The Leadership Trap: When Feedback Becomes Triangulation

The fastest way to destroy trust is to talk about people instead of with them.

One of the most dangerous leadership traps does not come from bad intentions.

It comes from good intentions.

A leader receives difficult feedback about an employee.

Wanting to be fair, they seek additional perspectives.

They ask a few colleagues.

Then a few more.

They gather examples, observations, and opinions.

They are trying to understand the situation.

They are trying to help.

And yet, without realizing it, they may have just started creating the very thing they were hoping to prevent.

A conversation about someone instead of with them.

Most leaders are taught that gathering feedback is responsible.

Get multiple perspectives.

Look for patterns.

Validate the signal.

Avoid bias.

On the surface, that sounds reasonable.

But there is a hidden danger.

The moment feedback becomes a discussion that the employee is not part of, something begins to shift.

Stories start forming.

Narratives start emerging.

Patterns start appearing.

People begin comparing experiences.

The employee becomes the topic rather than a participant.

And eventually, the employee discovers that opinions have been formed, conclusions have been reached, and discussions have taken place before they were ever invited into the conversation.

At that moment, the issue is no longer the original feedback.

The issue becomes trust.

What makes this particularly dangerous is that feedback is rarely objective.

Feedback is not truth.

Feedback is data.

And data is always filtered through a human being.

Through their values.

Their preferences.

Their communication style.

Their triggers.

Their fears.

Their insecurities.

Their experiences.

Their expectations.

Their relationship with the other person.

Two people can experience the exact same behavior and tell completely different stories about it.

One person says:

“She interrupted me.”

Another says:

“She was engaged and excited.”

One says:

“She challenged my thinking.”

Another says:

“She didn’t respect my expertise.”

One says:

“She dominates the conversation.”

Another says:

“She brings energy into the room.”

Both may be describing the same moment.

Neither is necessarily lying.

Neither is necessarily wrong.

But neither is describing the complete picture.

Human beings are not static.

Behavior is relational.

What emerges between two people often says as much about the relationship as it does about either individual.

This is where leadership becomes difficult.

And where differentiation becomes essential.

A differentiated leader can hold multiple truths at once.

The feedback is real.

The feedback is incomplete.

The experience matters.

The experience is not universal.

The story deserves attention.

The story is not the whole story.

Instead of asking:

“Who is right?”

They ask:

“What is happening here?”

“What conditions bring out the best in this person?”

“What conditions bring out the worst?”

“What conversation needs to happen that hasn’t happened yet?”

Because the goal is not to determine a winner.

The goal is understanding.

Throughout my career, I have received feedback that could not have been more contradictory.

🖤 I have been told I interrupt.

💚 I have been told I ask the most thoughtful questions in the room.

🖤 I have been told I am too intense.

💚 I have been told I create psychological safety.

🖤 I have been told I take up too much space.

💚 I have been told I help others find their voice.

Recently, within the span of a single week, I received difficult feedback on one side and heartfelt appreciation on the other.

Three different people from three different initiatives reached out to tell me how much I had helped them.

How much they valued my support.

How much they appreciated my presence.

At the same time, I was processing criticism that cut deeply.

I sat alone and cried for nearly an hour.

Not because criticism is new.

Not because I believe I am perfect.

But because holding those realities simultaneously is profoundly disorienting.

Am I helping people?

Am I hurting people?

Am I too much?

Am I enough?

Which story is true?

If you’ve ever cared deeply about your work, you probably know that feeling.

That moment where your sense of worth starts attaching itself to whichever voice is loudest.

That moment where self-doubt begins filling in the blanks.

That moment where you stop evaluating the feedback and start evaluating yourself.

And that is exactly where differentiation matters.

Because without differentiation, feedback becomes identity.

With differentiation, feedback remains information.

I can listen to criticism without becoming criticism.

I can receive praise without becoming praise.

I can remain curious about both.

The greatest danger of triangulation is not that it produces inaccurate conclusions.

The greatest danger is that it damages trust.

And when trust is damaged, fear enters the system.

Once fear enters, people change.

Not consciously.

Not maliciously.

Protectively.

They become more careful.

More guarded.

More political.

More performative.

Less authentic.

Less courageous.

Less creative.

Less willing to challenge.

Less willing to experiment.

Less willing to fail.

Less willing to grow.

The energy that once fueled contribution is redirected toward self-protection.

People begin asking themselves:

“Is it safe to say this?”

“Who is talking about me?”

“What happens if I make a mistake?”

“Should I just stay quiet?”

The organization may still look healthy from the outside.

The meetings continue.

The work continues.

The projects continue.

But something important has disappeared.

Trust.

And when trust disappears, something even more tragic happens.

People stop bringing their gifts.

The very qualities leaders hope to unlock begin retreating underground.

