. There is a meaningful difference between telling someone they “come across as abrasive” and describing what was observed. For example, a leader might say, “In the last two meetings, when you disagreed with a proposal, your tone became faster and sharper. I’d like to help you disagree and challenge the proposal without a shift in tone or increase in speed. Once that shift happens, the focus moves from the idea you’re challenging to how you’re delivering it.”

That version names observable behavior, provides context, clarifies impact, and opens the door to skill-building. It allows the employee to adjust something concrete rather than question their character.

When perception-based feedback is delivered without examples, leaders unintentionally assign a second job. In addition to performing their role, the employee now becomes responsible for managing how others feel about them. Instead of focusing on their work, they begin monitoring themselves: their tone, their pacing, their delivery. The mental load increases.

This matters at a neurological level. When feedback is vague or undefined, the brain does not experience it as coaching. It experiences it as a threat. Instead of focusing on growth, the brain shifts into protection mode. The employee stops thinking about how to improve and starts trying to avoid getting it wrong.

Rather than strengthening a specific skill, they begin managing themselves. They may speak less, overcorrect their tone, soften their opinions, or withdraw in meetings. More often than not, they are not actually getting closer to resolving the issue, if there is one, and you are not seeing meaningful behavior change. Both sides become frustrated. The employee feels misunderstood, and the leader concludes that the feedback did not land.

The issue is rarely willingness. It is clarity.