Why the AID model works

Most feedback conversations fail not because leaders are unclear, but because they unintentionally trigger defensiveness.

When people feel judged, misread, or blamed, the brain shifts into protection rather than learning. In that state, people comply, withdraw, or argue, but they do not grow.

The AID model works because it follows the natural sequence by which people make sense of feedback:

• Action grounds the conversation in observable reality, reducing threat and argument.

• Impact creates meaning by linking behaviour to real consequences.

• Development restores agency by shifting the focus to improvement rather than blame.

Together, these three stages protect dignity, activate reflection, and make change feel achievable rather than punitive. This makes AID one of the most practical and psychologically sound feedback models for leaders, managers, coaches, and team leads working in modern organisations.

The AID feedback model is a simple framework for giving constructive feedback at work. It helps leaders and managers handle difficult conversations, correct performance issues, and recognise good work in a way that builds trust rather than defensiveness. This guide explains what the model is, when to use it and how to apply it in everyday leadership practice.

Most leaders know they should give feedback, yet many avoid it because it feels uncomfortable or because past attempts have gone badly…

Action questions to consider:

• What are you there to discuss?
• What did you see?
• What evidence/facts are there for this performance level?

This stage protects psychological safety by anchoring the conversation in observable reality rather than personal judgement, which preserves the person’s capacity to reflect rather than defend.

Impact

This can include positive or negative impact on the end result, or on the process itself e.g. the amount of effort needed on their part to achieve the result, or the impact on others, etc. When giving praise it is so easy to say to someone ‘that was really good, well done’ without saying why it was good or what made the difference this time compared with previous occasions.

Development or desired questions to consider:

• What needs to change going forward?
• What does the goal look like?
• Are actions SMART?
• When will you meet again to confirm improvement or review results?

This stage restores agency by shifting the person from being evaluated to being responsible for improvement.

Moving from telling to asking

Where the AID model really comes alive is in how it is applied. You can use it in two very different ways:

1. By telling the person what you saw, what it meant, and what they need to do next.

2. By asking them to reflect, notice, and choose their own next step.

The first approach secures compliance, but it often creates dependency. The second builds ownership and self-assessment. Over time, the “ask” approach develops a team that takes responsibility for its own performance without waiting for instruction.

Action

Telling: “You interrupted three times in that meeting.”

Asking alternatives:

• “What do you remember about how you spoke in that meeting?”

• “When you think back, what actions stood out most to you?”

• “If you were replaying the meeting, what would you notice yourself doing?”

These questions help someone develop the habit of self-observation.

Impact

Telling: “That slowed the team down.”

Asking alternatives:

• “What impact do you think that had on the team’s energy?”

• “How do you imagine others might have experienced that?”

• “If you were in their position, how might it have felt?”

• “What evidence do you see for the impact this had on the outcome?”

The point is not to deny your own perspective but to create space for them to see consequences through their own eyes first.

Development (or Desired Behaviour)

Telling: “Next time, listen more carefully.”

Asking alternatives:

• “What needs to change going forward?”

• “What would a better outcome look like for you?”

• “What specific actions would you like to try next time?”

• “How will you know you are making progress?”

• “When should we meet again to review results?”

These questions keep responsibility with the person and make it more likely they will follow through.

Why this matters

The choice is simple but powerful. Telling is faster, but the effect is temporary. Asking takes longer in the moment, but over time it creates a team culture of reflection, accountability, and growth.

Practical ways to apply

• Choose one action to focus on, not ten.

• Share what you observed, then ask what they noticed.

• Offer your view of the impact, then invite theirs.

• Allow silence so they can reflect.

• Close with their chosen next step, not your instruction.

This small shift, from telling to asking, turns the AID model from a feedback tool into a leadership practice.

Telling vs Asking examples

Bad Tell: Manager to team member after a client presentation: “That was awful. You just rambled and lost the audience. You need to be better prepared next time.”

Why this is bad:

• It uses sweeping judgements like “awful” and “rambled,” which attack the person rather than focus on specific behaviour.

• It offers no clear evidence of what went wrong, so the feedback feels personal and unfair.

• It closes off discussion, which can leave the person defensive, embarrassed, or demotivated.

