Be brutally honest, but don’t make it personal

In a high-stakes business environment, “This sucks” is okay. “You suck” is not okay.

Matt Hunter • August 26, 2025

At the highest levels of business, there’s little room for sugar-coating, pleasantries, or beating around the bush.

Winning requires honesty, and in some cases, brutal honesty.

But brutal honesty doesn’t mean personal attacks. There’s a world of difference between This idea isn’t strong enough and You’re not good enough. For tough leaders, this is a crucial distinction.

That might sound obvious. Most of us, after all, aren’t in the business of berating our people. And yet, personal attacks can manifest in subtle or indirect ways, particularly in charged conversations where negative feedback needs to be delivered. Many leaders consciously or unconsciously attack the person when delivering criticism, undermining the purpose of speaking up in the first place, which is to improve the work.

Often, this happens because leaders don’t know how to properly give feedback (something I’ve explored at length in previous newsletters). Either they dilute the message to avoid making people uncomfortable, or they get personal and end up alienating and discouraging their people.

Leaders must be willing to speak up when the work isn’t good enough. The key is doing it in a way that doesn’t discourage the person. Because when people get discouraged, better work is rarely the outcome.

As Steve Jobs puts it: “You need to [deliver feedback] in a way that doesn’t call into question your confidence in their abilities but leaves not too much room for interpretation. And that’s a hard thing to do.”

I’ve seen many of the best teams I’ve worked with create environments where direct feedback on the work is encouraged, but personal attacks are not. The crux of this is talking about the work, not the person.

Let’s take a closer look at how this might play out so that you can begin to offer feedback and criticism confidently—in a way that’s both effective and kind.

How to talk about the work, not the person

Rather than making a direct attack, you want to state your feedback in the more neutral terms of observations, feelings, and needs. This keeps the focus on your response to the work and your objectives rather than their shortcomings as the author of the work. This is similar to the common wisdom of using “I” statements during conflicts or charged emotional conversations (“I feel hurt” vs. “you always hurt me”) to communicate more effectively, without the kind of blame or finger-pointing that easily causes people to shut down or get defensive. Then, you want to follow with a request to make the remedying action clear and specific.

Let’s see what this might look like in practice:

Scenario: A team member presents a subpar marketing campaign.

Leader: When you presented the marketing campaign (Observation), I was concerned because I need our messaging to really resonate and inspire action (Feeling & Need). I think that the campaign is unclear and doesn’t fully connect with our target audience. Would you be open to exploring ways we could strengthen the storytelling together? (Request)

Scenario: Reviewing a product design that does not meet expectations.

Leader: Looking at this design, I’m worried because I don’t know whether it fully captures the emotional tone we were aiming for (Feeling). I really value clarity and emotional connection in our designs (Need). Would you be willing to share your perspective on this and brainstorm some tweaks? (Request)

Scenario: A report is executed poorly and needs to be redone.

Leader: Upon reading your report, I noticed that these three sections do not have supportive data (Observation). After digesting the report, it feels disjointed to me. I’m dissatisfied here because I want the information to be clear and impactful for the reader (Feeling & Need). Could we go over it together and see how we can strengthen it? (Request)