Study: Why Fact-Based Feedback Reduces Defensiveness

Most managers believe they're giving helpful feedback. But a new Leadership IQ study of 1,352 employees reveals that the way feedback is typically delivered makes employees defensive, damages relationships, and even drives turnover—all while failing to change the behavior it was meant to correct.

The culprit isn't what managers are addressing. It's the extra words they add when they address it.

The findings point to a clear solution: strip feedback down to the facts. When managers eliminate judgments, interpretations, and emotional reactions from their feedback, employees are dramatically more likely to own the issue, commit to improving, and maintain a healthy working relationship.

The FIRE Model: Understanding How We Process Feedback

To understand why feedback goes wrong, we need to understand how humans process information. The FIRE Model describes the four-step process we all use to evaluate situations: Facts, Interpretations, Reactions, Ends.

To test this theory, we designed a study that would isolate exactly which elements of feedback trigger defensiveness and which lead to productive outcomes.

The Study

Key Finding #1: Facts-Only Feedback Works

When we asked employees which response would be most likely to get them to acknowledge the issue and commit to improving, the results were overwhelming:

Facts-only feedback dominated every positive outcome measure. Employees overwhelmingly recognize that when managers stick to observable facts and skip the judgments and emotions, they're far more likely to take ownership and improve.

Key Finding #2: Interpretations and Emotions Trigger Defensiveness

On the flip side, when managers add interpretations ("you're not taking deadlines seriously") or emotional reactions ("I'm disappointed"), defensiveness skyrockets.

When we looked at how each individual response made people feel, the pattern became even clearer:

Only 4% of employees said facts-only feedback would make them agitated and defensive. But when managers added an interpretation about the employee's character, that number jumped to 62%—a 17x increase in defensiveness from adding a single judgmental sentence.

Key Finding #3: Interpretations Are More Damaging Than Emotions

One of the most surprising findings was the relative impact of interpretations versus emotional reactions. Many managers might assume that expressing disappointment or frustration is the bigger problem. The data says otherwise.

When employees heard "you're not taking deadlines seriously" (an interpretation), 42% said it would make them most defensive. When they heard "I'm really disappointed" (an emotional reaction), only 6.5% chose it as most likely to make them defensive.

Why the difference? Interpretations signal that the manager has already reached a conclusion about the employee's intent or character. That forecloses dialogue. The employee isn't being invited into a conversation—they're being handed a verdict. Emotional reactions, while uncomfortable, are at least ownable by the manager. They describe how the manager feels, not who the employee is. That distinction leaves room for discussion. Interpretations do not.

Key Finding #4: Bad Feedback Damages Relationships and Drives Turnover

The consequences of poorly delivered feedback extend far beyond a single awkward conversation. When we asked about relationship damage and turnover intentions, feedback containing interpretations and emotions was dramatically more likely to cause lasting harm.

Compare that to facts-only feedback: fewer than 1% said it would damage their relationship, and less than 2% said it would make them want to leave.

Every time a manager adds a judgment or emotional reaction to their feedback, they're not just risking defensiveness in the moment—they're potentially damaging a working relationship and increasing the odds that the employee starts looking for another job.

Facts-Only Feedback Is Almost Never the Problem

Perhaps the most reassuring finding for managers: sticking to facts carries virtually no downside risk.

Facts are safe. Facts are effective. Facts get results without the collateral damage.

How to Apply the FIRE Model

The research points to a clear practice for managers: before delivering feedback, separate your Facts from your Interpretations, Reactions, and Ends.

This doesn't mean managers should never share their interpretations or reactions. But those conversations should come after the employee has had a chance to process the facts and respond. When judgments and emotions lead the conversation, defensiveness blocks everything else.

The Bottom Line

Feedback is supposed to improve performance. But the way most feedback is delivered—loaded with interpretations about character and emotional reactions—makes employees defensive, damages relationships, and drives turnover.

The solution is simpler than most managers expect: stick to the facts. When managers describe observable behaviors without adding judgments or emotions, employees are dramatically more likely to acknowledge the issue, commit to improving, and maintain respect for their manager.

These findings closely mirror the principles of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), which shows that emotional reactions are driven less by events themselves than by the beliefs and interpretations attached to them. In feedback conversations, interpretations function as beliefs—and the data shows how powerfully they shape reactions.

As organizations scale, the cost of distorted feedback compounds. What begins as a single defensive reaction becomes slower execution, weaker accountability, and higher turnover. Fact-based feedback isn't just safer—it preserves the conditions necessary for learning and performance at scale.