Be more “strategic” isn’t feedback, its confusion.

Most feedback is fundamentally useless.

Not because it is wrong, but because it is too “blurry” to do anything with.

Let me explain. A 'leader' says, “You need to develop your strategic thinking,” and feels they have given developmental feedback. The person nods, tries to look reflective, maybe even writes it down, but walks away with almost nothing useful.

They know they need to be “more strategic.”

They do not know what that means specifically, for them, at this moment in time.

Nothing changes other than they know they aren’t meeting the mark.

I see well intentioned-leaders at even the highest levels of large organisations falling into this trap every day. Leaders use big, clever-sounding words like communication, leadership, influence, commercial, stakeholder management, executive presence, emotional intelligence and strategic thinking, and mistaking those words for clarity.

They are not clarity.

They are categories.

And categories do not develop people.

If you tell someone they need to improve their strategic thinking, what exactly are you asking them to change?

Do you mean they are too focused on short-term execution? That they fail to anticipate risk? That they do not understand the commercial implications of their decisions? That they cannot connect their function to the broader business? That they wait to be told the direction rather than leading it? That they do not understand trade-offs? All of the above?

All of those could sit under “strategic thinking.”

Which means the phrase itself has not clarified anything. It has created the impression of feedback without giving the person a clear path forward.

This is what I call a blurry word.

A blurry word sounds intelligent. It often points to something real. It might even be accurate. But it is too broad to be useful unless it is also translated into observable behaviour.

The problem is that most people do not challenge blurry feedback. They nod because they are already feeling exposed. They do not want to further expose their already identified lack of capability even further by saying, “I don’t actually know what you mean.”

But they don’t know what you mean, and they leave with hope not direction.

They hope they can become more strategic. More influential. More commercial. More executive. More emotionally intelligent.

They want to change! But hope does not equal a development plan.

This is where leaders become frustrated. They believe they have been clear, so when the person does not change, they assume the person is not capable, not trying, not self-aware enough, or not taking the feedback seriously.

But often the issue is simple: the feedback was unusable.

The person cannot act on what they cannot see.

And blurry words do not help them see.

They make people feel judged, but not guided. They make people feel exposed, but not equipped. They create just enough insight for the person to pretend they understand, but not enough substance for them to know what to do next.

When feedback is blurry, development stalls. The person stays the same, the leader becomes frustrated, and both sides quietly draw the wrong conclusion.

The leader thinks, “They are not changing.”

The person thinks, “I am not meeting expectations, maybe I’m not capable, but I don’t quite know what to do differently.”

The leader is stuck 'managing' the capability gap and wondering why

Something needs to change and the fix is clear - if you want someone to develop, move from blurry words to specific observed behaviour.

Not: “You need to improve your communication.”

But: “In the last three leadership meetings, when you were challenged, you became very detailed and spoke for several minutes without pausing. It became hard to determine what your core message was.”

Not: “You need stronger executive presence.”

But: “When you presented to the board, you opened with background detail for nearly ten minutes before stating the decision you wanted. The room became impatient before you reached the point, and I think it weakened the authority of your recommendation.”

Not: “You need to be more strategic.”

But: “When we discussed the expansion plan, you gave a strong view on the immediate operational requirements, but you did not speak to the commercial risks, the possible impact on other teams, or what this could mean twelve months or twelve years from now.”

Now the person has something they can see.

And if they can see it, they can work with it.

That is the difference between a label and an observation.

A blurry word points generally at a development area. An observation shows someone exactly where it is appearing.

This is useful leadership. Not to sound clever. Not to tick the feedback box. Not to hand someone a polished phrase and expect transformation.

The work is to pay enough attention that you can show someone what they do, what they do not do, and what the gap actually looks like in practice.

That requires more from the leader.

It requires you to move past your conclusion and ask yourself, “What have I actually seen?”

What did they say? What did they not say? What happened in the room? What impact did it have? What was missing?

Those questions force clarity by taking feedback out of abstraction and into reality.

And reality is where development starts.

So before you tell someone they need to be more strategic, more influential, more commercial, more confident, more emotionally intelligent or better at stakeholder management, stop.

Ask yourself whether you are about to give them clarity or just a label that they may hold onto for years without understanding what it really meant.

If your people do not know exactly what you mean, their development will be as blurry as your communication.

So now I'll ask you as the leader - what are you becoming aware of for your own development as a result of understanding the impact of 'blurry words'? Do you use them, or are you already wise to the dangers of this generalisation?