There are a lot of comments about the up vs down hierarchy thing, but I think it's not really the most important factor for "giving feedback", which here seems to mean more "advocating for change".
The important factors are
- do you have a good understanding of where your goals and priorities differ and where they overlap? Maybe you want to reduce tech debt and your manager wants to hit q3 goals. Then saying "spending 1 week addressing this issue will allow us to implement features a,b,c in 2 weeks instead of 4" is stating your goal with an emphasis on how it helps manager get to theirs.
- do you have an existing relationship of trust? Humans are pretty tribal. If person you're talking to up or down defaults to "this is an ally who usually says competent things" then you can be much more direct and blunt. "Your idea is stupid because of these flaws that you didn't consider". If you don't have that trust, then some of the sugar coating "fluff" is necessary to avoid emotional reactions.
The important factors are
- do you have a good understanding of where your goals and priorities differ and where they overlap? Maybe you want to reduce tech debt and your manager wants to hit q3 goals. Then saying "spending 1 week addressing this issue will allow us to implement features a,b,c in 2 weeks instead of 4" is stating your goal with an emphasis on how it helps manager get to theirs.
- do you have an existing relationship of trust? Humans are pretty tribal. If person you're talking to up or down defaults to "this is an ally who usually says competent things" then you can be much more direct and blunt. "Your idea is stupid because of these flaws that you didn't consider". If you don't have that trust, then some of the sugar coating "fluff" is necessary to avoid emotional reactions.