Writing a Baldrige Feedback Comment

Drafting your first Baldrige feedback comment is hard. Even experienced examiners sometimes stare at a blank page, knowing what they want to say but not how to structure it. And on the other side of the process, organizations receiving a feedback report often wonder how the examiner arrived at what they wrote — and what they could have put in their application to get more specific, more actionable feedback.

The good news: there is a formula. I’ve been refining it for years, and it works. It started with a college writing rule, evolved through a mnemonic, and has settled into a sentence-by-sentence structure I now use for every comment I write. Once you see how it works, it changes how you read a feedback report — and how you write an application.

Where the formula started: the Gordon Rule

During my time as a college student, the Board of Education adopted Administrative Rule 6A-10.030, the Gordon Rule (after Senator Jack Gordon). This rule was intended to ensure first- and second-year college students acquired analytical and communication skills. Initially, it required most English and humanities classes to assign written work of 6,000 words. At FSU in the early ’80s, that meant 8 papers of 750 words per course. The Gordon Rule still exists but has transformed into a more meaningful, less formulaic rule. Nevertheless, this formula for writing numerous 750-word essays has served me well in my professional career, and I adopted it for writing my draft Sterling comments.

The mnemonic used to remember the writing formula is TRITE:

T — Topic Sentence.

R — Reinforce/Restate (and expand on) the Topic Sentence.

I — Illustrate the points.

T — Tie it all together (or Transition to the next paragraph).

E — Edit what you wrote so it’s not so trite.

Here is a quick example so you can see the formula before I show you how it maps to a Baldrige comment.

Topic: Giving consistent and effective feedback is an easy four-step skill for managers to learn.

Reinforce: To give effective feedback, managers need to 1) remember feedback is to influence future behavior, 2) identify the right place and time for feedback, 3) describe the behavior and the result, 4) ask for a commitment.

Illustrate: When a manager observes behaviors by an employee that should either be encouraged or discouraged, the feedback given should influence the employee to continue or modify that behavior. It is neither praise nor punishment. The best place and time to give feedback is in private, as close in time to the behavior as practical, and when the employee is in an appropriate frame of mind to receive the feedback. Feedback should describe a specified behavior and its result, not feelings, opinion, or judgment. At the end of feedback, it is important for the manager to ask for a commitment to continue or discontinue the behavior.

Tie it Up: Next week’s seminar on Feedback will teach new managers the four-step feedback method and lead to increased productivity and engagement for the Acme Supply Company employees.

Edit: Obviously still needs some editing — but do you see how the formula leads to a well-structured paragraph? The bones are there. The editing makes it readable.

TRITE is a good starting point. But over the years I’ve found that Baldrige comments need a more specific structure — one that maps directly to how the criteria are scored. So the formula evolved. (See also: The Baldrige Framework: Simple to Understand.) (See also: Why the Highest-Performing Organizations Use Four Frameworks.)

The 10-sentence strength comment

Here is the sentence-by-sentence structure I now use for every strength comment. Some sentences are MANDATORY — without them, you don’t have a comment. Others are BEST PRACTICE — they elevate a good comment into a great one. In Baldrige, processes are evaluated on four dimensions: Approach, Deployment, Learning, and Integration (ADLI). The formula gives you a place for each one.

1. Criteria language sentence. (Mandatory) — Start with the criteria question wording. This anchors the comment to the specific requirement you are evaluating.
2. Describe the approach in the applicant’s language. (Mandatory) — Restate what the organization does, using THEIR terms, THEIR names for things. If they call their values “Principles” and their vision the “Mandate” — you use those words.
3. Describe the deployment in the applicant’s language. (Mandatory) — How is this approach rolled out? To which parts of the organization? How consistently?
4. Deployment example if appropriate. — A specific instance that shows deployment in action. Not always needed, but when you have one, it makes the comment concrete.
5. Describe the learning process in the applicant’s language. — How does the organization evaluate and improve this approach? What is the systematic cycle?
6. Learning example if appropriate. — A specific instance of learning or improvement. Shows the cycle is real, not theoretical.
7. Describe the integration. — How does this process connect to other processes, to the organization’s strategic objectives, or to other categories in the criteria?
8. Integration example if appropriate. — A specific instance showing the linkage. This is where you demonstrate that the organization’s system is connected, not siloed.
9. So what — why continue to do it? Tie to Key Factor(s). (Best Practice) — Connect the strength back to the Organizational Profile. Why does this process matter to THIS organization, given their specific challenges, advantages, and strategic direction?
10. Directly linked beneficial result. (Best Practice) — Point to a result in Category 7 that demonstrates this strength is producing measurable outcomes.

