6 Ways to Give Teachers Feedback Based on Their Working Genius

Working Genius is a work-style model that describes six kinds of contribution people bring to getting work done: Wonder, Invention, Discernment, Galvanising, Enablement and Tenacity. The official Working Genius model presents these as distinct ways people contribute to work. Giving teachers feedback through this lens means personalising the conversation so the teacher can hear, test and act on it, while keeping the evidence, learning goal and professional standard unchanged.

I am a Certified Working Genius Facilitator, certified through Patrick Lencioni's The Table Group. I work with school leaders who want professional conversations to produce clearer action, not just a pleasant discussion. You can read more about my work here.

The evidence matters. The Education Endowment Foundation's feedback toolkit reports an average impact of five months' progress across 155 studies, while AITSL says high-quality feedback can improve student learning by as much as eight months. Those figures describe feedback broadly, not Working Genius specifically. The practical implication is that a profile should help you deliver feedback more intelligently, not replace good feedback practice.

1. Start with observed evidence and the learning goal

Effective teacher feedback starts with evidence from a lesson, student work, planning conversation or agreed observation focus. It should connect to a learning intention, success criterion, professional goal or specific student outcome. The teacher's Working Genius profile may change the route into the conversation, but it must not change what was observed or what the role requires.

AITSL says feedback is most useful when it is based on evidence and related to the learning goals of teachers and learners. NSW Department of Education guidance similarly recommends combining feedback with instruction, focusing on learning intentions and success criteria, intervening quickly, engaging the recipient's thinking and allowing time to act.

Before you think about the person's profile, write down what happened, why it matters and what a useful next step would look like. This protects the conversation from becoming personality commentary. You are a Tenacity person, so you should be better at this is not feedback. The success criteria were not visible during the independent task, so students could not check what quality looked like is evidence-based feedback.

2. Give Wonder a reason before giving a correction

Wonder is the natural gift of pondering greater potential and opportunity. A teacher with strong Wonder may engage more fully when feedback begins with the larger purpose or possibility rather than a narrow correction. Start by connecting the observation to the learning problem the teacher is trying to solve.

Instead of: You need to change your questioning. Try: What might become possible for these students if the questions helped more of them explain their thinking? Then bring the evidence. The point is not to make the feedback abstract. The point is to give the teacher a reason to care about the change before discussing the technique.

Keep the conversation grounded. Wonder can generate useful questions, but it can also move away from the immediate issue. After opening with purpose, return to one observable behaviour and one next experiment. A clear sequence is possibility, evidence, choice, review.

What to ask a Wonder teacher

What is the bigger learning problem this change would solve?

How might this adjustment affect student thinking differently?

What would success look like if we focused on the learning goal this way?

3. Give Invention room to create a response

Invention is the contribution of generating ideas and possible solutions. If a teacher has strong Invention, feedback may land better when the leader identifies the problem clearly and then invites the teacher to design one or two possible responses.

The leader might say, The evidence shows that only a small group answered the hinge question. What are some different ways you could check understanding before moving on? That keeps the standard firm while giving the teacher ownership of the solution.

Do not turn this into an excuse for endless brainstorming. Set a boundary around the task: one lesson, one learning intention, one change to test. The teacher can invent within that boundary. The leader still makes sure the proposed response is practical, aligned with the curriculum and capable of producing evidence.

What to ask an Invention teacher

What are two or three ways you might approach this differently?

If you could design an ideal response here, what would it look like?

How would you create a solution that keeps the standard high?

4. Invite Discernment to test what will work

Discernment contributes intuitive judgement about whether an idea is likely to work. A teacher with strong Discernment may want to examine the fit, risks and likely effect of a proposed change before committing to it. Treat that instinct as a resource rather than labelling it resistance.

Ask questions such as: What makes this approach a good fit for this class? or What concern would you want to test before trying it? Then distinguish a useful concern from a reason to avoid action. The conversation should end with a small test, a timeframe and a piece of evidence that will show whether the adjustment helped.

Discernment should sharpen the plan, not veto every plan. If the teacher raises several concerns, ask which one matters most for the next lesson. That narrows the conversation from general caution to a professional judgement that can be tested.

What to ask a Discernment teacher

What concerns would you want to address before trying this?

What makes this approach a good fit for your class right now?

What would you need to see to believe this change would work?

5. Use Galvanising to connect feedback with action

Galvanising brings energy and people into action. If a teacher has strong Galvanising, feedback may be more useful when it connects the change to who needs to be involved, what momentum is required and how the teacher will communicate the purpose to students or colleagues.

Try asking: Who needs to understand this change for it to work? or How will you introduce this routine so students know why it matters? These questions turn feedback from a private judgement into a plan for mobilising a class, team or professional learning group.

The risk is a lively conversation with no completed change. End by naming the first visible action. That might be revising the lesson opener, explaining the new routine to a teaching partner or checking student understanding at a planned point. Energy becomes useful when it has an owner and a time.

What to ask a Galvanising teacher

Who needs to be brought along for this to work?

How will you make this change visible or exciting to students?

What is the first action that shows momentum?

6. Make Enablement and Tenacity visible in the follow-through

Enablement contributes practical support, while Tenacity pushes work through to completion. These two forms of contribution are especially important after the feedback conversation, because improvement depends on support and follow-through rather than insight alone.

