The Perils of ‘Translating’ Feedback: Leannebridges on Managerial Communication Gaps

In a recent LinkedIn post, Leannebridges discusses a common yet often unacknowledged pitfall in team dynamics: the role of the intermediary who “translates” feedback between managers. Leannebridges highlights how this well-intentioned, yet ultimately detrimental, practice can prevent genuine communication and hinder problem-solving among peers.

The core of Leannebridges’s observation centers on the unintended consequences of softening or repackaging critical feedback. According to the post, managers often confide their candid opinions about colleagues to a trusted individual, who then relays a modified version of this information. Leannebridges writes:

“They’ve all said it to you. And unintentionally, you’ve started translating. You tell the operations manager that the team needs more notice on project changes. But you don’t say it came from his colleague. You frame it as your observation.”

This act of “translating,” as Leannebridges terms it, prevents direct and honest dialogue. Instead of fostering understanding and encouraging managers to address issues collaboratively, it creates a filtered reality. Leannebridges argues that this approach, while seeming to smooth over immediate tensions, ultimately prevents any real change from occurring.

The Illusion of Progress Through Translation

Leannebridges points out that by relaying feedback indirectly and stripped of its original context or emotional weight, the recipient is less likely to be prompted towards introspection or behavioral change. The original post elaborates on this:

“So nothing changes between them. Because the real conversation never happened. You’ve just smoothed things over for another week.”

This creates a superficial sense of harmony, where underlying issues fester because the individuals involved never directly confront them. Leannebridges suggests that the person acting as the translator is not managing the team effectively but is instead managing the flow of information, thereby becoming a bottleneck rather than a facilitator of growth.

The Deeper Problem: Stifled Direct Communication

The long-term impact of this communication pattern, according to Leannebridges, is a breakdown in authentic collegial relationships. When direct feedback is consistently avoided, individuals may lose the capacity or willingness to engage in difficult conversations. Leannebridges states:

“The team aren’t difficult. They just don’t know what each other actually needs. Because some of the more challenging feedback between them goes through you first.”

This dynamic means that managers remain unaware of their peers’ true perspectives, leading to misunderstandings and a lack of mutual problem-solving. Leannebridges emphasizes that the person receiving the translated feedback hears a version that is deliberately softened and repackaged, losing the sharp edges that might have spurred genuine reflection and action.

Facilitating Authentic Dialogue

Leannebridges’s insights serve as a critical reminder for professionals in intermediary roles. The post implies that true team health and effective management require fostering an environment where direct, albeit sometimes challenging, conversations can occur. By stepping back from the role of translator and encouraging direct communication, leaders can help build stronger relationships and drive more meaningful, lasting change within their organizations. The key, as Leannebridges suggests, is to allow the real conversations to happen, rather than smoothing them over.