I stopped giving feedback the way I’d want to receive it and started giving it the way each person actually hears it. That one shift changed everything.

Some people on my team want it straight, no padding. Others need the context first or they shut down before you’ve finished talking. I’ve got people who process feedback best in writing because a face-to-face conversation feels too pressured, and I’ve got others who’d bin an email but respond brilliantly to a quick five-minute chat.

The insight that changed my approach? Feedback isn’t about what you say. It’s about what they’re able to do with it after you’ve said it. If your delivery doesn’t match how someone processes information, you’re talking to yourself.

I pay attention now. I watch how people react in meetings, how they communicate with their peers, what shuts them down and what switches them on. Then I adjust. It takes more effort but the results aren’t even comparable.

I adapt my feedback style by first gauging how someone tends to receive input, especially whether tough notes trigger stress or a defensive reaction. Because I used to internalize negative feedback as “I’m bad at everything,” I now open difficult conversations by clearly saying, “Your job is not at risk,” so the person can stay present and actually hear what I am saying. On our fully remote team, I also ask if they feel pressure to always be the “green dot” on Slack, since that can signal invisible stress that affects performance and boundaries. The one insight that transformed my approach is that psychological safety has to come before coaching; when you remove fear upfront, the tone shifts immediately and the conversation becomes productive.

I have discovered that it is more useful to adapt to a person’s feedback preference based on how they process risk, context, and ambiguity than based on their “personality type.” Some engineers prefer to receive immediate and direct feedback in the form of what went wrong, why it mattered, and what needed to change; whereas others will do better if you provide them with a goal first and then detail the trade-off. Given the technical nature of the team (especially with regards to automation of workflow or those systems that directly impact borrowers), the exact same piece of feedback communicated in a similar fashion may land differently based on whether that individual prefers details over broad concepts, is new to the subject area, or is already in-depth with the subject.

The insight that changed my entire approach to managing people is that when giving feedback, the goal should be to reduce someone’s uncertainty rather than just evaluate their overall performance. For example, saying “this needs improvement” will rarely yield a useful response. On the other hand, saying “the handoff logic is not written clearly, which means that when the next team tries to process this, they will not know if the borrower is ready for documents, or if they are still waiting on a decision” provides the person with a specific thing to change. Individualized feedback is more about providing the feedback to the individual in a way that matches how they think and work rather than being “softer” or “harsher” with different people.

What was the most important breakthrough in terms of feedback was realizing that I should focus not on the mistakes themselves but on how the decisions were made. For example, just a few years ago, I had two dispatchers who made identical scheduling mistakes while dealing with the airport traffic rush period. One of them corrected herself with one discussion. The second one continued making the mistake despite getting feedback several times. Finally, I came to realize that I was correcting an end result instead of seeing the way people thought. Since then, I began asking dispatchers to explain how they made decisions and why before analyzing the results. Such simple shift changed feedback discussions completely – from criticism to coaching. And once I found out the wrong assumption behind a series of mistakes made by one dispatcher, she managed to drastically reduce her mistakes within just a couple of weeks.

My feedback style changed after realizing that personality shows up most clearly in the follow through, not the first reaction. Some people nod quickly, then need written next steps to execute. Others challenge feedback in the moment, yet improve immediately once the logic is clear. Methodical teammates prefer measurable checkpoints, while adaptive thinkers do better with principle based guidance and freedom in execution. The most useful adjustment was not softer wording, but a better fit between message structure and decision style.

One insight transformed my approach. I stopped treating feedback as a speech and started treating it as a system. When delivery, reflection, and accountability were personalized together, improvement became much more consistent.

Biggest shift for us was learning that the best feedback is built around future repetition not past correction. Early in our career we focused too much on what happened. Over time we realized people improve faster when they leave a conversation knowing what to repeat instead of only what to avoid. We also saw that ambitious people often self correct too much and lose confidence in their strengths.

