The problem
You've been sitting on a piece of feedback for two weeks. Every version in your head either comes out so softened it says nothing ("maybe just keep an eye on the timeline?") or so blunt it lands like an attack ("you're disorganized"). So you keep not saying it, and the thing keeps happening.
The trap is real: without a structure, feedback drifts into venting, cyclical arguing, and mutual defensiveness. And the fastest way to trigger that defensiveness is to describe the person instead of the behavior. "You're careless" is a verdict on their character. The amygdala reads it as a threat to identity, and now you're talking to a hijacked brain.
Two scripts fix this. One for clean observation, one for changing a behavior. Both keep you describing actions, not assigning character.
The mechanism
The whole reason to use a script is to stay objective, future-focused, and centered on what to do next instead of who's at fault.
SBI — Situation, Behavior, Impact. Best for clean observation.
Situation: anchor it in a specific moment. "During yesterday's cross-departmental alignment meeting…" — this kills the vague "you always / you never" that instantly triggers defensiveness. Behavior: describe the exact, observable action with no motive attached. "I noticed you interrupted the project manager several times before she finished." Impact: state the tangible consequence. "As a result, the meeting ran over and several people left unclear on their deliverables."
DESC — Describe, Express, Specify, Consequences. Superior when you need to set a boundary or require change, because it spells out the future expectation.
Describe: "The last two quarterly reports were missing the required analytics section." Express: "I feel concerned when that data is missing, because it stops us forecasting the budget accurately." Specify: "Going forward, I need the analytics addendum completed and reviewed by the data team before submission." Consequences: "That will streamline our forecasting and get your work noticed by leadership."
And the rule that governs both — the Character Test: review your script and circle any word describing who the person is rather than what they did. Replace every one with a behavioral description. "Lazy" becomes "submitted three assignments after the deadline." That single edit is what turns a judgment the brain defends against into data the person can act on.
The operating system
Five steps to a piece of feedback that lands.
Pick the script for the job
If you mainly need the person to understand what happened and why it mattered, use SBI. If you need a behavior to change going forward, use DESC — it adds the request that SBI leaves out. Choosing wrong is why some feedback is clear but changes nothing.
Anchor the situation
Name the specific when and where. A concrete moment ("in Thursday's standup") is impossible to argue with; a generalization ("you're always late to things") invites a defense and a counterexample. Specificity is what keeps the conversation out of the ditch.
Describe behavior, not motive
State only what a camera would have captured. "You interrupted three times," not "you don't respect her." The moment you assign a motive or a trait, you've made a claim about their character that they will — correctly — feel they have to fight.
State the impact (and, for DESC, the ask)
Connect the behavior to its real consequence — that's what makes it matter rather than read as nitpicking. If you're using DESC, add how it affects you and exactly what you need next, then name the upside of the change so it's an invitation, not just a complaint.
Run the Character Test, then say it aloud
Before delivering, circle every character word and swap it for a behavior. Then read the whole thing out loud. If it still contains a verdict on who they are, revise until it's pure actions and consequences. Said aloud, you'll hear the difference immediately.
The printable: the two scripts
Print it. Draft the feedback you've been avoiding, then run the Character Test.