For organizations: look at that list carefully — not just as a guide to what examiners are looking for, but as a management discipline. When you systematically track not just your approach but HOW you deploy it, HOW you evaluate and improve it, HOW you ensure it integrates with the rest of your system, and WHAT results it produces — you are not writing an application. You are running your organization with intention. Most organizations can describe what they do. Far fewer can describe how they deploy it consistently, how they know it’s working, and how it connects to everything else. The organizations that can answer those questions don’t just score well on a Baldrige evaluation — they outperform, because they actually understand their own systems. Writing it down for an examiner is a side benefit. The real value is knowing it yourself. (See also: What If the System Is the Problem?.)

The 5-sentence OFI comment

Opportunities for Improvement (OFIs) follow a shorter structure, but the same logic. An OFI is not criticism — it is a gap observation tied to a business consequence.

1. Criteria language sentence. (Mandatory) — Same as the strength. Anchor the comment to the specific criteria requirement.
2. Deconflicting sentence if needed. — Notice this is sentence TWO, not sentence one. An OFI always leads with the direct criteria language statement — the opportunity needs to be stated clearly upfront. The deconflicting sentence follows to do exactly what the name says: prevent the opportunity from appearing to conflict with a strength reported elsewhere. It often starts with “Although…” For example: “Although the supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions participate in mandatory pre-SPR meetings and focus groups…” This tells the reader: I saw what you ARE doing. This opportunity is about a specific gap, not a blanket criticism. Without it, the organization reads the OFI and thinks the examiner missed an entire section of their application.
3. Appropriate example. — A specific instance that illustrates the gap. Where is the deployment missing? Which workforce segment is excluded? Which customer class has no voice-of-the-customer process?
4. So what — what you RISK. Tie to Key Factor(s). (Mandatory) — This is the business case for why the gap matters. Connect it to the organization’s own strategic goals, key factors, or challenges. Without this sentence, the OFI is an observation. With it, the OFI is actionable.
5. Directly linked adverse result. (Best Practice) — Point to a result in Category 7 that shows the gap is already producing a negative outcome — or the absence of a result where you would expect one.

For organizations: the most useful OFIs you will ever receive are the ones that follow this structure. They name a specific gap, acknowledge what you ARE doing, and explain the business consequence of the gap using YOUR key factors. But here’s the deeper point — you don’t need an examiner to do this for you. If you can look at your own processes and ask “where is this NOT deployed? What are we risking by the gap? What do the results show?” — you are doing the examiner’s job yourself, in real time, before you ever submit an application. That is the real power of understanding this formula. And if you DO apply, giving the examiner division-level detail, deployment specifics, and segmented results is what makes this kind of precise, actionable feedback possible. Generic descriptions yield generic feedback.

Strength example: Acme Supply Company

Here is what the 10-sentence structure looks like applied to a real comment. I’m using a fictional company — Acme Supply Company — so you can see how each sentence maps to the formula.

Sentence 1 (criteria language): Senior Leaders of Acme Supply Company set and systematically evaluate the company’s vision, values, and culture through their strategic planning system, including input from the supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions, and deploy through the publish stage of their strategic planning cycle and through the leadership workforce rounding program.

Sentence 2 (approach in applicant language): The Acme Mandate (vision) and Acme Motto (culture) were established in 2005 after leaders personally led focus group meetings with staff, ultimately including all employees at the time. The Acme Principles (values) were developed in the same fashion in 2006.

