Feedback is more likely to be received when it's an embrace and then a redirect.

The unenlightened form of this is the "oreo" (aka the "s--t sandwich").

You give two random positive bits of feedback with the actual meat of the message in between.

The meat of the message is often nuanced and subtle to not come across too strong--making it more likely the receiver misses it.

Feedback by default can feel like an extrinsic shove, especially when it's coming from someone who has an instrumentalist interest in the person improving.

You're far more likely to be met with a defensive crouch response.

The receiver might think: "What that person doesn't get about me is X, Y, Z. That's why that advice is bad advice."

The first step is to embrace the person.

Show them that you see them similar to how they see themselves, and understand and support their value and goals.

Importantly, make sure to embrace them on the specific thing you'll be giving feedback on.

"I can see how much you value helping the team get to the right answer, even when it's not obvious. I love how you're constantly scanning the room to see people who aren't following and helping bring them along."

Then suggest a new way that might help them achieve those goals more effectively.

"I've observed that some members of the team seem to disengage from your advice when they don't think you're seeing the importance of a imperfect but quick answer to an existential risk. I think if you acknowledged the need for those quick fixes in some cases, the rest of the team would be more open to hearing your argument about the right long-term answers."

That leaves it up to them to intrinsically decide to adopt the feedback as opposed to feeling like it's forced upon them.

Of course, in many situations you have no choice but to give more direct feedback.