Intro
Some approaches just won’t die. One of the worst is: “Here’s what’s wrong with you.” And its endless variations, from “I’ll tell you what your issue is” to “Here’s where most people go wrong.”
Even though research keeps piling up on its adverse effects, it’s still so prevalent in public media, newsletters, and workshops that it’s very hard to find anything that specifically calls it out. It seems to remain the default approach for many starting out in advisory roles. Let’s look at what’s wrong with it.
“What’s wrong” is contextual, even standards are contextual
Advice delivered from the “what’s wrong” angle almost always lacks the full context. The complexity of someone’s situation, their life constraints, trade-offs, emotional load, internal baggage, and cultural matrix, etc., is largely hidden. They often would be, even from their therapist. An advisor operates on a significantly more superficial level, in comparison. Declaring to know what’s wrong from that position isn’t bold; it’s irresponsible.
Then there’s the question of rightness itself. Due to egocentric bias, we see everything through our own experiences, making our “right” feel like the one and only truth, while it’s typically invalid in others’ context. We also have a bias blind spot, making sure that we don’t even notice when we’re promoting our own context-specific view instead of the “truth.” As a result, much of the well-intentioned advice is only valid in the advisor’s own context, including their professional stage, business maturity, financial stance, emotional resources, network composition, etc.
Feedback is inherently sensitive
Feedback, by nature, is uncomfortable. It signals scrutiny, being watched and judged from behind a glass wall, and as such is intrusive and alienating. Feedback, even well-intentioned and specifically asked for, feels like a verdict. Being hinted at during a neutral discussion is no exception; just talking about someone’s behavior can put them immediately on alert. Things quickly get worse when feedback drifts from “what you do” to “what you are.” Giving comments that involve fixed traits (e.g., personality, physical attributes, identity) is among the fastest ways to shut people down.
So what is safe to talk about?
Safe talking is commenting on what else could be done (not what was done wrong), that would help the situation (not the whole world in general), and what the person needs to do (not what they need to be).
Trying to fix what’s wrong is de-skilling
We know a lot about the mechanism of attention When attention is locked onto flaws, strengths typically become neglected and start to deteriorate. Attempts to “fix weaknesses” often erode the very capabilities that made someone successful in the first place. Also, when fixating on what is wrong, scanning the environment to find fault quickly becomes habitual, and chances are you will see problems everywhere.
The other danger of building a development plan based on “what is wrong” is that new skills and strategies develop around what the advisor notices, not necessarily around what actually matters, or what scales across contexts.
Power imbalance makes it worse
Power dynamics make “fault-listing” approaches do even more damage. Consultants, managers, and supervisors who give advice often influence the progression, reputation, income, or opportunity of the advisee. That makes them authority figures and creates a power imbalance in the relationship. Critical feedback delivered from a position of authority shuts down motivation instead of promoting growth. Only when the advisee is in an equal or higher position can motivation be delivered as expected, due to power rebalancing. For everyone else, “fault-listing” generates fear, anxiety, and declining results.
In contrast, reinforcing what works keeps people engaged, capable, and moving forward.
Judging comes with low credibility
The reputation of the advisor themselves can also be negatively impacted by telling “what’s wrong” with people. When someone catalogs faults, they position themselves as judge rather than partner. Rapport is gone; credibility follows. Reason being, it signals an inability, or unwillingness, to see potential. By discussing flaws rather than potential, the implicit message is: “I don’t see your value.” Psychologically, this is not feedback; it’s emotional abuse, and when done in a public setting, borders on public humiliation.
Point to what’s possible
The language of judgment won’t disappear overnight; blog posts, newsletters, and workshops are still littered with it. But the lesson is clear for anyone serious about results: for effective work, focus on potential instead of driving attention to what is—likely due to the lack of full context—considered a flaw.
