The “Bredemeier” Feedback. Different. Peer-centered.

Entrepreneurs and top executives are repeatedly faced with the challenge of conveying critical or pivotal messages to employees, customers, family members, and even potential or selected successors to the business. Some are only somewhat accustomed to this or even find it genuinely difficult. Based on various pieces of feedback, it appears that they often leave a “scorched earth” in their wake. Why is that? Simply because this terrain—giving feedback—is often unfamiliar to them.

The negative (!) outcomes of feedback conversations are manifold: children who subsequently question the succession plan, potential successors who subsequently vote “No!”, broken relationships, and resignations—whether spoken or “internal”!

It’s a shame, because this is unnecessary.

In general, feedback pursues a clear goal. It’s about either stabilizing or destabilizing behavior or communication—in other words, consolidating the status quo or bringing about change.

But let’s put an end to the classic feedback model based on Friedemann Schulz von Thun (1) or Marshall Rosenberg (2), an end to“Perception – Impact – Desire”or even the three-step sequence

1. What do I perceive?

2. How does it affect me?

3. What do I want?

Or the “feedback burger”

1. Address the positive,

2. Address critical issues

3. Bring the conversation back to a positive note.

The reasons for this are obvious.

• According to Ambrose Bierce, “I” is “the first personal pronoun, the first word in language, the first thought of the mind, the first object of affection.”—in other words, a spiritual world power consisting of three simple letters, with the “i” named after the little finger of the alphabet, according to Ramon Gomez de la Serna.

• “I” messages are statements that, on the one hand, are intended to emphasize the subjective nature of the feedback; on the other hand, we run the risk that they will fizzle out as a message to my conversation partner and ultimatelyamount to nothing more than feedback about me asthe person giving the feedback .

• Please be aware that “I” messages and “you” messages generally refer to the subject of the sentence; personal and possessive pronouns are, of course, perfectly acceptable to maintain a personal level of rapport.

• Furthermore, “I” messages often serve as a vehicle for our verbal incompetence and mental bankruptcy (“I think… believe… would say… hope…”).

• Furthermore, when combined with“not-messages” (“I don’t see it that way”), “I” messages very often become our patterns of justification and quickly put us on the defensive.

• Froma sociopsychological perspective, “I” messages can quickly become confrontational, as they trigger a potential confrontation if the other person is skeptical—a classic example of this is recommendation management: in many seminars, we learn to introduce recommendations with “I recommend that you…” —the sociopsychological pattern, however, reflexively builds on the other person’s intention, goal, or motivation, for example with an introduction like“Given your stated intention to optimize your communication skills, it’s advisable for you to… and that is also my recommendation!” These are so-called “ad-on” phrases; they avoid confrontation and, if the feedback is accepted, serve to reinforce it.

• In conflict research, “I-You” messages are critically viewed as triggers for confrontation. Imagine the following situation (exaggerated!):

• At a demonstration. A law enforcement officer says to a protester standing across from him, “I perceive your proximity as a threat. This makes me feel extremely uneasy, and I’d like you to take five steps back immediately and maintain an appropriate distance. I’d also like you to drop the rock in your left hand and the stick in your right hand as well. Then I’d feel more at ease...”

• Doesn’t that sound familiar? It’s foreign to me, too. I’ve had different experiences in martial arts classes with mobile law enforcement units as well.

• And that brings us to the topic of altruism. After all, feedback should be selfless—free from self-interest—but in my assessment, this is impossible. What does work, however, is other-centeredness. While we do have a self-interest in giving feedback, we set that aside and focus on the other person’s situation. First and foremost, the purpose and goal is for the recipient of the feedback to experience a change within themselves—whether their behavior or communication becomes more stable or less so. And for that to happen, it’s important that they recognize the added value for themselves. While motivation is extrinsically oriented—that is, it describes external influence, such as through a bonus— motivation is intrinsically oriented, meaning it focuses on the benefit that the person recognizes for themselves.

• For decades, research has shown that only positive statements and phrasing(key words to avoid here are“not,” “no,” and “without”)are truly effective—yet in practice, and especially when giving feedback, we repeatedly violate this rule.

  • Here are a few examples:

  • “Please don’tget me wrong...” – “Please understand me correctly...!”

  • “This isn’t a criticism of you...”

  • “Without meaning to offend you…!” ...

  • Please be sure to distinguish

  • negative statements with negative connotations (“There’s no risk here!”),

  • negative statements with positive connotations (“there’s no chance for us here!”),

  • positive statements with negative connotations (“That’s a latent risk!”), and

  • positive statements with positive connotations (“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity!”).

