Let's talk about the thing most leaders dread: giving feedback.

You know that moment when you need to tell someone their presentation missed the mark, or their approach isn't working? Your stomach tightens. You rehearse what you'll say. You wonder if they'll ever look at you the same way again.

Here's the thing: feedback doesn't have to be a trust-killer. In fact, done right, it's a trust-builder. The difference lies in how you deliver it.

Below are six research-backed frameworks that'll transform how you approach those tough conversations. Think of this as your feedback playbook.

When you need to address something in the moment, the Situation-Behaviour-Impact (SBI) framework from the Centre for Creative Leadership is your best friend. It's beautifully simple: describe the situation, what you observed (behaviour only, no interpretation), and the impact it had.

Instead of "You were rude in that meeting," try: "In this morning's client call, when Sarah was presenting, you interrupted her three times. The client looked uncomfortable, and Sarah lost her train of thought."

See the difference? You're removing judgement and sticking to observable facts. This makes it nearly impossible for someone to get defensive because you're not attacking their character, you're just describing what happened.

Kim Scott developed the Radical Candour framework whilst working at Google and Apple, and it's now considered one of the most effective feedback models in Silicon Valley. The approach combines caring personally with challenging directly, and it works because it addresses the fundamental tension in feedback: how do you be honest without being hurtful?

The framework maps feedback on two axes: how much you care about the person, and how directly you challenge them. When you do both simultaneously, you hit the sweet spot of Radical Candour.

The alternatives? "Ruinous Empathy" is when you care but won't challenge (you sugarcoat so much the message gets lost). "Obnoxious Aggression" is when you challenge without caring (you're just being brutal). And "Manipulative Insincerity" is when you do neither (you're being fake).

Research shows that feedback is most effective when it combines empathy with clear direction. The key insight: people accept tough feedback when they know you genuinely care about their success.

Dr. Marshall Goldsmith flipped conventional feedback on its head with the FeedForward approach. Instead of dwelling on what someone did wrong, focus on what they could do differently next time.

"You did this wrong" becomes "Next time, try this."

This is particularly powerful for high performers who tend to resist criticism. When you're future-focused, you're not attacking their past choices, you're partnering with them to build better outcomes. It reframes the conversation from judgement to collaboration.

Here's where it gets really interesting. Dr John Gottman studied thousands of couples and discovered something remarkable: stable and happy relationships maintain a ratio of five positive interactions for every one negative interaction.

And this doesn't just apply to marriages. Research on leadership teams found that the highest-performing teams averaged a 5.6:1 ratio of positive to negative comments, whilst low-performing teams had almost three negative comments for each positive one.

What does this mean for you? Before you criticise, you need to deposit five positives into the relationship bank account. Those small moments of recognition, appreciation, and acknowledgement aren't just nice, they're the foundation that makes tough feedback possible.

Think of it as building up your credibility budget. Each genuine compliment, each time you notice someone's effort, each moment you show you're paying attention, these are deposits. Criticism is a withdrawal. You need to stay in the black.

This framework from Judith French starts with a simple but powerful question:

By asking first, you give people the opportunity to self-assess. Often, they'll identify the same issues you saw. When they do, your role shifts from critic to coach. Instead of delivering a verdict, you're exploring solutions together.

The pattern is: Ask for their perspective, Tell them your observation (being specific), then Ask what they'll do differently. This builds ownership and reduces defensiveness because you're not imposing your view, you're collaborating on a shared understanding.

Anna Wildman's CEDAR model acknowledges that one conversation isn't enough. Real change requires structure:

That last step (Review) is what most leaders skip. Without follow-up, feedback dies. Schedule the check-in before you leave the conversation. Make it specific. Put it in the calendar.

Here's what all these frameworks have in common: they're all about preserving (and building) trust whilst being honest. They recognise that feedback isn't just about correcting behaviour, it's about strengthening relationships.

The next time you need to have a tough conversation, pick one of these frameworks. Try it out. See what happens. You'll likely find that honesty and trust aren't enemies, they're partners.

Because at the end of the day, the leaders people remember aren't the ones who never criticised them. They're the ones who cared enough to tell them the truth.