I have seen this play out repeatedly in leadership practice. When guidance is framed as advice within the context of regular 1:1 conversations, people receive it very differently than when it is introduced as feedback.
Advice signals partnership in growth. Feedback often signals correction.
And when something truly does need to change, the conversation becomes more direct.
At that point I am transparent about the implications, including when a pattern could become a roadblock to future opportunities.
Sure thing, Fidelis. Do you think adjusting your use of words in specific situations is likely where EQ becomes the most useful for leaders? Or can you think of even more common ways that demonstrating a high EQ shows up?
Absolutely. Adjusting our words is one powerful expression of EQ, because language can either raise resistance or open the heart. But high EQ shows up in even more everyday ways—how we listen without interrupting, how we regulate our emotions before we speak, how we read the room, and how we choose responses that protect dignity rather than power.
For me, it’s all part of the same principle: when we mix EQ into our communication, we replace authority with humility and make people feel safe enough to hear us. That’s where real leadership begins.
Great article! Words mean a lot. Properly selected words do affect how a message is received. However, your example of being late for meetings hit a nerve with me. I've actually locked the doors of the meeting room at the start time to make the point. (This was for car salespeople, who tend to be a little more difficult to wrangle. I wouldn't recommend it for non-car salespeople.)
I know what you mean. Here's the thing though, I would offer it depends on if there is a need to actually have change & how quickly or just a nice to have & a kind suggestion. If change is what you're going for them I agree with Paul- and I would add coaching to all 3 points...supported change that keeps connection & builds trust.
Certainly there are times when a leader would want to deploy feedback in the most direct way possible... But to your point, Wendy, if the purpose of what a leader is bringing up is to change them, to help make someone better... shouldn't we consider all the ways to make it easier for team members to incorporate the message as effectively as possible?
If the majority of time you are delivering these messages to your team members in a way that increases their resistance because of the framing you are using, then shouldn't leaders adjust the majority of their framing?
I understand the difference, but my father always made his commands couched with the words, "May I make a suggestion?" Now I bristle when I hear those words. Of course not everyone will react that way, but it would help to know.
This may be the worst Leadership "recomendation" ever.
Do not follow this "advice".
Doesn't it contradict Admired Leadership’s own core teachings.
Admired Leadership has always argued that what actually changes performance is behavior: clear standards, timely and specific feedback, and the quality of the relationship and skill behind those conversations.
Framing this as mostly a “word choice” issue (“feedback” vs “advice” vs “suggestion”) feels like it shrinks leadership down to semantics instead of the harder behavioral work of setting expectations, coaching, and holding people accountable.
On top of that, effective, timely feedback is still the fastest way to help someone improve performance. When someone is chronically late to meetings, that’s not an optional “suggestion,” it’s a concrete performance behavior that affects the team. Softening that into language that sounds fully optional may reduce momentary discomfort, but it also risks making the leader look weak, unclear about standards, and ultimately not worth following.
I’d rather see us double down on the behavioral craft Admired Leadership is known for: how to give direct, specific, future‑focused feedback in a way that preserves dignity and builds followership, instead of telling leaders to get out of the feedback business and rely on “suggestions” for things that actually must change.
High performers want a strong, powerful leader who will help them grow; including critical feedback.
Mediocre performers want "suggestions" that will make them feel alright about their lack of achievement.
I recommend you ignore this post and give focused frequent feedback to your people and be the leader your people need you to be.
I want to both "give direct, specific, future‑focused feedback in a way that preserves dignity and builds followership" while at the same time finding practical ways to lower the resistance inherent in that feedback.
1. Direct — tell the person what changes they need to make.
2. Discuss--why are you late for meetings? Do you think it is important to be on time for a meeting? What actions are you willing to take to be on time?
3. Delegate--Ask the person to take a day and reflect on the consequences of his behavior and what changes he is committed to making. Then meet with him in a few days to hear what he has to say.
The word "feedback" isn't bad. What's more important is the approach you use to address the issue.
Even when soliciting it, you're signaling to others exactly what you want by using feedback instead of some other word.
Aren't you also raising and lowering your own power by selecting certain words in that request?
Some people might use feedback and advice interchangeably... and they are similar in that they can carry carry the exact same messages for you... but wouldn't you want to change them thoughtfully if you notice people bristle or argue under "feedback" but are more open to "suggestions"?