• The instruction “be better prepared” is vague, so the individual does not know what exactly to do differently.

Good Tell: Manager to team member after a client presentation: “In the presentation, you skipped over three of the main slides. The client then asked for more details on those areas, which extended the meeting and left them a little uncertain about our proposal. Next time, I would like you to slow down and give a fuller explanation on each of the slides so the client gets the clarity they need.”

Why this is better:

• It stays factual by highlighting observable behaviour: skipping three slides.

• It links behaviour to a tangible impact: the client asked for clarification and left uncertain.

• It provides a clear and specific development point: slow down and explain fully.

• It gives direction without attacking character or intentions, which makes it more likely to be accepted.

Bad Ask: Manager to team member after a client presentation: “So, how do you think that went?”

Why this is bad:

• The question is too broad and unfocused, so the team member may latch onto irrelevant points or gloss over the real issue.

• Without scaffolding, the person might say “It went fine,” which blocks the chance for deeper reflection.

• It risks becoming a superficial chat rather than structured developmental feedback.

Better Ask: Manager to team member after a client presentation: “Thinking back to the presentation, what did you notice about how much time you spent on each slide? How do you think the client might have experienced that pace? If you were presenting again tomorrow, what one adjustment would you try to make sure the client leaves with clarity?”

Why this is better:

• It focuses attention on a specific action: the pacing of slides.

• It encourages reflection on the impact from the client’s perspective.

• It prompts the individual to generate their own improvement idea rather than simply following instructions.

• It creates a forward-looking, developmental focus that builds ownership of the next step.

AID feedback model example from my world

I once worked with a sales manager who was very direct and prided himself on “just telling it straight.” When his team missed activity targets, he gave feedback like this: “You missed three calls today. That slows the pipeline. Tomorrow, I want those calls done before lunch.” The team responded by doing what he asked, but only in the short term. They became reliant on his constant reminders. He found himself micromanaging daily activity, chasing targets, and dealing with low morale. Compliance was achieved, but ownership was missing.

We worked together to shift his approach to an asking version of AID. After noticing missed calls, he started conversations with questions such as: “Looking at today’s activity, what do you notice about your call patterns? How might that affect your pipeline progress? What would you like to adjust tomorrow to get a better result?” At first, the team found the questions unusual, but within a few weeks something changed. They began to notice gaps themselves and would bring ideas to the table before he asked. They started comparing approaches with each other, learning collectively, and holding themselves accountable.

The manager spent less time policing and more time coaching. Performance improved, but even more importantly, the team culture shifted from dependency to responsibility.

Why this matters in modern leadership

Today’s work relies far more on judgement, collaboration, and learning than on compliance.

Feedback therefore needs to develop thinking, not just correct behaviour.

Used consistently, AID builds teams that:

• Notice issues early
• Self-correct without being chased
• Learn from mistakes rather than hide them
• Take responsibility for results

This is why AID is not just a feedback tool, but a leadership practice.

Applying AID Feedback back to work

Feedback has the greatest impact when it becomes a regular part of how you lead, not a rare or uncomfortable event. The challenge is to move from good intentions to consistent practice.

Start by asking yourself three simple questions:

• Who on your team has done something worth recognising and reinforcing?

• Who could benefit from developmental feedback that helps them adjust or grow?

• Where are you hesitating to give feedback that, if offered constructively, could unlock progress?

Choose one or two people, not everyone at once. Feedback works best when it is focused and specific rather than spread too thin.

Before stepping into the conversation, pause for a quick self-check:

1. Am I focusing on facts or slipping into judgment? Keep to what you observed rather than speculating about motives or character.

2. Have I linked behaviour to a real impact? People change when they see why it matters.

3. Am I leaving space for the other person to generate the solution? Asking builds ownership in a way that telling cannot.

4. Do I know when I will follow up? Without follow-up, feedback risks being forgotten.

Now you are ready to prepare the conversation using the AID model:

1. Action – What specific behaviour did you observe? Be factual and concrete.

2. Impact – What was the consequence of that behaviour, either positive or negative, for results, the team, or customers?

3. Development or Desired Behaviour – What should continue, improve, or change going forward?

As you plan, decide whether you will lean more on telling (faster, but directive) or asking (slower, but ownership-building). Aim to include at least one “asking” question that prompts reflection and self-assessment.

