Skip to main content
Category: Methods
Type: Feedback method
Origin: Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro; in print by 1998
Also known as: SBI feedback model
Quick Answer — Situation-Behavior-Impact is a way to give feedback in three parts: one specific moment, the action you could see or hear, and the effect that action had. The Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro was teaching it in print by 1998. A judgment about character is a different sentence, and it does not belong on the behavior line.

​
What is Situation-Behavior-Impact?

Situation-Behavior-Impact is a feedback method that names one specific moment, describes only the action a person could see or hear, and states the effect that action had.
SBI provides a structure that helps keep your feedback focused and relevant, and increases the likelihood it will be received in a clear, non-defensive manner by the recipient.
A 2014 course module from the Center for Creative Leadership puts the aim that way, and the Center shortens the name to SBI. In the same materials, useful feedback is direct, tied to behavior, and free of evaluation. The three parts turn those rules into a sentence someone else can check. Picture a phone camera at a family dinner, paused at 7:10, while a parent asks about a test and a teenager looks at a phone. The clip can show that sequence, and it cannot show that the teenager is selfish. Situation-Behavior-Impact stays with the clip, then adds the effect the speaker actually met: the question stopped, and the parent still does not know how the test went. The Ladder of Inference is what happens if you skip the clip and start several rungs up, at a motive.

​
Situation-Behavior-Impact in 3 Depths

  • Beginner: If you cannot name the day and the place, you are holding a mood, not a fact, so wait until you can point.
  • Practitioner: Write the action, then delete every word a camera could not record. Read the effect as a result, then stop talking and let the other person answer.
  • Advanced: The wording keeps attention on the task, which is where feedback is less likely to become a comment on the self. The sentence still cannot supply a private room, a fair record, or proof that the work later changed.

​
Origin

Situation-Behavior-Impact comes from the Center for Creative Leadership, and the Center’s own guidebooks were already teaching it by 1998. The Center was founded in 1970 in Greensboro, North Carolina, as a nonprofit educational institution, with early support from the Smith Richardson Foundation. Its work sits between leadership research and the practice of managers, and feedback became one of the skills it trains. In 1998, Karen Kirkland and Sam Manoogian published Ongoing Feedback: How to Get It, How to Use It with the Center in Greensboro. It is number 400 in the Center’s Ideas into Action series. The guidebook is about asking for feedback you can use, and it recommends Situation-Behavior-Impact so the answer that comes back is relevant and specific. Sloan R. Weitzel’s Feedback That Works: How to Build and Deliver Your Message (Center for Creative Leadership, 2000) then showed how to deliver the message. A second edition in 2019 updated how the Center teaches and demonstrates the model. The core in that teaching is still three parts. Later lessons add a question about what the person meant, and only after the three facts are on the table. The question extends the method, and the name of the method stays Situation-Behavior-Impact.

​
Key Points

Situation-Behavior-Impact earns its keep when the three parts stay in order and each part stays in its own job. The four moves below are that method.
1

Pin one moment

Name the day, the place, and the occasion before you name the action. “In Tuesday’s design review, when the prototype was on the screen” gives the other person a scene to find. “Lately” and “you always” do not give anyone a scene to find. One moment is enough, and a pile of moments becomes a prosecution.
2

Describe only the recording

Say what a camera or a transcript would catch: words, tone, and visible acts. “You said the layout was a mess and closed the laptop” is a recording, and “You were rude” is a verdict. If a motive word survives the edit, you have climbed the ladder, so put that word aside until you can ask.
3

State the effect, then stop

Say what the action did to the work, to another person, or to you. “The designer stopped the walkthrough, and we left without a decision” is an effect, and “You do not care about the team” is a character claim. Feelings are allowed when they are yours, as in “I lost the thread,” and they are not a license to diagnose the other person. Then pause.
4

Ask intent only after the facts

If you still need the motive, ask what the person was trying to do. “What were you aiming for when you closed the laptop?” leaves the answer with them. The Center teaches this question as a follow-up, after the three parts. Supplying the motive yourself returns the sentence to a guess.

​
Applications

Use Situation-Behavior-Impact when you saw or heard one action and the other person needs its effect. Each tactic below can be drafted in a few minutes.

Rewrite a trait in a review

Find one adjective in the draft, such as “unprepared” or “not a team player.” Replace it with the meeting, the action, and the effect on the decision. In a short written note, readers often need the effect in the first line. That order is the move in the Minto Pyramid Principle. The three facts stay, and only the sequence changes for the page.

Ask for the three parts

In a new job, “Any feedback?” often returns “You’re doing fine.” Ask for one moment from that morning, the action the person saw, and the effect it had. Kirkland and Manoogian aimed the 1998 guidebook at this request, so you collect a recording instead of a grade.

Score a practice sentence

After a class presentation, write one note in the three parts, then trade notes. Mark whether a stranger could find the moment, whether the action is visible, and whether the effect is a result. A later workshop found the situation line was the weak one, so check that line first.

Use one household moment

At home, trade “You never listen” for a single dinner. Name the time, the phone, the question, and what you still do not know. One clip invites an answer, while a trait invites a fight about identity. Speak it privately, close to the evening, and then wait.