• Theologically speaking, the Holy Roman Church is familiar with the old patterns of “I” messages. In 1147, we had too few volunteers for the Crusades to Jerusalem; at that time, the revivalist preacher and Cistercian Father Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090–1153) arrived on the Pope’s behalf to articulate the theologically significant fundamental idea that, while the collective stood under the Lord’s protection, the individual could stand up for our protective God by riding to Jerusalem and fighting for our God. The individual had finally found his place in world history. This tradition then continued during the Cold War and likewise in the student revolts of the 1960s. That’s the short version.

• Particularly noteworthyfromaBuddhistperspective is the book by neurologist Chris Neuberger, *No Self—No Problem!* is particularly noteworthy, as is the bestseller *EGO—The Game of Life* by the late *FAZ* editor Frank Schirrmacher —for all those who would like to approach the strong focus on the self from a different angle.

• And ultimately, we’re accustomed to reacting to results with grades, but only guidance on the processitself helps usmove forward. What good is it to tell an employee that “his report is incomplete!”? He can only revise it meaningfully if he knows exactly where to add what content. That’s why it’s important to use clear, concise, and goal-oriented prompts. While questions defer decisions, prompts for discussion or action are precise directives for decision-making.

• In general, the following language rules apply to business communication according to the“Rhetoric Code”: Factual language (“present tense!”), because you’re describing the resulting effect; positive phrasing (avoid “not,” “no,” and “without”); and active voice.

By the way: You’ll only have a chance with “we” messages if the other person is genuinely interested in the outcome of the conversation. This follows the basic pattern established by Thomas O. Harris (“I’m OK. You’re OK. The conversation is OK!”).

“Bredemeier feedback” is effective when you avoid negative topics and the person you’re talking to is consistently motivated to engage in positive conversation.

Please note:

There are no golden rules of communication that apply in every situation. The only exception:

There is no golden rule of communication!

Therefore, “Bredemeier” feedback should always be adapted or modified depending on the conversation partner, the course of the conversation, and the goal of the conversation.

“Bredemeier”feedback follows this structure:

O. Objective, non-accusatory description of communication and/or behavior... or used as a “Trojan horse” with praise.

Address changes in behavior or communication—whether as a change or as a way to reinforce the status quo—in a positive manner through an appeal (imperative),

and derive the resulting effect (“added value”) for the conversation partner and the course of the conversation.

An example of positive “Bredemeier feedback”:

“In the interest of finding a constructive solution, please stay on topic

and keep the conversation objective.

This is the only way to achieve a convincing

and mutually satisfactory solution within the set timeframe!”

However, you can also use it for “normal” feedback processes. It requires qualified feedback and the presentation of a plausible alternative.

Further examples:

“Mr. Maier, your personality and professional expertise are very convincing. Please make sure to stand calmly during your presentation and use the ‘support leg–free leg’ technique.

This will enhance the impact of your presentation and further underscore your professional competence.”

“Ms. Müller, repeat your key message and then pause for effect. This will emphasize your message and help it stick.”

However, if you find this too difficult to implement or if it ultimately sounds too harsh in its wording, please feel free to modify it; you’re also welcome to adapt the old feedback guidelines to the new system:

Modified examples:

“Mr. Maier, please ask yourself whether maintaining a calm stance during your presentation—that is, the ‘standing leg–support leg’ variation—generally enhances the impact of your presentation.”

“Ms. Müller, you could, for example, repeat your core message, then pause for dramatic effect—the result is obvious:

This will emphasize your message and help it stick.”

To summarize once again: The “Bredemeier” feedback, centered on the presenter

• The Bredemeier feedback method, developed by Prof. Dr. theol. Karsten Bredemeier, differs significantly from traditional, “soft” feedback. While conventional feedback is usually based on “I” messages (“I perceive…,” “I understand…,” “I would like…”), Bredemeier feedback relies on a direct, other-centered (interlocutor-focused) approach.

Key points of Bredemeier feedback:

• It moves beyond the factual and emotional levels to the meta-level: the other person’s conversational behavior or communication is addressed—going beyond the content of the conversation

• Instead of “I” messages, “you” messages are used to clearly and unambiguously reflect the other person’s behavior (“Your conversational behavior is destructive…”).

• The goal is to stop destructive behavior and either continue the conversation constructively or bring it to a decisive close.

• The approach can also be phrased positively by highlighting desired behavior and emphasizing its benefits for the other person (“Please stay on topic and help us find a solution together”).

