FFC Technique: Feeling, Fact, Comparison
FFC Technique helps you give feedback in three parts: how you felt, what actually happened, and how that compares to a standard or to prior performance, so the other person can tell what to repeat or change.
Framework Card
- Name:
- FFC Technique
- Goal:
- Give feedback by stating the feeling, the observable fact, and a comparison to a standard, past performance, or agreed expectation.
- Flow:
- Feeling → Fact → Comparison
- Best For:
- Performance reviews that need evidence; Specific praise that can be repeated; Behavior conversations without character attacks
Why it matters
Most unused feedback is not cruel. It is empty.
“Nice work” does not say what to repeat. “You need to do better” does not say what happened or against which bar. The receiver is left to guess, and a guess often sounds like a verdict on character. That is how a short comment turns into a defensive conversation.
That matters in a performance review, after a missed handoff, or when you want praise to be earned rather than generic. Without a feeling you own, a fact you can point to, and a comparison to something agreed or previously true, the comment has no handle.
FFC is a way to put those three handles in order.
What it is
FFC stands for Feeling, Fact, and Comparison. Production content on this site uses that expansion in the short description, the definition, and the three-part breakdown. The technique is a feedback-wording structure, not a personality test and not a full coaching program.
| Part | Job |
|---|---|
| Feeling | Say how you (or the team, if that is accurate) felt. Own the emotion. Do not smuggle a label such as “unprofessional” into this beat. |
| Fact | Describe the observable event tied to that feeling: what happened, when, how often. No motive-reading. |
| Comparison | Contrast with prior performance, an agreed standard, or a relevant expectation so the comment has a bar. |
The three parts keep the conversation on a specific event rather than on who the person “is.” Feeling without a fact is a mood. Fact without a comparison is an incident with no standard. Comparison without a fact is a ranking.
How it works
A useful FFC is one event told three ways, in this order.
1. Feeling: own the reaction
Start with a feeling that is yours. “I was frustrated when the Friday demo slipped” is a feeling. “You do not care about quality” is a judgment. If you do not have a feeling, do not invent one. Skip or say you are starting from the fact. Production advice to “pretend” a feeling is not part of the method.
2. Fact: what happened
Give a checkable observation that explains the feeling. Date, meeting, count, artifact. The fact should be something a third party could have seen or logged. If the fact is about a different event than the feeling, the structure falls apart.
3. Comparison: the bar
Say what you are comparing against: last quarter’s reliability, the written SLA, the agreement from Monday, the quality of the previous client meeting. Comparison is how the receiver knows the weight of the comment. It is not a requirement to rank the person against teammates.
Read the three parts back: do they name the same event? If not, rewrite until they do.
How it compares
When another lens fits better, these methods do different jobs. They are not four names for “give better feedback.”
Related feedback lenses
| Framework | What it helps you see | How it differs from FFC |
|---|---|---|
| SBI Model | Situation, behavior, impact | No feeling-first beat; impact is consequence, not comparison to a standard |
| COIN Model | Context, observation, impact, next steps | Adds a next-step ask; FFC ends at comparison |
| FIRE Model | Facts, interpretations, reactions, ends | For receiving and sorting criticism, not for giving Feeling-Fact-Comparison feedback |
FFC is the lens for feeling, fact, and a visible bar. Other methods help when the job is SBI-style impact, a next-step agreement, or processing criticism you received.
When to Use This Framework
- Performance reviews: Impressions need to become evidence plus a bar, not a personality summary.
- Conflict conversations: Emotions are already in the room. Naming a feeling you own, then a fact, then a standard, can keep the talk on behavior.
- Praise and recognition: You want the person to know what to repeat, not only that you were pleased.
Example
A concrete example makes the structure easier to reuse when you are under uncertainty.
Example: Corrective feedback in a review
A manager is preparing a mid-year review. The person had been reliable on weekly status notes, then missed two in a row during a launch week.
Feeling. “I felt exposed in Monday’s steering meeting because I could not answer whether we were still on the launch checklist.”
Fact. “The Friday status note did not go out the last two weeks. I had no written update before the steering slot.”
Comparison. “For the three months before launch week, the Friday note was in my inbox by 4 p.m. That is the bar we had been using.”
The three parts are about the missing notes. A weaker CMS-style version might pair “you seemed frustrated in a meeting” with “you missed deadlines” (two events). Keep one event.
Example: Specific praise after a client meeting
A peer wants recognition to be usable, not a pat on the back.
Feeling. “I was relieved in the room when the client’s cost question came up.”
Fact. “You walked through the three-line cost model on slide 8 and answered the follow-up about year-two discounts without deferring to me.”
Comparison. “In the last two pitches we split that answer and talked over each other. This time the cost story had one owner.”
Again, feeling, fact, and comparison point at the same moment. The receiver can repeat “own the cost model on one slide.”
Takeaway
What FFC can help with
- Turning vague praise or criticism into a comment with a handle
- Keeping feedback on an event rather than on character
- Making the standard visible through comparison
- Reviews, incident talks, and recognition when wording is the missing piece
What FFC cannot replace
- Situation, behavior, impact (SBI): SBI anchors an event, an observable action, and a consequence. It does not start with the speaker’s feeling and it does not require a comparison to a standard.
- Context, observation, impact, next (COIN): COIN adds an explicit next-step conversation. FFC stops at comparison unless you add a request yourself.
- FIRE (facts, interpretations, reactions, ends): FIRE is a way to *sort incoming* criticism. It is not a three-part script for giving FFC feedback.
- Ongoing coaching or mediation: One well-structured comment does not replace repeated practice or a conflict that needs a third party.
- A feeling or fact you do not have: Do not invent them. Empty parts should stay empty or be labeled.
Honest scope: FFC makes a comment easier to use. It does not make the underlying performance issue disappear.
Frequently asked questions
Feeling, Fact, Comparison. That is the expansion used in this site’s production definition and three-part breakdown. It is not Fact, Feeling, Change.
SBI uses situation, behavior, and impact. FFC uses feeling, fact, and comparison. Both try to stay on observable work. FFC starts with a speaker-owned feeling and closes with a bar. SBI closes with consequence.
No. The useful comparison is to a standard, an agreement, or that person’s prior performance. Ranking people into a “level” is not what this structure is for.
Three short beats about the same event: a feeling you own, a fact someone could check, and a comparison that names the bar. If the receiver still cannot tell what to repeat or change, a part is missing or the parts do not match.
Do not invent one. Start from the fact and the comparison, or use a structure that does not require a feeling (for example SBI). Pretending an emotion is not part of the method.