Comparing Authoritative and Impact Feedback

Note three critical qualities of authoritative types of feedback (directive, contingency, and attribution) as opposed to impact feedback: it is judgmental, prescriptive, and focused on the feedback receiver.

In giving authoritative feedback, you must make a determination about good or bad, right or wrong. Impact feedback, however, is quite different. It does not judge the receiver or the receiver’s actions. Instead, impact feedback is nonjudgmental and informative. It describes reactions to and consequences of the actions of the receiver.

Authoritative feedback prescribes behavior. Based on a judgment of what is preferred or better, the feedback message contains an explicit or implicit prescription for how to act, what to do, or how things should be. Impact feedback contains no prescription. It is empowering; it leaves the receiver free to choose a course of action rather than comply or defy the prescription.

Further, authoritative feedback focuses on the receiver. One could say you are pointing your finger at the receiver. It is either about the receiver personally (“You did this” or “You did not do that”) or about the result of what the receiver has done (“It is good” or “It is bad.”). Impact feedback focuses on the giver, third parties, or the organization. It is about disclosure, not accusation.