Now we try to identify what already works in their approach and anchor feedback there. We then point to one clear adjustment that can improve outcome. This balance helps us give feedback that builds clarity without reducing personal style. When people feel seen for their strengths they become more open to refinement.

I noticed people react differently to feedback, and in the work of trucking and excavation, each crew is composed of a very specific combination of personal styles as well as levels of experience. Some employees have an ultra-simple and direct style which works best with plain feedback, while other employees need more context and explanation to get the message.

The biggest ‘aha’ moment that shaped how I managed was seeing that feedback only can be given if it relates to something which the person cares deeply about. In our work as a trucking and excavation company, people are more likely to improve when they understand how their actions affect safety, project flow, and the rest of the crew on site. It tends to scale better than if people are not able to see the concrete impact of their work.

My therapist once told me that most people don’t want advice, they want a witness. That stuck with me, and I think about it every time I give feedback to someone on our team in a bad spot with their numbers.

The shift in my management came from realising the personality typing thing was mostly noise. We’re a 60 person remote firm and I had been carrying around a mental model of who needed direct feedback and who needed soft, and the model was wrong half the time. What changes how feedback lands is what someone is carrying that week. So I just ask now. Before any hard conversation I ask what the week has been like. Some feedback gets delayed a day or two. Still not sure that’s the right call.

Through building and scaling multiple consumer service platforms, I’ve learned that data-driven team members respond best to metrics-backed feedback with specific performance indicators, while creative personalities thrive on narrative-style feedback that connects their contributions to our broader mission. The transformative insight for me was discovering that timing matters as much as content—delivering feedback immediately after project milestones for detail-oriented individuals, but allowing processing time for big-picture thinkers before follow-up discussions. This personalized approach has dramatically improved both team retention and product development velocity across our portfolio of market research platforms.

We adapted our feedback style by paying attention to what each person protects most closely. Some people value speed while others focus on quality or confidence. Once we understood this, feedback became less about correcting work and more about reducing friction. A fast moving person responds better when we highlight the one thing slowing them down.

A perfectionist needs help seeing where high standards support progress and where they delay it. We learned that good feedback should protect identity while improving behavior. When feedback attacks a person’s strength, they resist it. When we show how that strength can be used better, they stay open and improve.

As Founder and COO of TAOAPEX LTD, adapting my feedback style for diverse personality types on our team has been a continuous journey of learning and refinement. I recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach is ineffective. For individuals who thrive on directness and data, I provide concise, objective feedback, often backed by metrics. For those more sensitive or reflective, I frame feedback with empathy, focusing on growth opportunities and offering detailed, constructive suggestions in a supportive manner.

One insight that profoundly transformed my management approach is understanding that personalized feedback is not solely about tailoring the delivery method, but also about aligning it with an individual’s intrinsic motivators. Discovering what truly drives each team member, be it mastery, autonomy, or purpose, allows me to connect feedback to their personal and professional aspirations. This strategic alignment ensures feedback resonates deeply, fostering genuine engagement and accelerating their development, ultimately strengthening the entire organization.

I used to be so bad at giving feedback. Our engineers just wanted direct edits, but the product managers needed the big picture first. So I started every conversation with our shared goal. Now I say, “Here’s how we’re moving forward with our mission,” before getting into specifics. That one small change made all the difference. People stopped getting defensive and the team actually works together better now.

My IT team is split. Some people just want the technical details, others need to know why it matters first. So I started asking, “Do you want the quick version or the deep dive?” Now people ask questions earlier and our projects get stuck less often. It’s a small change that made a big difference in how we work together.

Realistically, “Agreeableness” is the only personality trait that shapes my feedback.

Agreeableness is best thought of as the interpersonal “niceness” factor. Agreeable people are kind, considerate, and trusting, but take things deeply to heart.

Disagreeable people, however, are pragmatic, stoic, and more conflict-oriented in their approach to relationships.

