In my previous post, I published Feedback or Not?, a little gamification of a workshop-part on how to recognize and classify different types of feedback. Where I work now, we have a book club and we read Chapter 2 of “No Rules Rules” this week. It is the one named SAY WHAT YOU REALLY THINK (WITH POSITIVE INTENT) 1 and introduces the concept of Candor. But recognizing what something is is only the first step. The real power comes from learning how to label it tactically.
Once you understand that a comment is Criticism rather than Coaching or Advice rather than genuine Appreciation, you gain something crucial: the ability to respond strategically. Tactical labeling isn’t about being pedantic or playing word games. It is about precision.
When I am a motorcycle instructor/coach, I have to use this technique from time to time, just to be able to get through to my participants when they are stuck in emotions rather than thinking and listening. It is a way to focus in on what is happening in our conversation and create clarity, reduce defensiveness and build trust.
I presented this concept in the book club yesterday and got the feedback “It feels passive aggressive to me”. This is an open thinking post about what happened when I left the meeting.
Some history and theory about Tactical Labeling
If you know all about Chris Voss and what he did for FBI, you can skip to the next part.
If not: Tactical Labeling was made popular by Chris Voss and is the act of verbally observing and naming the emotions or dynamics you are sensing in the other person. The goal is NOT to tell them how they feel. That is a job for a therapist or psychologist. The goal is to show them you understand what they are going through. This is known to trigger the right chemicals in the brain. When you name the negative emotion, it helps deactivate the amygdala (fear/anger center) and moves the conversation towards prefrontal cortex.
The formula is quite simple, but in the simplicity also quite hard. You don’t want to sound like you are accusing or “psychoanalyzing” someone. It leans on the core phrases:
- “It seems like…”
- “It sounds like…”
- “It looks like…”
- “It feels like…”
There are some rules:
- Never start with “I”: Compare “I hear that…” and “I feel that…” with “It seems that…” and “It feels that…”
- Use “That’s right”, not “You’re right”: Labels should lead the counterpart to say “That’s right”.
- Use Silence: After you drop a label, you are not the one to speak next. It is called the Pregnant Pause. Give time to process and respond.
- Label the negative to Defuse: Call out the worst assumptions to reduce the power of it. For example “It feels like you think I am being passive aggressive against you.”
- Label the positive to Reinforce: When you label positive feeling, like determination, care for code or emptying the dishwasher, it makes it stronger.
The power of the Tactical Labeling is best used in the Discovery phase of a conversation, to find the things we are unknowingly incompetent about or the things we don’t know we don’t know. Chris Voss calls this “uncover the Black Swans” and even named his company that. It is amazing how often people drop their guard when you use this technique and tell you what is really bothering them.
But what about the passive aggressive part?
Glad you asked, because here comes what I realized after the meeting and that I had not really verbalized clearly before when I have been talking about Tactical Labeling.
First, my colleague was absolutely right. If I say “I sense that you are…”, it can feel like I am diagnosing or judgmental. That is even more true if I am perceived as an expert or hold a position of power over the one I am talking to. Like when I am an instructor or a system architect.
This is a trap that is common until you get comfortable with labeling. The use of “I” instead of “It”. Using “It …” fixes the first part.
The next part is even harder for us that speak Swedish. We tend to use a neutral voice, more flat in our intonation, or even go down a bit in the end. This makes us sound a bit more defensive. If you think about how a Norwegian speaks, it is always with a positive and upward pitch in the end. English, especially the British variant, is a highly inflected language and Brits use this upward pitch to fill the phrases with politeness. It is a social tool so that they can tell you to bugger off and do something unmentionable, but in a specific tone of voice so that you might actually look forward to it.
Using a curious, upward inflection at the end turns the label into a discovery. You have to HEAR the question mark.
We Swedes are world-class at consensus-building, and if I look to myself, I do prefer to avoid direct emotional confrontation. So using “It seems like you’re upset” can feel very direct to a Swede, even if the tone is soft and positive. It can even sound like sarcasm if the tone is positive/curious but not FULLY committed to the warmth. Excessive politeness in Sweden is often a code for “I am actually VERY annoyed with you”. I blame the use of non violent language in schools for this. (No I am not…)
Tactical Labeling in Swedish
The technique is from America and when talking to a Swede, you need to de-Americanize it to avoid this passive-aggressive label. I was thinking about this on my bike ride home yesterday and how I use it differently depending on what language I speak. When speaking Swedish, especially on the tracks, I do this:
- Lower the Pitch: Instead of high-pitch “American” or “Norwegian” curiosity, I use a low, calm voice. Like a late night DJ on the radio. Think Robert Frank and Peter Sundberg, or if you are old enough, Richard Herrey and Gunnar Bolin.
- Focus on the Why: In Swedish “saklighet”. More about the logic instead of the feeling. “It seems like the data we are looking at does not match your experience.” has a softer tone to a Swede than “It seems like there’s a gap between the data and what you’ve actually seen.”. If you want to go minimalistic: “It looks like this data feels …. off?” (and here you can use an upward inflection at the end).
- Acknowledge the directness: You can front-load the label to remove the sting. “I am going to be direct so I don’t misunderstand… It seems like you are concerned about the timeline?”
- Removing the We: You can even defuse the phrase a bit more. “It seems like the data does not match your experience, right?”. Now the DATA is the problem, not the person.
In a Swedish professional environment, people value integrity. If you label their logic instead of their emotion, they will usually open up immediately.
Instead of: “I sense you’re frustrated with the data.” (Feels like a psychological “attack”) Try: “It seems like the logic in these slides is missing a key piece of the puzzle?”
Conclusion
So, is tactical labeling passive-aggressive? It can be, if you’re using it to score points, to “win” a conversation, or to manipulate someone into admitting something they’re uncomfortable with. But when used with genuine curiosity and positive intent, it’s one of the most powerful tools for creating psychological safety and candor in a team.
The key is matching the technique to your cultural context. What works in an American negotiation might feel performative in Sweden. What sounds curious in English can sound sarcastic in Swedish if your tone isn’t committed to warmth.
If you’re working in a Swedish environment, remember: focus on the logic, lower your pitch, and when in doubt, acknowledge the directness explicitly. If you’re working internationally, lean into the upward inflection and embrace the curiosity.
The goal of tactical labeling isn’t to psychoanalyze your teammates. It’s to show them you’re listening deeply enough to name what’s really happening—so you can address it together. That’s the candor gap in action, and it’s how we move from polite nodding to real conversations.
Next time someone gives you feedback—or you need to give it—try a label. See what happens when you say “It seems like this timeline feels unrealistic?” instead of just nodding along. You might be surprised by what comes next.
Thank you Book Club. It seems like the best feedback comes from people who care enough to push back.
References
[1] Hastings, Reed, and Erin Meyer. No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention. Penguin Press, 2020. ISBN: 978-1492230107.
