Writing Feedback That Addresses Specific Issues

On kindness in peer review: 9 better ways to say “This paper needs work" Every so often, I come across a reviewer comment that calls a contribution trivial or says it “does not rise to the level expected” at a journal. When I see that language, I wince. Even if the critique has merit, it often overshadows otherwise valuable points in the review. Why? Because it makes the authors feel like the entire review team—not just one reviewer—didn’t see any merit in their work. So, what can we do instead? To help authors actually use your feedback? Soften your tone—not your standards. Use language that clearly signals concern about the contribution without shutting down the possibility for improvement. Rather than making the author angry, use language that engages the author with your comments and encourages them to improve their work. Here are nine thoughtful phrases I’ve seen good reviewers use this past year, that encourage engagement. They’re especially useful in peer review, mentorship, or conference feedback: 1. "The core argument feels underdeveloped, and I had trouble fully engaging with it." This gently signals the paper didn’t land, while pointing to a fixable issue. 2. "I struggled to connect with the contribution—perhaps more framing or positioning could clarify its relevance." Invites the author to sharpen the positioning of their work. 3. "The paper raises important questions, but the current structure makes it difficult to appreciate its full impact." Encourages authors to revise the structure for better clarity. 4. "I found myself wanting more clarity on how this piece fits into the broader conversation." Suggests adding context. Consider: “It doesn’t resonate with me because the context is missing.” 5. "This may reflect my own disciplinary perspective, but I had difficulty connecting with the theoretical framing." Acknowledges your own lens and invites the author to strengthen their framing for a wider audience. 6. "The writing is thoughtful, but I had trouble seeing how the pieces come together to form a cohesive narrative." Encourages a shift from listing elements to telling a coherent story. 7. "The manuscript feels preliminary—there’s potential here, but it’s not fully realized yet." Flags underdevelopment without sounding dismissive or harsh. 8. "The contribution may benefit from more grounding in empirical or theoretical detail to fully resonate with readers." Only use this if you can specify what detail is needed. 9. "This version didn’t quite land for me, but I believe with revision and sharper focus, it could really shine." Provides an honest, hopeful invitation to revise. Never forget. Reviewing is about stewardship. It’s about helping authors make their work stronger—even when it’s not there yet. So rather than tearing down papers, offer a well-phrased critique, that encourages authors to keep working. #PeerReview #AcademicWriting #AcademicJourney #AcademicCulture

As performance review season approaches, I've been reflecting on a conversation from over a decade ago that still sits with me today. During my review, my manager told me I "needed to work on my confidence." When I asked for clarification, she said, "Think about how [male colleague] would have handled this situation." I can't fully fault my manager - who was herself a woman. We all carry internalized biases that we've absorbed from years of working in systems that often value traditionally masculine behaviors. It's a stark reminder that unlearning these patterns requires conscious effort from all of us, regardless of gender. That moment crystallized something I've observed throughout my career: vague feedback often masks unconscious bias, particularly in performance reviews. "Lack of confidence" is frequently used as shorthand to describe women's leadership styles, while similar behavior in male colleagues might be viewed as "thoughtful" or "measured." Here's what I wish that manager had said instead: 🔹 "I'd like you to take the lead in proposing solutions to the team, rather than waiting to be called on." 🔹"Let's work on defending your decisions with data when faced with pushback from folks." 🔹"I noticed you often preface your ideas with "I think..." Let's practice delivering recommendations with clear rationale and conviction." 🔹"Here are specific techniques to influence cross-functional stakeholders more effectively." As leaders, we are responsible for being intentional and specific in our feedback. Vague critiques like "needs more confidence" or "should be more assertive" without concrete examples or actionable guidance don't help our reports grow – they perpetuate harmful stereotypes. To my fellow managers preparing for year-end reviews: 🔹Be specific about behaviors, not personality traits 🔹Provide clear examples and contexts 🔹Outline actionable steps for improvement 🔹Check your biases - are you applying the same standards across your team? Remember: The impact of your words may last far longer than the conversation itself. #Leadership #PerformanceReviews #UnconsciousBias #WomenInBusiness #ProfessionalDevelopment

