Why Better Feedback Conversations Start Before the Meeting, According to Cicely Simpson

In a recent LinkedIn post, Cicely Simpson discusses how leaders can make feedback conversations more constructive through preparation, careful listening and follow-up. This article reports on Simpson’s guidance in that post; it is not written by Simpson. She frames the challenge around a contrast: two leaders can deliver identical feedback and get very different responses.

“Funnily enough, the words were the same. What changed everything was what happened before, during, and after the conversation.”

Preparation can separate observation from judgment

Simpson argues that feedback is a core leadership responsibility that often receives too little instruction. Her first three tools focus on what a manager does before speaking. She points to the Situation-Behavior-Impact model, the Ladder of Inference and the Pyramid Principle as ways to prepare a clear, evidence-based message.

According to Simpson, managers can use the SBI approach to describe a specific moment, the behavior they observed and its effect, rather than judging a person’s character. The Ladder of Inference offers a related check: distinguish what was seen from assumptions added to the account. Simpson also recommends stating the main point first, then explaining the reasons behind it.

These steps, as Simpson presents them, are intended to keep feedback specific and easier to understand. Writing down observations and a one-sentence main point gives the leader a chance to examine the message before the conversation begins.

Structure and pauses help in the room

For the conversation itself, Simpson highlights the Courageous Conversation Framework—Open, Explore, Clarify, Commit—and the GROW model, which guides a person through Goal, Reality, Options and a Way forward. She advises leaders to plan an opening and ask all four GROW questions before offering their own solution.

“When a conversation heats up, a pause gives you time to choose your next sentence.”

That recommendation underscores Simpson’s emphasis on the leader’s response when emotions rise. Rather than filling every silence, she suggests stopping and allowing a pause before redirecting the exchange. In her view, that small break can create room to respond deliberately.

Follow-up turns discussion into action

Simpson’s final tools address what happens after the meeting. She encourages managers to replace broad requests for feedback with a focused question about whether they achieved a stated aim, and to use feedforward by asking what could work better next time. She also recommends sending a brief written summary and scheduling a check-in within 24 hours.

“Pick 1 to trial this week, and note the outcome.”

The post presents these techniques as a set of practical options rather than a single script. Simpson invites readers to test one adjustment and observe the result. Her closing measure is whether the other person leaves with a clear plan—or shares something the leader needed to hear. Either outcome, she suggests, can indicate that the conversation served its purpose.