When giving feedback to agreeable people, I carefully preface feedback as a development tool that comes from a good place. They must know I am invested in their development, and frame feedback as me actively trying to help them and their goals.

Disagreeable people, however, look for arguments wherever they can be found. Here, I rely far more on specific instances and incidents, so the point speaks for itself without relying on a subjective argument.

The other major traits simply don’t influence feedback reception as much as you would think, as many traits are intrapersonal rather than interpersonal. How conscientious you are, for example, really doesn’t influence how you respond to feedback; it’s just not a related construct.

Ultimately, agreeableness determines their reaction to feedback taken personally, and they will either beat themselves up about it or lash out at the source, and avoiding both is key to effective feedback.

Different personality types respond to feedback through different trust filters. Some want a candid assessment immediately. Others need to understand that the feedback is grounded in observation rather than mood. I adapted by paying attention to how each person builds confidence, whether through data, dialogue, preparation, or speed. That changed not only the wording, but also the setting, timing, and level of detail.

The insight that changed everything was that feedback is part of the employee experience, not a separate management task. If the experience feels fair, specific, and relevant, behaviour changes faster. If it feels generic, even accurate feedback tends to be ignored.

Giving feedback to my security engineers used to be tough. Then I started framing everything around risk, pulling in actual incident data and threat models. Suddenly, it wasn’t a critique anymore. It was all of us looking at the same problem, trying to protect the system. If you want to solve problems instead of having arguments, talk about what matters to them.

Good feedback is related to understanding that can be received. I tailor my style of giving feedback to the person for whom I am working, their experience, the job, and my natural style. I find that with some people I have to be directive and suggest how things should be done, because I know I have delivered the message successfully. One thing I learned that changed my approach is that being clear in how you delivered the message does not mean people were clear on the message.

While working on collaboration, I will now check for understanding rather than assume. I now have team members repeat back key information and tasks to check for understanding. Since doing this, my communication is clearer and more consistent in implementation.

At ION8, I figured out that giving feedback isn’t about having all the answers. The engineers on my team just want quick comments while they’re working, but the designers need scheduled time to really think things through. I started just asking them what works, which felt weird initially, but people actually opened up more. The whole team communicates better now. It’s not perfect, but when I adjust my style for each person, they seem more into their work.

I learned the hard way that feedback isn’t universal. My engineers want numbers and data. My designers? They need space to talk through their ideas. I once gave a designer direct criticism and they just shut down. But when I started asking “walk me through your thinking,” the work got so much better. It’s about matching your style to theirs.

I provide different types of feedback for accountants than for operations managers. My feedback for our finance teams is entirely focused on the mechanical aspects of spreadsheets, audit trail functionality, and the accuracy of the data being reported. The focus of my feedback for our operations teams is solely on the successful delivery of projects on time, headcounts in place to support each project, and how our various departments function together effectively. Making sure that my conversations with both groups are very process-specific allows both groups to receive actionable feedback for daily tasks.

One of the lessons I have learned is that when you communicate personally with your team members, that is really a form of risk management. When a team member knows that you truly understand the intricacies of their processes, they will be less likely to hide from you when errors or inefficiencies occur. They will then identify any internal administrative barriers to success immediately, allowing us to correct those inefficiencies prior to any delays which could potentially harm profitability. This level of internal transparency will protect our margin as we continue to grow globally.

I used to think feedback should be one-size-fits-all. Then I started asking my bilingual team how they wanted to receive it. I found my Spanish-speaking colleagues preferred hearing a story, while the English speakers wanted direct bullet points. Just asking this question made our meetings better. People became more open, and our conversations got more focused.

I stopped giving everyone the same feedback. My compliance people need detailed notes tied to the rules. Sales folks get excited when I praise them quickly or update the leaderboard. We argued about it but finally split the two approaches. Now people push back less and actually do what I suggest.