I see absolutely nothing different from those word choices. If anything, "advice" implies a bigger gap between the giver and the receiver. People who imbue words with "power" connotations probably spend too much time doing that. The way that the information is exchanged is what really matters.
A leader who is known for being condescending will certainly ruin the word "advice" with the kind of delivery you might be implying.
But in common western usage that is baggage-free... it lowers the typical resistance to the word "feedback". Look no further than to Vicki Brannock's comment in this thread if you might be looking for the lived experience of it.
"Suggestion" is an example of being a notch lower.
Several other words or gestures or ways of delivering will raise or lower typical resistance.
The main point is what Jennifer articulated in her response... good leaders think about how to lower their own status (and the resistance that comes with power) in order to have people practically incorporate the message they are delivering.
In your experience, Tim, it sounds like you may be saying it doesn't matter what word a poor leader uses because you'd resist the message no matter what. But what about a leader who doesn't otherwise have this baggage? Would word choice make a difference for you then?
I don't "resist the message" because a leader is a poor leader. I generally am focused on the mission. I would notice a change in words from "feedback" which never bothered me, to "advice", and if they accompanied it with a discussion of power connotations, I would consider it goofy. People who are being led know the leader is in a different level of influence in the organization, changing words doesn't change that.
It seems to me that "the way that the information is exchanged" is largely done with word choices.
The sort of person who struggles at letting anger and sarcasm enter their delivery is likely not at the stage where they think about the nuance between any of these words.
I do like the discussion about whether 'advice' always lowers status or increase it however. That discussion is where the art of leadership probably shows up the most. For leaders to recognize that 'advice' isn't a magic word necessarily, but just a suggestion to get what is important: lowered resistance to incorporating the message.
After many years working with leaders and teams, I am not sure the resistance people feel comes from the word feedback itself. More often it comes from the relationship and the intent behind it.
When there is trust, people usually do not resist feedback. In fact, many professionals actively look for it because it helps them improve.
Where it goes wrong is when feedback becomes a tool of hierarchy rather than a conversation. Then the word does not matter much. You can call it feedback, advice, or a suggestion. People will still feel the judgment behind it.
In practice I have seen the most productive conversations happen when leaders speak plainly and stay curious about what they might be missing.
Something as simple as: “I noticed something in that meeting. How did you see it?” often opens a much better discussion than carefully rephrasing the message.
For me the real change is not moving from feedback to suggestions. It is moving from evaluation to dialogue. That is where people actually become willing to change.
Hi Viridiana - your phrasing is a fine example of lowering power while introducing an idea. You're right, the precise word is not the point as much as the awareness one needs to have the message incorporated without resistance. There are plenty of nuanced ways to lower status and power in order to help that. The Field Notes entry we wrote today gives another example that doesn't use words at all.
What I often see in practice is that the moment people feel judged, something closes. Not because they necessarily disagree with the message, but because the conversation suddenly becomes about position instead of understanding.
When the tone becomes more curious, people usually start thinking with you rather than defending themselves.
That is why the way a conversation starts often matters more than the label we give it. Most professionals are willing to reflect on their work when they feel the discussion is meant to understand what is happening, not simply to correct them.
You want the person to be open to your feedback or advice. I usually start by asking--"Are you open to some feedback on____________. " I also tend to use a discussion style to understand their explanation of their behavior. "Why are you frequently late for meetings?"
If the person knows you are focused on helping them perform at their best, they will be open to your comments, regardless of the word you use (feedback, advice, suggestions).
I have seen this play out repeatedly in leadership practice. When guidance is framed as advice within the context of regular 1:1 conversations, people receive it very differently than when it is introduced as feedback.
Advice signals partnership in growth. Feedback often signals correction.
And when something truly does need to change, the conversation becomes more direct.
At that point I am transparent about the implications, including when a pattern could become a roadblock to future opportunities.
Clarity about impact is part of leadership too.
Thanks for your personal testimony around this, Vicki. We may have needed it here in the comments today.
I appreciate that. The distinction you made resonated with what I have seen in practice.
Small shifts in language really do change the posture of a conversation.
I’m encouraged to read what you’re saying about this from your personal experience, Vicki. I’m convinced to incorporate this idea as a result.
I’m glad it was helpful. It’s a small shift, but I’ve found it changes the tone of the conversation quite a bit.
