Stick to the Facts
In Erikson’s color typology, a Blue is described as preferring specific, factual feedback. He advises stating the performance issue directly, explaining the evidence and discussing improvements rather than burying criticism between unrelated compliments.
THE IDEA
Stick to the Facts
Erikson recommends concrete facts when delivering a serious message to someone he describes as a Blue personality. In his account, unrelated praise can distract from the issue. If you try to soften the blow with relational or emotional padding—telling him how appreciated he is, how valuable an employee he is, or that you like him very much—he may be unsure what you are actually trying to say, because to him, the conversation is not about your relationship; he is there to do a job, not to be your pal. So talk about the job. Stick strictly to the facts.
The famous “sandwich method” used by many managers—wrapping a piece of criticism between two slices of praise—is particularly ineffective here. Commonly known as “praise and blame,” this technique muddles your message, leaving the recipient unsure of what you really wanted to communicate. Erikson argues that this wrapping can distract a Blue from the professional issue. Instead, simply deliver the unvarnished truth about performance, outcomes, or behavior. Feel free, afterwards, to ask if he has any suggestions for improvement, and use the language he is comfortable with: words like “quality,” “evaluate,” “analyze,” and “follow up.” This approach respects his need for clarity and data, and you will get through far more easily.
Erikson also recommends factual feedback for someone he describes as a Red, framing it around a problem they can help solve. In one situation, the author delivered criticism to a Red boss not by padding the message with relational praise, but by framing the facts in a way that placed the boss in the position of the key to the team’s success. The criticism essentially appealed to the Red’s ego: he saw himself as the great leader whose ability to lead the group was the critical factor in achieving total dominance. Within this typology, the suggested emphasis differs: detailed evidence for a Blue and a problem-solving role for a Red. In either case, keep the issue clear and check how the person actually responds.
When to use it
Delivering performance reviews to results-oriented employees.
Pitching a new strategy to a senior leader who is focused on metrics and efficiency.
Resolving a technical disagreement with a colleague who prioritizes logical arguments over personal perspectives.
Negotiating a contract with a client who demands data-driven justifications.
Giving performance reviews to analytical team members
Providing corrective feedback in a technical project
Delivering criticism to a data-driven colleague without damaging the relationship
Discussing budget cuts with a finance manager
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Critiquing a Red Manager
A manager discusses delayed approvals with a boss who values solving problems: decisions are reaching the team too late, and an agreed response time would help. The feedback names the issue and a change the boss can make.
Persuading a Red Colleague
To convince a Red colleague to adopt a new process, present it as a factual improvement that will fix an existing problem, emphasizing their expertise and ability to solve it.
Giving factual feedback about customer loss
Instead of saying 'You're a valued employee, but you lost too many customers, and we appreciate your efforts,' say 'According to our records, you lost 5 customers this quarter. Let's analyze the reasons and find solutions.' This sticks to facts and avoids confusing the Blue.
The confusing sandwich method
A manager tells a Blue: 'You're great, but you were rude to Ben, but overall you're a great team player.' The Blue would be confused about the real message because the positive relational statements obscure the factual criticism.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Identify a person in your life who exhibits strong Red traits. How can you tailor your next piece of feedback to appeal to their problem-solving identity?
How can you state the facts clearly while also recognizing how the conversation affects the other person?
When might factual feedback need additional context, explanation or time for the other person to respond?
Think of a recent feedback conversation you had with a detail-oriented colleague. Did you stick to facts or use emotional wrappers? How could you improve?
How can you identify if someone is a 'Blue' personality type in your team?
What specific factual data can you prepare before giving negative feedback to ensure clarity and avoid confusion?
Often confused with
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Surrounded By Idiots (Thomas Erikson)
- Surrounded By Idiots (Thomas Erikson)