Behavior Then Feeling: The Feedback Formula
Describe what a camera would see, then name the exact emotion it caused.
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 86%
Vohra runs difficult conversations through a fixed formula. First, describe the behaviour dispassionately, using what a camera would be able to see as the rule of thumb: you turned up forty-five minutes late for our dinner reservation, or this work had these specific quality issues. Second, and separately, state how it made you feel. The hard part is that the natural words are not emotions at all — I feel attacked, I feel unsupported, I feel let down are passive descriptions of what you think the other person did, and they land as accusations. What you actually want is the real internal state: I'm feeling lonely, I'm feeling disappointed, I'm feeling anguish. When the word will not come, he goes to an emotion wheel, finds the relevant section, and looks up the appropriate emotion.
Origin
Extracted from Acquired: Vohra explains how the emotional vocabulary he uses as a game designer transfers into feedback and conflict, and recommends conflict training to founders.
Core principles
- 01Separate the objective behaviour from how it made you feel.
- 02Describe only what a camera could have recorded.
- 03Passive phrases like 'I feel attacked' are accusations, not emotions.
- 04A real emotion names your state, not the other person's intent.
- 05A wide emotional vocabulary is a communication tool, not a therapeutic luxury.
- 06The same discipline works at home and at work.
How to run it
- 1
Get conflict and feedback training
Vohra strongly advises founders to get trained on giving and receiving difficult feedback rather than improvising it.
- 2
State the behaviour as a camera would record it
Describe the specific observable event with no inference about intent. If a camera could not have captured it, it does not belong in this sentence.
Pro tip Concrete details — the forty-five minutes, the specific quality issues — keep the statement arguable in facts rather than in motives.
Watch out Any word about why they did it collapses the separation the formula depends on.
- 3
Separate the feeling into its own statement
Say how the behaviour made you feel as a distinct second step, so the observation and the emotional impact never blur together.
Watch out Outside work most people relax their standards on this, which is exactly where it matters most.
- 4
Catch the passive pseudo-emotions
Notice when the word you want describes the other person's supposed action rather than your state — attacked, unsupported, let down are all accusations wearing an emotion's clothes.
Pro tip Test the word: if it implies something they did, it is not your emotion.
Watch out These are the words that come most naturally, which is why they need an explicit check.
- 5
Look up the real emotion
Go to an emotion wheel, find the section you are in, and pick the accurate word — lonely, disappointed, anguished — then say that instead.
Pro tip Naming the section first (anger, sadness) narrows the search quickly.
In the wild
In a particularly difficult disagreement, Vohra caught himself wanting to say he felt attacked. Knowing that was unfair — it described an intent the other person did not have — he went to the emotion wheel, navigated to what he judged to be the anger section, and looked up the appropriate emotion before speaking. The conversation then ran on his actual state rather than on an implied accusation.
→ A disagreement conducted in accurate emotional terms instead of escalating into defence and counter-attack.
The formula in its simplest form: 'you turned up forty-five minutes late for our dinner reservation' as the camera-visible behaviour, followed separately by the specific feeling it produced. Nothing about carelessness, disrespect or what it says about the relationship enters the first sentence.
→ Feedback the other person can engage with rather than dispute.
Common mistakes
Using passive words as emotions
Attacked, unsupported and let down all describe what you believe the other person did. They provoke defence because they are accusations, not disclosures.
Fusing behaviour and interpretation
Once motive enters the description of the event, the conversation becomes an argument about intent rather than about impact.
Applying it only at work
Most people hold themselves to a lower communication standard at home, which is where the blurring does the most damage.
Is it for you?
Best for
Founders, managers and partners who have to give or receive hard feedback and want it to land.
Not ideal for
Situations requiring immediate directive instruction rather than a two-way conversation.
From the transcript
“You know, what a camera would be able to see is always my rule of thumb.”
“I feel attacked, I feel unsupported, I feel let down. Well, guess what? These aren't really emotions.”
“What we actually want to say is something like, I'm feeling lonely, or I'm feeling disappointed, or I'm feeling anguish”
From the episode
Special: Superhuman Part II - Designing Software to Feel like a Game (with Rahul Vohra)