Sentence 3 (deployment): The Mandate, Motto, and Principles are the first agenda topic of the annual Strategic Planning Retreat (SPR) and have been so since 2007. The supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions hold mandatory pre-SPR meetings and focus groups and submit any comments or suggested changes to the Mandate, Motto, or Principles prior to the SPR. Since 2011 the employees of these divisions also elect an employee committee to attend the SPR and participate in the Mandate, Motto, and Principles discussion.

Sentence 4 (deployment example): At the conclusion of the SPR, any change to the Mandate or Motto triggers the implementation of a “What, Why, Why It Matters” action plan to communicate the changes to the press, all suppliers, all customers, and all employees. Targeted communications are created and sent to each group detailing what changed, why it changed, and why it matters to recipients. All company letterhead, forms, and other documents are updated, and signs and uniform patches are replaced.

Sentence 5 (learning): Any change to any of the Principles triggers a similar action plan to update all employee job descriptions, evaluation forms, individual development plans, and coaching guidelines.

Sentence 6 (learning example): Since 2014 Senior Leaders personally meet with each division quarterly and are required to relay a story about how their individual actions contribute to the Mandate and Motto and embody the Principles.

Sentence 7-8 (integration): The SPR process integrates input from three divisions, the employee committee, and the annual engagement survey results into a single decision-making cycle that drives updates to external communications, internal HR systems, and leadership behavior expectations.

Sentence 9 (so what — key factor): This systematic process for setting and evaluating vision, values, and culture directly supports Acme’s strategic challenge of maintaining a unified culture across geographically dispersed divisions.

Sentence 10 (beneficial result): Annual Employee Engagement Surveys since 2015 have included the questions “I feel connected to the Acme Mandate of ‘Be the Only Supplier a Coyote Needs'” and “I feel connected to the Acme Motto of ‘Give the Customer What He Wants.'” Results for these questions have increased each year, with 2015 having 62% of respondents answering strongly agree and increasing to 80% by 2020. Similar questions related to the Principles of Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent have also shown beneficial trends.

This is obviously a robust comment. During Independent Evaluation — when all you have is the application itself — you would not have all this information yet. But I would still structure it this way, because breaking it out by sentence helps me identify the questions I want to ask during the site visit or business overview call. The gaps in the formula become my interview questions.

OFI example: the same company, the same structure

Notice in the strength comment above I listed individual divisions. That specificity allows the opportunity to be precise and actionable:

Sentence 1 (criteria language): Acme Supply Company’s method to set and systematically evaluate the company’s vision, values, and culture is not fully deployed.

Sentence 2 (deconflicting): Although the supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions participate in mandatory pre-SPR meetings, focus groups, and employee committee elections, the Customer Service division does not participate in any of these processes.

Sentence 3 (example): The Customer Service division does not hold pre-SPR meetings and focus groups, submit any comments or suggested changes to the Mandate, Motto, or Principles prior to the SPR, or elect an employee committee to attend the SPR and participate in the Mandate, Motto, and Principles discussion.

Sentence 4 (so what — risk to key factor): Without the participation of the customer service division, the company may not achieve its strategic goal of 100% top-box answers on the Annual Employee Engagement Survey questions “I feel connected to the Acme Mandate of ‘Be the Only Supplier a Coyote Needs'” and “I feel connected to the Acme Motto of ‘Give the Customer What He Wants.'”

Sentence 5 (adverse result): Customer Service division engagement scores on these questions trail the other three divisions by 15 percentage points.

See the difference the deconflicting sentence makes? Without it, the OFI reads like the examiner missed the fact that three divisions DO participate. With it, the comment demonstrates that the examiner understood the full picture and is identifying a specific, bounded gap. That precision is what makes an OFI actionable instead of demoralizing.

The finished paragraphs

When you strip out the labels and assemble the comments, here is what they look like as continuous paragraphs.

A word of caution: these examples are LONG — longer than what you would submit in a final feedback report. That is deliberate. It is much easier to cut a paragraph down to its core message than to add to it later. The long version is the working draft. It proves — to you and to your team — that you understand the full picture: the approach, the deployment, the learning, the integration, the key factor connection, and the result. Once you have all of that written out, you can trim with confidence because you know what you’re cutting and why. For an applicant, being able to write the full version means you’ve described and illustrated every step. For an examiner, it means you’ve asked all the relevant questions. The final report gets the edited version. But the long version is where the understanding lives.

