Sbi Writer

SBI Feedback Writer

Why SBI Matters

Most feedback fails before it lands. The receiver gets defensive, the message is forgotten, or nothing changes. The root cause is almost always the same: the feedback mixed observation with judgment, or was too vague to act on.

SBI works because it separates three things that the brain processes differently:

• Situation — shared, verifiable context that both parties agree on
• Behavior — observable action, not character or intent
• Impact — the actual consequence, stated from the giver's perspective

When these three are separate and specific, the receiver can engage with the content instead of defending their identity.

The SBI Structure

S — Situation (언제/어디서)

Anchor the feedback in a specific, recent moment. This is not a summary of a pattern — it is a single instance.

• "지난 화요일 팀 전체가 참석한 스프린트 리뷰에서"
• "어제 고객과의 미팅 중에"
• "지난주 코드 리뷰 PR #142에서"

Why specificity matters: vague situations ("항상", "가끔") make the receiver mentally search for which incident you mean — and they will often land on a different one than you intended.

B — Behavior (구체적 행동)

Describe what the person did or said, not what you think it means.

• Weak: "발표를 대충 준비했다" (judgment about effort)
• Strong: "발표 자료에 작성된 숫자가 실제 데이터와 달랐고, 질문이 나왔을 때 바로 답하지 못했다" (observable action)

Behavioral language passes the "camera test": if a camera had been in the room, it would have captured exactly what you described.

I — Impact (영향/결과)

State the actual consequence — on the team, the project, the customer, or on you personally.

• "그 결과 고객이 데이터 신뢰성에 의문을 표했고, 계약 논의가 다음 미팅으로 미뤄졌습니다"
• "팀원들이 어떤 방향으로 작업해야 할지 불확실해져서 하루 동안 작업이 블로킹됐습니다"
• "저는 이 결정이 내 역할을 벗어난 것처럼 느껴져서 어떻게 대응해야 할지 혼란스러웠습니다"

Impact stated from "I/we" perspective is received as information; impact stated as "you caused" is received as accusation.

Workflow

Step 1 — Gather the raw input

Ask the user:

1. Who is this feedback for and what is your relationship? (peer, report, manager)
2. What happened? Describe it as roughly as you want — we will refine it.
3. Is this positive feedback, constructive feedback, or both?

If the user has already provided enough context, skip directly to drafting.

Step 2 — Identify what is observation vs. judgment

Review the raw input and separate:

• Observable facts (keep these — they become S and B)
• Interpretations / character labels (flag these — they need to be rephrased or dropped)
• Emotions or impacts (keep these — they become I)

Step 3 — Draft the SBI statement

Produce a complete SBI statement in Korean. Use natural language — not a fill-in-the-blank template.

Step 4 — Offer a request or question (optional but recommended)

After the Impact, a good feedback statement often ends with a concrete request or a curiosity question:

• "앞으로 발표 자료에 데이터 출처를 함께 표기해 줄 수 있을까요?"
• "혹시 그때 상황에서 어떤 어려움이 있었는지 이야기해 줄 수 있어요?"

The request or question shifts the conversation from verdict to dialogue.

Positive Feedback (칭찬)

SBI is equally important for praise. Vague praise ("수고했어요", "잘했어요") does not help the receiver understand what to repeat.

SBI praise example:

"지난주 금요일 사고 대응 미팅에서(S), 네가 먼저 영향 범위를 정리해서 공유해 줬잖아(B). 덕분에 회의가 방향을 잡는 데 10분도 안 걸렸고, 팀이 빠르게 분업할 수 있었어(I). 그런 오너십이 팀에 정말 도움이 돼."

Delivery Tips (전달 방법)

Timing matters. Feedback is most effective within 24–48 hours of the event. After a week, memories diverge and the receiver struggles to reconstruct the Situation.

One-on-one first. Constructive feedback given in public puts the receiver in a defensive posture. Even if the event was public, address it privately.

Do not stack. One SBI per conversation for constructive feedback. Multiple criticisms in a single session overwhelm and the receiver loses track of which one matters most.

Separate the message from the judgment about the person. "이 행동이 이런 영향을 줬다"와 "너는 이런 사람이다"는 완전히 다른 말이다. SBI 형식이 이 분리를 자연스럽게 만들어 준다.

Common SBI Mistakes