​
Case Study

In 2025, one hour of practice changed how many first-year medical students said they could explain Situation-Behavior-Impact. The change was in confidence, and the poster counts it. Steve Garwood, EdD, of Rowan University’s Department of Medical Education and Scholarship, reported a workshop for first-year students in the osteopathic medical program. The poster marks them as OMS1 and lists about 288 students in the session. The school had been asking those students to give feedback to classmates and to faculty. The session ran on Webex for one hour, with a short lesson plus work in the large group and in small groups. Garwood presented the results at the 29th Rowan-Virtua Research Day on 1 May 2025. The question was whether that hour changed what students believed they could do. A Slido survey asked the same confidence items before and after, on a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. On “I am confident that I can explain the Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) Feedback Framework,” 24 of 184 responses agreed or strongly agreed beforehand, and only 3 of those 184 strongly agreed. After the hour, 191 of 205 agreed or strongly agreed, and 62 of the 205 strongly agreed. A neighboring item moved less, because it started high. Confidence that they could provide effective feedback went from 138 of 184 to 190 of 195. Many students already felt able to give feedback, and far fewer felt able to explain this method, so the hour mainly closed that gap. These are two pools of responses, not a paired score for each person. The poster reports 184 responses before the session and, on the explain item, 205 after it. It does not report a group that practiced a different script. Garwood’s discussion reads the shift as better knowledge and a better ability to give feedback, while the items themselves ask about confidence. A later poster at the 30th Rowan-Virtua Research Day, on 6 May 2026, looked at the sentences, not only at confidence. Its abstract says a one-hour workshop yielded 75 group-written feedback statements, with a mean rubric score of 15.4 out of 20. Tone and professionalism scored highest, and defining the situation clearly scored lower. The abstract also says 98 percent of students agreed or strongly agreed they could apply the model. The public page does not name the authors, and it does not say how many students sit behind that percent. What the method explains is the teachable split: students can learn to separate a moment, an action, and an effect. What it does not explain is whether clinics, wards, or teams then perform better. The 2026 scores even warn that the first part, the situation, is the part people still skip.

​
Boundaries and Failure Modes

Situation-Behavior-Impact fails when you did not see the action, when the event needs a formal process, or when the three sentences still judge the person. The first boundary is observation. Secondhand reports and the word “always” have no clip to replay. If you were not there, say who told you and ask what happened, or wait until you see it. A confident sentence about an unseen act is a rumor with better grammar. The second boundary is the kind of problem. Harassment, safety, theft, and any case your organization must investigate are not coaching moments. A three-part sentence does not replace a record, a witness process, or a decision with consequences. Use the method for a behavior someone can change in ordinary work. When two real needs collide, and each side’s action blocks the other, describing one action leaves the clash in place. That problem fits a Conflict Resolution Diagram, which tests the assumption holding the two needs apart. The common misuse keeps the three labels and smuggles in a trait. “In the review, you were disrespectful, which shows you do not care” has a time, a word of blame, and a conclusion about character. That pattern is the Fundamental Attribution Error in feedback form: the person is treated as the cause, and the situation drops out. Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi showed why the smuggle matters. In Psychological Bulletin (1996), they pooled 607 effects of feedback interventions, from 12,652 participants and 23,663 observations. The weighted average effect was d = 0.41, and more than 38 percent of the effects were negative. Their account says feedback loses force as attention moves from the task toward the self. Situation-Behavior-Impact is an attempt to stay on the task. Their review did not test this wording, and a trait in the middle line walks attention back to the self.

​
Common Misconceptions

Three familiar habits put a judgment back into a sentence that was built to carry facts.
The sandwich wraps a criticism between two compliments. Situation-Behavior-Impact uses the same three parts for praise and for a correction, and each message can stand on its own. Praise is one moment, one action, and one good effect, and a correction is a different moment. Folding them into one breath trains the listener to wait for the blow.
Impact is the result you met: a lost decision, a repeated question, or a feeling you can name as yours. A motive is a guess about someone else’s mind. “You do not respect the client” names a character, and “The client left without a price, and I could not repair it in the room” names an effect. Keep the guess as a question, after the three facts.
A clear sentence is easier to use, and the format alone is not a performance result. Kluger and DeNisi found an average gain and a large share of losses, across feedback in general, while Garwood measured confidence after one hour. The stance you bring still matters. Radical Candor is care for the person plus a direct challenge. The three parts can carry the challenge. They do not create the care, and they do not prove the work improved, so say the sentence and then look at the work.
These pages take the jobs that sit beside the sentence: slowing a conclusion, separating person from situation, choosing a stance, ordering a written note, and mapping a clash.

Ladder of Inference

The behavior line is the bottom rung. A motive is several rungs up. Stay on the rung you can point to.

Fundamental Attribution Error

The pull to explain someone’s act by their character. The behavior line is where that pull has to be refused.

Radical Candor

A stance of caring about the person and challenging them directly. The three parts are a script, not the stance.

Minto Pyramid Principle

In writing, lead with the effect, then give the moment and the action as the proof under it.

Conflict Resolution Diagram

Use this when two needs collide. A single behavior note will not retire the assumption that keeps the clash necessary.

​
One-Line Takeaway

Write the time, the action a camera would catch, and the effect, then let the other person speak.