The SBI framework — Situation, Behaviour, Impact — is a way of giving feedback that describes exactly what happened, in three short steps, before it turns into an opinion about someone’s character. You name the moment (Situation), the specific thing they did or said (Behaviour), and what happened as a result (Impact). No “you always,” no guessing at intent — just what happened and what it caused. I’ve used some version of this with the lenders on my team for most of my career, not because it’s fashionable HR theory, but because the alternative — vague, feelings-based feedback — doesn’t actually change anyone’s behaviour. It just makes the conversation harder than it needed to be.
Where it actually comes up
I had a lender on my team a few years back — genuinely good with clients, strong pipeline, one of my better performers on paper — who had a habit of telling referral partners a settlement would be ready faster than it realistically could be. Not lying, exactly. Optimism. He’d tell a broker “should be done by Friday” when he knew there were still valuation and mortgage-insurer steps outstanding that made Friday a stretch. It happened enough times that two of our better referral relationships started double-checking everything he told them, which is its own kind of damage — once a partner stops trusting your timelines, they start going around you.
The easy, lazy version of that feedback conversation is “you need to manage expectations better with referrers.” True, but useless. He’d nod, agree, and do exactly the same thing next month, because I hadn’t actually told him what I saw or why it mattered.
What the conversation looked like instead
Situation: I picked one specific instance, not a pattern I’d vaguely noticed. “In the call with a broker last Tuesday, when they asked about a refinance file they’d sent us.”
Behaviour: I described what I’d actually heard, not my interpretation of it. “You told them settlement would be Friday, even though the file was still waiting on the insurer, and we both knew that step alone usually takes three to five business days.”
Impact: I told him what actually happened next, in concrete terms. “Settlement slipped to the following Wednesday. The broker called me directly, not you, to ask what was going on — which means they’re now checking your word against mine instead of trusting what you tell them the first time.”
That last part is what actually landed. He wasn’t defensive, because I wasn’t attacking his character or his effort — I was describing one specific moment and one specific consequence he hadn’t seen from where he was sitting. He genuinely hadn’t clocked that the broker had gone around him. Once he could see that, the fix wasn’t a lecture from me, it was his own idea: he started building in an extra two days of buffer whenever an insurer step was still open, and telling partners “I’ll confirm by Wednesday” rather than guessing at a date he didn’t control.
Why the order matters
The reason this works better than “you need to be more careful with timelines” is sequencing. If you lead with impact or judgment — “this makes us look unreliable” — people get defensive before they’ve even agreed on what happened. Starting with the situation and the specific behaviour gets both of you looking at the same facts first. By the time you get to impact, there’s nothing to argue about, because you’ve already agreed on what was said and done.
It works just as well running the other direction, which I use more often than the correction version. When a lender handles a rate-rise-anxious client well — actually walks them through their serviceability numbers instead of just reassuring them everything’s fine — I’ll tell them exactly that: this client, this is specifically what you did, and here’s what it meant for whether they stayed with us. Positive SBI feedback is more specific praise than “great job,” and specific praise is the only kind people actually remember and try to repeat.
The part that trips people up
The behaviour step is where most people slip back into judgment without noticing. “You were sloppy with that file” is not a behaviour — it’s a verdict. “You told the broker Friday when the insurer step was still open” is a behaviour. If you can’t picture the exact moment you’re describing, you’re not ready to give the feedback yet — go find the specific instance first, because a vague accusation is exactly the kind of feedback that breeds the defensiveness this framework exists to avoid.
None of this needs a training course or a script taped to your monitor. It’s three questions in order: what was the situation, what did they specifically do, what happened because of it. Ask those three in that order, out loud, in your next one-on-one, and you’ll notice the conversation goes somewhere useful instead of in circles.
Prefer LinkedIn? I post there first — follow along for the same insights as they go up.
Written by Michael Wignall, Lending Area Manager with 30+ years in banking and home lending across the ACT, Illawarra, and Riverina. Got a question or an idea for a post? Get in touch.
Discover more from Random Thoughts whilst working
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