Before, I used to be pretty blunt with my CRM and email team. Then I found out they’re all analytical thinkers, so I started approaching things differently. Now, I give them one problem at a time as an A/B test and act like we’re just testing something.

The discussion sounds less like a critique on what they’re doing and more like experiments. It works so much better; now I just get more input from them.

I used to treat everyone the same, then I realized that was a mistake. With our veteran guides, I mostly ask questions. They know what they’re doing. But with someone new to the team, I’m very direct, giving them a clear plan. Experienced people want trust, newcomers need a roadmap. It’s about helping people, not proving you’re the boss.

Running a remote SaaS team taught me that vague praise like “great work” is useless. My engineers and analysts want to see the numbers. So instead of “nice job on the copy,” I’ll say, “That headline you wrote lifted our click-through rate by 12 percent.” Suddenly, they see the direct line from their work to the result. That’s what actually lands.

As CEO, I learned my team wants different kinds of feedback. Some people want you to be direct, others want to talk it through first. I noticed some of my most talented people, especially those not often in leadership roles, were surprisingly quiet about their wins. So now I call it out. “The way you landed that client was brilliant, you should share that method.” It helps them see their impact and find their own voice.

Managing a behavioral health team taught me feedback isn’t one-size-fits-all. My biggest change was stopping the mix of supportive chats and performance reviews. I used to bundle them together, especially during tough cases, and it would get messy. Now people know when they’re just venting versus when we’re discussing their work. The conversations are clearer and way less defensive.

My team responds to feedback differently, so I changed how I do it. For the veterans, I just give them a number to hit, like leads closed. For the newer agents, I walk them through client calls step by step. They’re asking more questions now, which is the whole point. I learned to talk about their behaviors, not just their results, because behaviors are what they can actually control.

My team has this quieter agent who just wasn’t getting anywhere with group feedback. So I started meeting with her one-on-one, and she immediately got it. That was a big lesson for me. I thought I was just accommodating her, but it turns out it’s not about being nice. It’s about talking to people in a way that actually lets them do their job well.

I lead engineers and found that giving direct feedback can backfire. So I switched things up. Now, before I share my thoughts, I ask them what they think of their own solution first. They seem more open to my input, and our conversations are way more honest. It works much better.

We work with different people across our hybrid setup, from in-house designers, admin staff, management personnel, operation personnel, and partner factories, so naturally everyone has different personalities and ways of working. Because of that, I learned that feedback should stay direct, consistent, and delivered with the same tone regardless of who the person is. It helps avoid favoritism or making feedback feel personal depending on someone’s personality.

Most of our feedback conversations are focused on the work itself. We talk about what we noticed, how the performance affected the workflow and what could still be improved if needed. Since we handle multiple packaging projects at once, even small mistakes in design, approvals, or communication can affect timelines and other moving parts, so it’s important that feedback stays clear and honest.

At the same time, we don’t make feedback one sided. We ask them for their side, suggestions and thoughts on the situation because sometimes there are things happening behind the scenes that we may not immediately see. That approach made conversations feel more balanced and productive instead of people feeling attacked or judged.

Personalized feedback doesn’t have to be mysterious or overly technical. It’s something that’s going to evolve naturally if you start with one core principle: building relationships. This takes regular interaction across a variety of topics and formats. I don’t just communicate with my direct reports when I’m evaluating them; I do it every day. This helps me to naturally pick up communication styles that work best for individual people without having to be all stilted about it.

I would call attention to mistakes in team meetings, but that just made some folks become tight-lipped or defensive. So I began speaking to them one-on-one. It wasn’t long before people would approach me about low-level problems before they turned into big problems.

That’s when I realized psychological safety is a reality.

We’ve tried adapting feedback styles based on personality, but I think what works better is having a balanced and consistent approach for everyone. What’s worked better for us is making sure feedback always has both sides. Acknowledge what they’re doing well, where they’ve improved, and also be honest about where they’re lacking or what needs to change.