I spoke with a local founder about an issue he’s having with one of his employees. She’ll consistently show up late, make commitments to deadlines, and then miss the window without saying anything. He’s tried to approach her about this, but she becomes defensive, layers in excuses, and doubles down on her position. I hear about issues like this all the time. Founders spend their energy thinking about how to resolve the tension or what they need to do.  -- Some accept the situation as if there’s nothing that can be done. Yes, there is. -- Some announce a new policy. Passive-aggressive. -- Some lead with authority. “Do as I say, or you’re fired.” This creates fear and kills performance. Try leading with humanity. There’s a way of relating that increases influence, creates buy-in, and reduces defensiveness. It’s speaking from a place of shared responsibility and respect. Here’s how to do it. First, affirm a meaningful relationship and establish a time to talk.  Then, use this framework to vocalize your feedback. 1. “THE SPECIFIC FACTS ARE…” These are facts only, not judgments or stories. Imagine that a video camera was observing and recording the information. You’re only stating what actually happened, not your assumptions, opinions, or judgments on what happened. Example: “For the last four out of five shifts, you showed up after the start time.” 2. “I MAKE UP A STORY THAT…” This is where you place your beliefs or assumptions that are your personal interpretation of the event. By stating “My story is”, you de-escalate the interaction because it places responsibility on yourself for your assumptions. “I make up a story that this role isn’t important to you. You aren’t prioritizing your work.” 3. “I FEEL…” “I feel frustrated and disappointed.” 4. “MY PART IN THIS IS…” This is your personal responsibility in creating or sustaining the issue. “My part in this is that I didn’t speak directly to you the first time it happened. I also didn’t create a clear agreement with you that arriving on time is important to me and the team. My own fear about doing a good job is making this feel significant for me.” 5. “AND I SPECIFICALLY WANT…” Name what you wish to change moving forward. “I want to make a clear agreement about your arrival time and ask that you show up on time each day.” I’ve seen firsthand how powerful this framework can be… and I use it with my own team. It’s all about connecting to purpose and building mutual respect—not leading from a place of authority or fear. Inspired by Jim Dethmer, Diana Champan, and Kaley Chapman, authors of The 15 Commitments of Conscious Leadership: A New Paradigm for Sustainable Success. I wrote a guide on this and placed it in the comments. #leadership

Need to give difficult feedback to your co-founder? Follow this template. It’s called the Net Model and I’ve witnessed time and again how this approach can profoundly change a co-founder conversation from one of blame to one of learning and growth. Here’s the structure: “When you did X (specific, recent action), I felt Y (emotion). The story I tell myself is Z (what you think the other person was thinking when they took that action). Is that correct? “ This is powerful for a few key reasons: 1. Specificity You are pointing to a specific action that occured recently, making it easy to discuss the issue, and where the miscommunication came from. 2. Objective The specific action and the way you felt about that action are both objective facts. You are not assuming your co-founders intent. 3. Confirming the story After stating the fact, you name that you had a story about the person’s action. This specific use of “story” has two effects: a. You acknowledge that you don’t know if this story is true (it reinforces that the conversation is about learning, not blame) b. It helps drive the conversation forward because it allows you to bring up a topic that is concerning for you while noting that you are not wedded to your own interpretation. 4. Succinct When used exactly in the structure above, this framework gets to the heart of an issue with brevity. This is key because in most feedback situations or difficult conversations over-talking is a common issue. This makes the issue hard to follow and ends up increasing conflict and miscommunication rather than resolving it. Do you have other frameworks for feedback that you find helpful? Feel free to share below.

Avoiding Tough Conversations with a Colleague? You May Be Holding Them (and your organization) Back Over my career, a common attribute I see across every high performing team is that they tackle tough conversations head-on. Constructive feedback fuels progress, but I’ve seen too many teams refuse to engage, held back by fear of conflict or discomfort. That hesitation holds everyone back. The reality is if you can’t challenge each other to do better you are unlikely to achieve ambitious goals together. Tough feedback isn’t about assigning blame; it’s about working together to improve. Here’s how to deliver it effectively: 1️⃣ Time is of the Essence The sooner you address an issue, the more impactful your feedback will be—giving the other person time to course-correct. Waiting weeks—or worse, until an annual review—dilutes its value. 2️⃣ What Happened, Not Who Did It Blame erodes trust. Instead of “You messed up,” try “Here’s where the process broke down.” It keeps the focus on the specific conduct or behavior, not the person who engaged in it. 3️⃣ Be Specific Vague feedback doesn’t help. Instead of saying, “You need to be more proactive,” give clear examples: “During the project update, stakeholders need clarity on timelines.” 4️⃣ Lead with Curiosity Feedback lands better when it’s collaborative. Questions like, “Help me understand what happened here?” or observations like, “Here’s what I noticed,” make the conversation less personal and more about problem-solving. 5️⃣ Create a Safe Space  People need to feel safe to grow. When you frame feedback as an opportunity—not a punishment—you build trust and encourage openness. 6️⃣ Look Forward, Not Backward Feedback is your team’s compass—not a history lesson. Ask questions like, “What changes can we make next time?” or “What resources would help you succeed?”   The strongest teams embrace tough feedback because they know it’s rooted in care and a desire to grow. If you’re avoiding hard conversations, you’re holding back your team’s potential. Let’s fix that. #Leadership #FeedbackCulture #TeamGrowth #LegalOps