Finally, set aside the time to have the conversation. Preparation is important, but feedback only has value when it is spoken, heard, and acted upon.

Your challenge: This week, commit to one AID conversation. Notice the difference it makes not only in performance but also in the quality of your dialogue and the responsibility your team members take for their own growth.

Frequently asked questions about the AID feedback model

1. What does AID stand for in feedback?

AID stands for Action, Impact, and Development or Desired Behaviour. It is a behavioural feedback structure that guides conversations through three distinct mental stages. Action establishes what happened using observable facts rather than interpretation. Impact explains why that behaviour matters by linking it to consequences for results, people, or customers. Development restores forward momentum by focusing the conversation on what should continue, improve, or change next. Together, these three stages create clarity, dignity, and direction, which are the foundations of effective feedback.

2. When should the AID model be used?

The AID model should be used whenever feedback is intended to influence future behaviour, not just comment on past performance. It is particularly valuable in performance conversations, coaching discussions, recognition, course correction, and situations where defensiveness or sensitivity may be present. Because it preserves psychological safety while maintaining clarity, it works equally well for reinforcing positive behaviour and addressing mistakes. AID is most effective when feedback needs to be both honest and constructive, especially in modern work environments that rely on judgement, collaboration, and learning rather than command-and-control compliance.

3. How is AID different from other feedback models?

Most feedback models focus on what to say. AID focuses on how people think while they are receiving feedback. It deliberately separates observable behaviour from personal interpretation, links behaviour to meaningful consequences, and restores agency through forward-looking development. This makes it psychologically safer and more sustainable than models that rely on judgement, praise alone, or instruction. AID is therefore not just a communication tool but a leadership practice that develops responsibility, reflection, and accountability over time.

4. Can the AID model be used for positive feedback as well as corrective feedback?

Yes. In fact, AID is often more powerful when used for recognition and reinforcement than for correction. Many leaders praise in vague terms, which makes positive feedback pleasant but forgettable. By naming specific actions, explaining their positive impact, and clarifying what should be continued or built upon, AID turns praise into learning. This helps people repeat and strengthen effective behaviour rather than leaving good performance to chance.

5. How does AID reduce defensiveness?

Defensiveness arises when people feel judged, misread, or personally criticised. AID reduces this by grounding feedback in observable behaviour rather than character, by explaining impact in neutral cause-and-effect terms, and by shifting the conversation toward improvement rather than blame. This sequence keeps the brain in a learning state rather than a protection state. As a result, people are more able to listen, reflect, and take responsibility for change.

6. What is the difference between telling and asking within AID?

Telling provides direction and can be useful when clarity and speed are required. Asking, however, builds ownership, reflection, and long-term capability. Within AID, telling focuses on stating the Action, Impact, and Development directly. Asking uses questions to help the individual notice their own behaviour, understand its impact, and choose their own next steps. Over time, the asking approach develops self-managing teams who correct and improve their own performance without waiting for instruction.

7. How can leaders embed AID into everyday leadership practice?

Leaders can embed AID by using it consistently in everyday conversations rather than reserving it for formal reviews. This includes recognising good work, addressing small issues early, and inviting reflection in routine check-ins. Over time, the language of Action, Impact, and Development becomes part of how the team thinks about performance. This creates a culture in which feedback is normalised, learning is continuous, and responsibility is shared rather than enforced.

8. What are common mistakes when using the AID model?

Common mistakes include using too many actions at once, drifting into personal judgement, overstating impact, and prescribing solutions without inviting ownership. These errors turn AID into a directive tool rather than a developmental practice. Effective use of AID requires focus, factual grounding, meaningful consequence mapping, and genuine space for the individual to participate in shaping their next steps. When applied with these principles in mind, AID becomes a powerful driver of growth rather than compliance.

Beyond this post

If you would like support embedding AID into your leadership practice, coaching programmes, or team culture, this is where to explore further.

• There is a range of resources and other models on feedback in the FEEDBACK HUB.
• Feedback, both giving and receiving are included in the 100+ capabilities shared on the Leadership Library page.
• If you are struggling with a person being defensive then THIS article from my Leadership Questions page may be of interest.