CORN — Structuring Feedback About Actions
Context, Observation, Result, Next step — keep it about behavior, not personality.
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 90%
CORN is Scott's structure for making feedback about actions instead of personality. You state the Context (when and where it happened), the Observation (the specific thing the person did), the Result (the effect it produced), and the Next step (what to do about it). Because personality attributes are nearly impossible to change, anchoring feedback in a concrete action keeps it actionable and fair. The same four-part structure works whether you're praising or criticizing.
Origin
Scott pairs CORN with HHIPP as the content-structure half of good guidance. Her canonical examples reuse her own experiences — winning credibility by arguing both sides, and the 'um' criticism — reframed into the four CORN slots.
Core principles
- 01Feedback should target actions, which are changeable, not personality attributes, which aren't.
- 02A complete piece of feedback names the context, the observation, the result, and the next step.
- 03The same structure works for both praise and criticism.
- 04Naming the result makes the stakes concrete and the next step obvious.
How to run it
- 1
Set the Context
Anchor the feedback to a specific moment: 'In the meeting…' This grounds it in reality rather than a vague generalization.
- 2
State the Observation
Describe the specific action you observed — 'when you offered both sides of the argument' or 'when you said um every third word' — not a judgment about who they are.
Pro tip Keep it to observable behavior so the person can't dispute your read of their character.
Watch out Do not make it about personality attributes; they're hard to change and feel like attacks.
- 3
Name the Result
Explain the effect the action had — 'you won credibility' or 'it made you sound stupid' — so the stakes are clear.
- 4
Give the Next step
Close with a concrete action: 'do more of that' for praise, or 'go visit the speech coach' for criticism.
In the wild
Scott reframes Sandberg's criticism through CORN: context ('in the meeting'), observation ('when you said um every third word'), result ('it made you sound stupid'), next step ('go visit the speech coach').
→ The action-focused structure gave Scott something specific and fixable rather than a wound to her identity.
Common mistakes
Making feedback about personality
Telling someone what they *are* rather than what they *did* is unactionable and hard to change, so it damages without helping.
Is it for you?
Best for
Managers and peers who want a repeatable template for both praise and criticism.
Not ideal for
Situations where the issue truly is values or fit rather than a specific changeable action.
From the transcript
“you want to offer... Context, observation, result, next step.”
“In the meeting, when you offered both sides of the argument, you won credibility, do more of that.”
From the episode
Kim Scott: Radical Candor, How to Say What You Mean Without Being A Jerk
Kim Scott