Insightful and equity-informed post as feedback is often weaponized against certain identities.
EQ transforms communication by shifting us from authority to humanity, and from resistance to connection.
Thank you!
Sure thing, Fidelis. Do you think adjusting your use of words in specific situations is likely where EQ becomes the most useful for leaders? Or can you think of even more common ways that demonstrating a high EQ shows up?
Absolutely. Adjusting our words is one powerful expression of EQ, because language can either raise resistance or open the heart. But high EQ shows up in even more everyday ways—how we listen without interrupting, how we regulate our emotions before we speak, how we read the room, and how we choose responses that protect dignity rather than power.
For me, it’s all part of the same principle: when we mix EQ into our communication, we replace authority with humility and make people feel safe enough to hear us. That’s where real leadership begins.
Thank you!
Great article! Words mean a lot. Properly selected words do affect how a message is received. However, your example of being late for meetings hit a nerve with me. I've actually locked the doors of the meeting room at the start time to make the point. (This was for car salespeople, who tend to be a little more difficult to wrangle. I wouldn't recommend it for non-car salespeople.)
This was some great perspectives. My whole job has centered around the word “feedback” for the last 4 years. I’m definitely going to give this a try.
I know what you mean. Here's the thing though, I would offer it depends on if there is a need to actually have change & how quickly or just a nice to have & a kind suggestion. If change is what you're going for them I agree with Paul- and I would add coaching to all 3 points...supported change that keeps connection & builds trust.
Certainly there are times when a leader would want to deploy feedback in the most direct way possible... But to your point, Wendy, if the purpose of what a leader is bringing up is to change them, to help make someone better... shouldn't we consider all the ways to make it easier for team members to incorporate the message as effectively as possible?
If the majority of time you are delivering these messages to your team members in a way that increases their resistance because of the framing you are using, then shouldn't leaders adjust the majority of their framing?
I understand the difference, but my father always made his commands couched with the words, "May I make a suggestion?" Now I bristle when I hear those words. Of course not everyone will react that way, but it would help to know.
Interesting that you read condescension into places where it mostly wouldn't exist. I suppose we all do that in some ways with various things.
Have you ever told anyone else you work with that it makes you bristle? Did you feel the need to tell others that it is somewhat of a trigger for you?
This may be the worst Leadership "recomendation" ever.
Do not follow this "advice".
Doesn't it contradict Admired Leadership’s own core teachings.
Admired Leadership has always argued that what actually changes performance is behavior: clear standards, timely and specific feedback, and the quality of the relationship and skill behind those conversations.
Framing this as mostly a “word choice” issue (“feedback” vs “advice” vs “suggestion”) feels like it shrinks leadership down to semantics instead of the harder behavioral work of setting expectations, coaching, and holding people accountable.
On top of that, effective, timely feedback is still the fastest way to help someone improve performance. When someone is chronically late to meetings, that’s not an optional “suggestion,” it’s a concrete performance behavior that affects the team. Softening that into language that sounds fully optional may reduce momentary discomfort, but it also risks making the leader look weak, unclear about standards, and ultimately not worth following.
I’d rather see us double down on the behavioral craft Admired Leadership is known for: how to give direct, specific, future‑focused feedback in a way that preserves dignity and builds followership, instead of telling leaders to get out of the feedback business and rely on “suggestions” for things that actually must change.
High performers want a strong, powerful leader who will help them grow; including critical feedback.
Mediocre performers want "suggestions" that will make them feel alright about their lack of achievement.
I recommend you ignore this post and give focused frequent feedback to your people and be the leader your people need you to be.
Hi Kevin.
Did you believe you increased or decreased our resistance to your ideas in the way you chose to introduce this comment?
I struggle to see the contradiction.
I want to both "give direct, specific, future‑focused feedback in a way that preserves dignity and builds followership" while at the same time finding practical ways to lower the resistance inherent in that feedback.
There are three ways to pursue feedback.
1. Direct — tell the person what changes they need to make.
2. Discuss--why are you late for meetings? Do you think it is important to be on time for a meeting? What actions are you willing to take to be on time?
3. Delegate--Ask the person to take a day and reflect on the consequences of his behavior and what changes he is committed to making. Then meet with him in a few days to hear what he has to say.
