How do you tell a colleague, or their manager, that something could be improved without the exchange turning into personal criticism? The answer has less to do with raw frankness than with precision: useful feedback describes a fact, an observed action and its concrete effect.
Why a blurry return quickly gets tense in the office
In Le Parisien Entreprisethe article “How to better say things to each other in the office” part of a frequent paradox: employees can ask for more feedback, while having difficulty with the feedback they receive when it is rare, vague or clumsy. A “it was good” may reassure you in the moment, but it doesn’t say what needs to be reproduced. Conversely, a “you are not clear” can be understood as a judgment on the person.
According to an online declarative survey by Fasterclass, a management training and coaching organization, carried out in January 2026 with a BuzzPress France panel, 46% of employees surveyed say they receive feedback from their manager never/almost never or rarely. The same survey indicates that 91% would like their company to further develop this practice.
The link with occupational health lies mainly in the prevention of tensions. The INRS cites in particular vague objectives, degraded social relationships, conflicts with hierarchy or colleagues and lack of recognition among the factors of stress or psychosocial risks. This does not mean that one feedback formula solves everything, but less vague expectations can reduce some of the relational burden.
Raphaël Maisonnier, presented in the article as author of “Feedback in action” and co-founder of Fasterclass, summarizes the issue as follows: “We all want to do a good job, and to do that we need clear information about what we do well and what we can improve.”.
The Situation, Action, Result method for talking about facts
A simple “Situation, Action, Result” method can help. Its interest is to move the discussion from personality to
observable and verifiable facts. It’s also a good way to get back to objective facts, rather than piling up general criticisms.
Concretely, usable feedback can follow three steps:
- Situation : name the specific context, for example a meeting, a file or a dated exchange;
- Action : describe what was observed, without assuming the intention of the other;
- Result : explain the effect produced on the work, the team, the client or the rest of the project.
For something to improve, say “you are never synthetic“attacks a way of being. Saying”during Monday’s update, the presentation exceeded the scheduled time and we were unable to answer the questions” provides a basis for discussion. We can then add a specific track for the next time, for example planning a shorter version or announcing priority points. This precision also helps transform criticism into a constructive exchange.
Create a safe environment before making a return
The form is not enough if the relational context is tense. Psychological safety, a concept associated with Amy Edmondson, professor at Harvard Business School, must be taken into account: it is about being able to ask a question, recognize a mistake or express a concern without fear of being humiliated, judged or sanctioned. In the Fasterclass survey of January 2026, 9% of employees say they are very comfortable giving feedback to their manager, and 23% are somewhat comfortable.
Before a significant return, it is therefore better to set a short framework:
- Request agreement: “Can I give you feedback on the meeting?” ;
- Announce the intention: “My goal is to improve the way we work on this file” ;
- Stay limited: treat a specific point, not the whole story of the relationship.
This caution is even more important when an employee wishes to provide feedback to their manager. In some organizations, anonymous questionnaires or monthly check-ins exist, but they only work if the responses are actually heard. A purely cosmetic feedback system can, on the contrary, reinforce distrust.
In the event of harassment, fear of reprisals, serious conflict or psychological sufferingyou should not limit yourself to this method of communication. Depending on the situation, the appropriate contacts may be human resources, staff representatives, occupational health, an internal alert system or a health professional. The objective is not to say everything at all costs, but to prevent a professional disagreement from escalating when dialogue remains possible.