Creativity.

Curiosity.

Innovation.

Vulnerability.

Courage.

Leadership.

The unique strengths that make someone extraordinary.

Those things do not emerge from fear.

They emerge from trust.

Trust is the soil where human potential grows.

Fear is the frost that kills it.

This is why I was always careful with feedback when I was leading teams.

My goal was never to become a judge.

My goal was never to decide who was right.

My goal was never to collect enough evidence to build a case.

Instead, I saw my role as helping people develop the skills they would need long after I was gone.

Self-advocacy.

Communication.

Collaboration.

Conflict navigation.

Perspective taking.

Repair.

Connection.

When someone brought me a complaint about another person, my first instinct was not to gather allies.

It was to help create a conversation.

Because most leadership problems are not performance problems.

They are conversation problems.

Most trust issues are not competency issues.

They are communication issues.

Most conflicts do not need a judge.

They need courage.

The opposite of triangulation is not secrecy.

The opposite of triangulation is courageous conversation.

It is creating spaces where people can speak directly.

Listen deeply.

Stay curious.

Remain human.

Even when they disagree.

Especially when they disagree.

Because connection is not agreement.

Trust is not agreement.

Understanding is not agreement.

The goal is not for everyone to think alike.

The goal is for people to understand each other well enough to move forward together.

Every time we speak about someone instead of with them, we borrow trust from the future.

Sometimes the loan is small.

Sometimes it is expensive.

But eventually someone pays the interest.

And if we are not careful, the price is the very thing leadership exists to protect.

The conditions in which human beings can thrive.

The conditions in which people feel safe enough to bring their gifts.

The conditions in which ordinary teams become extraordinary.

The conditions in which people become more of themselves rather than less.

Because leadership is not about controlling people.

It is not about collecting stories.

It is not about deciding who is right.

Leadership is about protecting trust.

And trust is what allows people to fly. 🐉

How Leaders Can Protect Trust When Feedback Arrives

1. Avoid Triangulation

Before discussing someone’s behavior with others, ask yourself:

Does this conversation need more opinions, or does it need a conversation with the person involved?

Sometimes additional perspectives are necessary.

Often they are not.

Every person you add to the conversation increases the risk that understanding turns into storytelling.

And storytelling is where trust begins to erode.

2. Know Your Triggers

Leaders are human too.

Certain feedback will activate something in us.

Maybe we dislike conflict.

Maybe we value harmony.

Maybe we are triggered by arrogance, emotionality, directness, passivity, or disagreement.

The moment you feel yourself becoming emotionally attached to a particular version of events, pause.

Your reaction is data too.

The goal is not to eliminate triggers.

The goal is to prevent them from becoming decisions.

3. Lean Into Curiosity

The less certain you feel, the more curious you should become.

Replace:

“Who is right?”

With:

“What happened here?”

Replace:

“What’s wrong with this person?”

With:

“What conditions contributed to this outcome?”

Replace:

“How do I fix them?”

With:

“What needs to be understood?”

Curiosity protects relationships.

Judgment often damages them.

4. Remember That Feedback Reveals the Observer Too

One of the most important lessons I learned as a leader is this:

Feedback is never only about the person receiving it.

It also reveals something about the person giving it.

Their values.

Their expectations.

Their communication style.

Their triggers.

Their fears.

Their needs.

This does not make feedback invalid.

It makes it human.

Feedback is a window into an experience, not a declaration of truth.

5. Empower the Complainer to Speak Directly

When someone comes to you with concerns about another person, resist the temptation to become the messenger.

Instead ask:

“Have you spoken with them about this?”

“What would make that conversation easier?”

“How can I support you in having it?”

Leadership is not about carrying conversations for people.

It is about helping people develop the courage and skills to have them themselves.

6. Stay Neutral Without Becoming Passive

Neutrality does not mean indifference.

Neutrality means refusing to rush toward conclusions.

Listen carefully.

Hold multiple perspectives.

Seek understanding before judgment.

Protect everyone’s dignity.

And remember:

Your role is not to determine who wins.

Your role is to help create conditions where learning, understanding, accountability, and repair can occur.

7. Be Careful When You Go Looking for Evidence

There is a psychological trap hiding in many feedback conversations.

Once we hear a story, we naturally start looking for information that confirms it.

The human brain loves consistency.

If we believe someone is difficult, we notice difficult moments.

If we believe someone is collaborative, we notice collaborative moments.

The more people we ask, the more likely we are to find evidence supporting the story we already believe.

Not because we are dishonest.

Because we are human.

A leader’s responsibility is not to confirm a narrative.

A leader’s responsibility is to remain curious long enough to discover a fuller picture.

Sometimes the most important question is not:

“What evidence supports this story?”

But:

“What evidence might challenge it?”