Strength:

Senior Leaders of Acme Supply Company set and systematically evaluate the company’s vision, values, and culture through their strategic planning system, including input from the supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions, and deploy through the publish stage of their strategic planning cycle and through the leadership workforce rounding program. The Acme Mandate (vision) and Acme Motto (culture) were established in 2005 after leaders personally led focus group meetings with staff, ultimately including all employees at the time. The Acme Principles (values) were developed in the same fashion in 2006. The Mandate, Motto, and Principles are the first agenda topic of the annual Strategic Planning Retreat (SPR) and have been so since 2007. The supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions hold mandatory pre-SPR meetings and focus groups and submit any comments or suggested changes to the Mandate, Motto, or Principles prior to the SPR. Since 2011 the employees of these divisions also elect an employee committee to attend the SPR and participate in the Mandate, Motto, and Principles discussion. At the conclusion of the SPR, any change to the Mandate or Motto triggers the implementation of a “What, Why, Why It Matters” action plan to communicate the changes to the press, all suppliers, all customers, and all employees. Targeted communications are created and sent to each group detailing what changed, why it changed, and why it matters to recipients. All company letterhead, forms, and other documents are updated, and signs and uniform patches are replaced. Any change to any of the Principles triggers a similar action plan to update all employee job descriptions, evaluation forms, individual development plans, and coaching guidelines. Since 2014 Senior Leaders personally meet with each division quarterly and are required to relay a story about how their individual actions contribute to the Mandate and Motto and embody the Principles. This systematic process directly supports Acme’s strategic challenge of maintaining a unified culture across geographically dispersed divisions. Annual Employee Engagement Surveys since 2015 have included the questions “I feel connected to the Acme Mandate of ‘Be the Only Supplier a Coyote Needs'” and “I feel connected to the Acme Motto of ‘Give the Customer What He Wants.'” Results for these questions have increased each year, with 2015 having 62% of respondents answering strongly agree and increasing to 80% by 2020. Similar questions related to the Principles of Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent have also shown beneficial trends.

Opportunity for Improvement:

Acme Supply Company’s method to set and systematically evaluate the company’s vision, values, and culture is not fully deployed. Although the supply, manufacturing, and delivery divisions participate in mandatory pre-SPR meetings, focus groups, and employee committee elections, the Customer Service division does not participate in any of these processes. The Customer Service division does not hold pre-SPR meetings and focus groups, submit any comments or suggested changes to the Mandate, Motto, or Principles prior to the SPR, or elect an employee committee to attend the SPR and participate in the Mandate, Motto, and Principles discussion. Without the participation of the customer service division, the company may not achieve its strategic goal of 100% top-box answers on the Annual Employee Engagement Survey questions “I feel connected to the Acme Mandate of ‘Be the Only Supplier a Coyote Needs'” and “I feel connected to the Acme Motto of ‘Give the Customer What He Wants.'” Customer Service division engagement scores on these questions trail the other three divisions by 15 percentage points.

Why the formula matters — for both sides

For examiners: the sentence-by-sentence structure ensures your comments are grounded in the criteria, written in the applicant’s language, and tied to key factors and results. The mandatory sentences give you the floor — you always have at least a complete comment. The best-practice sentences elevate it into feedback that can drive real change. And the gaps in the formula — the sentences you can’t fill in — become your interview questions.

For organizations: understanding this formula changes how you write your application. When you know an examiner is building comments sentence by sentence — criteria language, then approach, deployment, learning, integration, then key factor connection, then linked result — you can write responses that make those connections explicit. You are not guessing what the examiner wants. You are giving them what the formula asks for. And when you receive your feedback report, you can read each comment against this structure and understand exactly what the examiner found — and what they were looking for but didn’t find.

The formula started with a college writing rule and a mnemonic. It evolved into a sentence-by-sentence structure mapped to how the criteria are actually scored. It works for a first-year examiner drafting their first comment. It works for a veteran writing their hundredth. And for an organization preparing an application, it is the clearest window I can offer into what happens on the other side of the process.