Differences from Traditional Feedback

Bredemeier feedback is designed specifically for difficult, escalating conversation situations in which traditional methods fail or are ignored. It requires the courage to speak clearly and is a tool for professional communication on equal footing.

Bredemeier feedback is particularly effective in conflict resolution because it addresses destructive behavior directly and clearly, rather than beating around the bush. This confrontation at the meta-level stops escalations early on and forces all parties involved to address the actual problem, rather than hiding behind excuses or evasive maneuvers. This promotes open, honest communication and increases the likelihood of a sustainable solution.

In contrast to softer feedback methods, which often focus on preserving relationships and indirect criticism, Bredemeier feedback ensures clarity, accountability, and a swift halt to destructive patterns of communication and behavior—which makes it particularly effective in tense situations.

The Bredemeier Feedback differs from other constructive feedback methods primarily in its directness and willingness to confront. While classic methods such as the WWW (“Perception/Impact/Desire”) or the sandwich method rely on “I” messages, the recipient’s agreement, balanced phrasing, and a dialogic, often empathetic approach, Bredemeier feedback addresses destructive behavior directly and at the meta-level, primarily using “you” messages.

Additional differences:

• Traditional methods:

  • Asking for permission to give feedback in advance

  • Use “I” messages and descriptive language

  • Emphasize positive aspects first and avoid direct confrontation

  • Goal: Maintain the relationship, avoid hurting the recipient, and encourage dialogue

• Bredemeier feedback:

  • Addresses destructive behavior directly and without beating around the bush

  • Uses “you” messages, shifts to the meta-level

  • Goal: Stop destructive patterns; achieve clarity and accountability, even at the expense of harmony, false politeness, and a lack of consistency

This makes Bredemeier feedback particularly effective in escalating or deadlocked conflict situations, whereas other methods tend to focus on long-term development and relationship-building.

Bredemeier feedback is unique due to several specific principles :

• The name —I had to think long and hard about it

• Directness and confrontation: Feedback is given openly, clearly, and even provocatively—without beating around the bush or sugarcoating anything. This fosters quick-wittedness and forces people to confront their own behavior or communication style.

• Meta-level: It addresses not only the content of the conversation but explicitly the other person’s communication behavior. This makes destructive patterns visible and allows them to be specifically interrupted.

• Setting and testing boundaries: The feedback encourages participants to recognize, set, and—if necessary—push their personal and communicative boundaries to facilitate growth.

• Authenticity and confidence: The method emphasizes an authentic demeanor and self-assured body language to amplify the impact of the feedback.

• Permission for provocation, irony, and polemics: Unlike other methods, Bredemeier Feedback allows for—and even encourages—provocative, ironic, or polemical elements to break out of entrenched communication patterns.

These principles make Bredemeier Feedback particularly effective in situations where traditional, “soft” feedback methods reach their limits.

Entrepreneurs and business successors repeatedly face critical challenges—so it is recommended that they consistently work on their personal development as well: clearly addressing even critical or necessary decisions, as well as mistakes… even when doing so in personally stressful situations.

Selected Bibliography:

• Friedemann Schulz von Thun, *Miteinander Reden*, Vol. 1–4, 1981 ff.

• Marshall B. Rosenberg, *Nonviolent Communication*, 2001

• Karsten Bredemeier

• Quick-Wittedness—The Workbook (2010): A practical guide with exercises on quick-wittedness and rhetoric.

• The Art of Clear Communication: 250 Professional Rhetoric Tips(Haufe TaschenGuide 329): A compact reference guide to successful communication.

• Never at a Loss for Words Again: Provocative Rhetoric? Quick-Wittedness! Techniques and Exercises to Overcome Speechlessness in Everyday Life.

• The Rhetoric Code (2007): Strategies for Effective Communication.

• Provocative Selling? The Art of Persuasive Conversation! A Guide to Sales-Oriented Conversations.

• Public Speaking in a Nutshell. The Basic Rules of Persuasive Communication(2014): Practical rules for persuasive communication.

• Sharp, Dynamic, Successful (with Reiner Neumann, 1997): Modern Communication and Success in Business.

• The Power and Magic of Language (2002): The Influence of Language on Communication and Impact.

• Your Personal Workbook for Communicative Intelligence(with Reiner Neumann, 1999): A training guide on communication and intelligence in conversation.

• Black Rhetoric: The Power and Magic of Language(various international editions): The Mechanisms of Manipulative Language.

Many titles have been reprinted multiple times, some as audiobooks or in foreign-language editions.