How ALIGN Challenges Traditional Feedback Models

Thirteen years ago, I was working with my own leadership coach, struggling over a feedback conversation I needed to have. I knew the facts. I knew the behaviour that needed to change. However, I was worried: ‘What if I say this and damage my relationship with this person?’

My coach introduced me to a conversation model called the FIDO model — Feelings, Impact, Desired Outcome, Options. For the first time, I felt like I had permission to bring emotions into the room. This felt natural to me and was aligned with my leadership values. It was a breakthrough moment. I realised feedback did not have to be harsh and detached to be effective. It could be human, honest, and still move the work forward.

That experience sparked a decade of research and practice for me: how do we give feedback in a way that maintains relationships, acknowledges discomfort, and still creates clarity and accountability? The result of that journey is the ALIGN Feedback Model.

The Problem With ‘Facts Only’ Feedback Models

Most feedback models, like SBI (Situation–Behaviour–Impact), encourage leaders to describe what happened and why it matters. That structure is helpful. However, in practice, especially when emotions are high, it can feel clinical, harsh, accusatory, or even unsafe. The facts may be accurate, but the person on the receiving end may feel attacked or shut down. Instead of sparking growth, the conversation reinforces defensiveness.

This is the gap ALIGN was designed to close.

Why the Relational Layer Matters

ALIGN preserves structure and intentionally adds what most models miss: a relational, research-grounded focus. It begins with Acknowledgement — recognising effort, emotions, or context, aimed at reducing threat and preparing the ground for learning.

Here is why it matters:

• Psychological safety drives learning. Amy Edmondson’s work demonstrates that when teams feel safe to speak up and acknowledge their fallibility, they engage more in learning behaviours and perform better (Edmondson, 1999; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Acknowledging context and emotion signals that safety.

• Naming feelings reduces defensiveness. Research on affect labelling demonstrates that putting feelings into words reduces amygdala reactivity and increases emotion regulation (Lieberman et al., 2007). In feedback, simply naming the tension can lower threat and open dialogue.

• Social threat shuts people down. The SCARF model (Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, Fairness) explains why poorly framed feedback can trigger defensive responses (Rock, 2008). ALIGN counters this: Acknowledgement boosts certainty and relatedness, while Gain Agreement preserves autonomy and fairness.

• Relational methods improve uptake. Approaches such as Nonviolent Communication (Rosenberg, 2003) and Motivational Interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2013) demonstrate that change is more likely to be effective when people feel understood and retain autonomy. ALIGN builds this into its design.

Classic Models Vs. ALIGN Feedback

What ALIGN Looks Like in Practice

ALIGN Model in Action

A feedback conversation using ALIGN might sound like this:

• Acknowledge: “I value our relationship, and I know this might feel uncomfortable. I want us to talk this through because it matters to me that we work together on this issue.”

• Layout: “In yesterday’s meeting, when you spoke over Sarah as she was presenting…”

• Impact: “…it made it harder for her ideas to be heard, and I felt it undercut the inclusive culture we are building.”

• Gain Agreement: “How did you see it? What was going on for you in that moment?”

• Next Steps: “Have you got any ideas on what could be different in this situation? Could we agree on an alternative solution – i.e. pausing before jumping in and checking in on how that feels in two weeks?”

The expectations stay the same. What shifts is that, when the relationship is acknowledged, people are more open to hearing the feedback and putting it into practice.

Final Reflection

That first lesson with my coach taught me something I have never forgotten: feedback is not just about facts, it is about people. This was often a missing ingredient in other feedback training sessions I had participated in.

Traditional models provide structure, but they often overlook the people-centred element that determines whether feedback is effective. ALIGN is designed to fill that gap by starting with acknowledgement, naming discomfort, and co-creating the way forward.

The result is a shift: feedback becomes less about correction and more about connection, learning, and growth. If we want feedback that truly changes behaviour and strengthens trust at the same time, then ALIGN is not just an alternative. It is an evolution in your leadership approach.

If leaders want their feedback to build trust rather than erode it, then ALIGN offers not just a model, but a mindset shift.

References

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), 44–52.

Rosenberg, M. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press.

Traditional feedback frameworks, like SBI (Situation–Behavior–Impact), focus primarily on describing behaviour and its impact. While this provides clarity, it often comes across as abrupt or overly clinical. In high-stakes or emotionally charged situations, this approach can feel threatening, leaving the recipient defensive rather than open. At best, it produces compliance — temporary behaviour change without real commitment. And because the relational layer is missing, trust can erode easily over time.

The ALIGN Feedback Model builds on the value of structure but adds what most models overlook: the human element. By starting with an Acknowledgement of the relationship, the situation, and the likely emotions involved, it preserves clarity while reducing defensiveness. The Gain Agreement step invites perspective and co-design, shifting the conversation from one-sided delivery to shared understanding. Finally, Next Steps are co-created, specific, and time-bound, ensuring both accountability and collaboration. In short, ALIGN maintains standards while strengthening trust, making feedback more likely to be absorbed and acted upon.