The word "feedback" isn't bad. What's more important is the approach you use to address the issue.
Morning, Paul. Would you agree that the word 'feedback' tends to create much more resistance than its alternatives?
I like the word "feedback" and use it often, especially when I am soliciting it. Leaders should regularly ask for feedback on their behavior.
Even when soliciting it, you're signaling to others exactly what you want by using feedback instead of some other word.
Aren't you also raising and lowering your own power by selecting certain words in that request?
Some people might use feedback and advice interchangeably... and they are similar in that they can carry carry the exact same messages for you... but wouldn't you want to change them thoughtfully if you notice people bristle or argue under "feedback" but are more open to "suggestions"?
I see absolutely nothing different from those word choices. If anything, "advice" implies a bigger gap between the giver and the receiver. People who imbue words with "power" connotations probably spend too much time doing that. The way that the information is exchanged is what really matters.
A leader who is known for being condescending will certainly ruin the word "advice" with the kind of delivery you might be implying.
But in common western usage that is baggage-free... it lowers the typical resistance to the word "feedback". Look no further than to Vicki Brannock's comment in this thread if you might be looking for the lived experience of it.
"Suggestion" is an example of being a notch lower.
Several other words or gestures or ways of delivering will raise or lower typical resistance.
The main point is what Jennifer articulated in her response... good leaders think about how to lower their own status (and the resistance that comes with power) in order to have people practically incorporate the message they are delivering.
In your experience, Tim, it sounds like you may be saying it doesn't matter what word a poor leader uses because you'd resist the message no matter what. But what about a leader who doesn't otherwise have this baggage? Would word choice make a difference for you then?
I don't "resist the message" because a leader is a poor leader. I generally am focused on the mission. I would notice a change in words from "feedback" which never bothered me, to "advice", and if they accompanied it with a discussion of power connotations, I would consider it goofy. People who are being led know the leader is in a different level of influence in the organization, changing words doesn't change that.
It seems to me that "the way that the information is exchanged" is largely done with word choices.
The sort of person who struggles at letting anger and sarcasm enter their delivery is likely not at the stage where they think about the nuance between any of these words.
I do like the discussion about whether 'advice' always lowers status or increase it however. That discussion is where the art of leadership probably shows up the most. For leaders to recognize that 'advice' isn't a magic word necessarily, but just a suggestion to get what is important: lowered resistance to incorporating the message.
Interesting take.
After many years working with leaders and teams, I am not sure the resistance people feel comes from the word feedback itself. More often it comes from the relationship and the intent behind it.
When there is trust, people usually do not resist feedback. In fact, many professionals actively look for it because it helps them improve.
Where it goes wrong is when feedback becomes a tool of hierarchy rather than a conversation. Then the word does not matter much. You can call it feedback, advice, or a suggestion. People will still feel the judgment behind it.
In practice I have seen the most productive conversations happen when leaders speak plainly and stay curious about what they might be missing.
Something as simple as: “I noticed something in that meeting. How did you see it?” often opens a much better discussion than carefully rephrasing the message.
For me the real change is not moving from feedback to suggestions. It is moving from evaluation to dialogue. That is where people actually become willing to change.
Hi Viridiana - your phrasing is a fine example of lowering power while introducing an idea. You're right, the precise word is not the point as much as the awareness one needs to have the message incorporated without resistance. There are plenty of nuanced ways to lower status and power in order to help that. The Field Notes entry we wrote today gives another example that doesn't use words at all.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
What I often see in practice is that the moment people feel judged, something closes. Not because they necessarily disagree with the message, but because the conversation suddenly becomes about position instead of understanding.
When the tone becomes more curious, people usually start thinking with you rather than defending themselves.
That is why the way a conversation starts often matters more than the label we give it. Most professionals are willing to reflect on their work when they feel the discussion is meant to understand what is happening, not simply to correct them.
And that is often where real improvement begins.
You want the person to be open to your feedback or advice. I usually start by asking--"Are you open to some feedback on____________. " I also tend to use a discussion style to understand their explanation of their behavior. "Why are you frequently late for meetings?"
If the person knows you are focused on helping them perform at their best, they will be open to your comments, regardless of the word you use (feedback, advice, suggestions).
May I share with you something, I am looking to have my first 25 subscribers. Will you be in my Substack.com to have acknowledge my potential.