For Enablement, ask: What support would make this change easier to try? The answer might be a model, a planning resource, a peer observation, a co-planning session or protected time. Offering support is not lowering the expectation. It is removing an avoidable barrier.

For Tenacity, ask: What will be completed by the next check-in, and how will we know? Keep the finish line small enough to be real. NSW Department of Education puts the principle plainly: Ultimately, the only effective feedback is that which is acted upon.

Do not assume that a teacher with Tenacity needs more pressure, or that a teacher with Enablement needs rescuing. The profile is a prompt for a better conversation, not a fixed label. Ask what the teacher needs, agree the action and return to the evidence.

What to ask an Enablement or Tenacity teacher

For Enablement: What practical support would make this easier? What resource, model or time would help you try this?

For Tenacity: When will you complete this, and how will we check? What finish line would feel real and achievable?

What Working Genius changes, and what it does not

Working Genius changes the delivery of feedback. It can help a leader decide whether to begin with purpose, invite ideas, examine fit, build ownership, offer support or define the finish line. It does not change the observation, the learning goal, the professional standard or the teacher's responsibility to respond.

This distinction protects trust. A teacher should not be told that a missed standard is acceptable because the work sits outside a preferred genius. Equally, a teacher should not be judged as unwilling or incapable simply because a particular phase of work drains energy. The useful leadership question is: What is the standard, what is the evidence, and what design would help this teacher meet it?

The EEF notes that feedback needs to be actionable and that schools should consider the opportunity cost and staff workload attached to feedback practices. For teacher development, that means fewer, clearer actions are usually more useful than a long list of comments. Choose the change that is most likely to improve student learning, then create time for the teacher to act and review.

A worked example: Giving feedback to a Wonder-Invention partnership

Imagine a teacher with both Wonder and Invention. You observed that the learning intention for the lesson was not visible to students, and as a result, a small group could not track their own progress. Instead of: You need to put the learning intention on the board. You might say: I noticed the students in the back group struggled to track what they were learning. What if you made the learning intention visible to them in a way that also helped them see the bigger purpose of the unit? What are some different ways you might show that?

The teacher responds: I could add it to the board at the start. Or I could make a visual anchor the class builds together. Or I could link it to the previous week's work so they see how it connects. You reply: Those are good options. Let's pick one to try next lesson. Which one feels like it would help this group specifically? The teacher chooses: I'll make a visual anchor because this group is very visual.

You finish: Good. Let's check after next lesson how students used it. We'll look at whether they could explain what they were learning and why. I can pop in to observe the first ten minutes if that's helpful. This conversation respects the teacher's Wonder (bigger purpose) and Invention (room to design), keeps the standard firm (learning intention must be visible), produces one clear action and builds in a review point. No personalisation, no lowering of expectation.

A simple review after the conversation

Review the agreed change after the next suitable lesson or within the next fortnight. Ask what the teacher tried, what students did, what evidence changed and what should happen next. If the change worked, decide how to sustain it. If it did not, treat the result as information and adjust the approach.

The review should include the teacher's own view of the work. Working Genius is useful here because it gives people language for the part of the process that gave energy and the part that created friction. That language can reveal whether the barrier was clarity, confidence, support, judgement, momentum or completion. It should lead to a better work design conversation, not a personality verdict.

FAQ

Does Working Genius replace a teacher observation framework?

No. Working Genius is a lens for adapting the conversation, not an observation framework. Teacher feedback still needs a clear purpose, agreed evidence, learning goals and a professional standard. The profile helps a leader choose a productive way to open the conversation and support action.

Should a principal give different standards to teachers with different Working Genius profiles?

No. The standard should remain consistent. Working Genius can change the explanation, questions, support and follow-up, but it should not excuse a teacher from an agreed professional expectation or turn a profile into a reason to lower the quality bar.

What if a teacher disagrees with the Working Genius result?

Keep the feedback conversation anchored to observed work rather than arguing about the assessment. The teacher can explain what gives energy, what drains energy and what support would help. The profile is useful only if it improves the conversation and the work.

How soon should a school leader follow up after instructional feedback?

Follow up soon enough that the agreed action is still clear and the teacher has had a realistic chance to try it. The right interval depends on the change, but the follow-up should name the action, examine evidence and decide whether to sustain, adjust or replace it.

Can this approach work for early-career teachers and new staff?

Yes. Early-career teachers often benefit from feedback that is specific, manageable and connected to a clear next action. Working Genius can help a mentor or coach choose whether to explain the purpose, invite ideas, test a concern, offer support or define the next finish line. It should complement, not replace, structured induction, professional standards and regular check-ins.

Conclusion

Giving teachers feedback based on Working Genius means personalising the pathway without personalising the standard. Start with evidence and the learning goal. Then use the teacher's profile to choose better questions, better support and a clearer follow-through plan.

Working Genius helps school leaders deliver more thoughtful instructional feedback, build stronger teacher development conversations and create team environments where people's natural contributions are recognised. If you would rather have me help your school use Working Genius to improve teacher feedback, role clarity and team conversations, that is the work I do. You can reach me at jonno@consultclarity.org.