Do you give feedback well? Most don’t.
When I asked my coaching client what they were most interested in talking about during their coaching call, she immediately responded, “I need to give feedback to someone on my team and this team member does not take feedback well.” In my head I thought, “Do you give feedback well?” but I did not say that. Instead, I said, “This is a great topic to dig into because each time you give feedback, you learn a lot about the other person, but most importantly, you learn the most about yourself.” We had a great conversation and my coaching client left with both knowledge, skills, and a different mindset about feedback. Given the conversation, I thought it would be timely to share a bit of our learning with you.
So how well do you give feedback? What does our feedback say about ourselves? What should leaders do instead?
First, when we talk about feedback, we mean formative feedback or the feedback you give (and get) outside of a formal performance management process. Second, we are talking about both positive and critical feedback. You might be surprised to learn how often leaders think about how to provide critical feedback and do not think about the ways in which they do (or do not) provide positive feedback. Both are key levers that should be leveraged often.
Critical feedback, in particular, can be neurologically threatening because our brains may treat feedback like a potential threat, triggering a fight, flight, freeze, or fawn response.
For most of us, critical feedback may challenge our self-concept, status, and/or competence. These responses could be true for the person giving the feedback and/or the person receiving the feedback. This situation is compounded when we consider feedback across lines of difference.
There has been much research* examining the disproportionality of feedback from a manager to a direct report across various demographic domains. This research shows that some groups—especially women and members of non-white racial and ethnic groups—are more likely to receive vague, less actionable and honest, or overly critical feedback, versus specific, growth-oriented guidance from the manager. This structure creates unequal opportunities to improve and advance. Additionally, the research asserts that stereotypes can influence feedback content—e.g., women may receive more comments about communication style, while men receive more about technical skill.
This structure works in the opposite direction as well, from direct reports to managers. If a direct report already feels psychologically unsafe* in the workplace, feedback to their manager can feel riskier and more threatening, increasing the likelihood of disengagement or avoidance. This compounds the neurological threat response discussed earlier and reduces the likelihood that a manager will improve their practice in leading their team.
Our goal is to recognize these patterned differences, uncover why they exist, and take action to change them. Luckily, there are actions we can take that will improve your formative feedback across various lines of difference. One is tactical, the other is rooted in belief.
Feedback as a collection of practices, not an event.
In one day, leaders can find several tactics to provide feedback to their team and solicit feedback from their team. Meetings, emails, huddles, quick messages, and phone calls are all opportunities to insert positive and constructive feedback into your conversations. For example:
Weekly Pulse Check. At the end of a team meeting or 1:1 meeting with a team member, a leader could offer an opportunity for the team or individual to share one thing that would make their week more effective. The leader would synthesize this feedback and share it with the team next week with a chance to implement the feedback. This is a low-cost, high-leverage action.
Project Check-in. As a project is underway, the leader (or a designee) can facilitate a mid-project check-in. Asking the group questions like: What is working well? What is not working that we need to change? What do we need from others? From the discussion, the team chooses at most 1-2 actions that they will take for the rest of the project. The goal is to support team culture, learning and development.
Quarterly Leadership Feedback on Feedback. Quarterly, the leader should directly ask each team member (you decide the structure based on team needs), questions like: What should I start doing and stop doing? What should I keep doing? The leader shares a synthesis of the responses with the team along with (1) a specific behavior they are going to keep doing, and (2) a behavior they are changing. This action has a significant impact on the psychological safety of the team.
Talent is developed, not fixed.
Leaders exemplify a belief that all individuals (including the leader) can grow. In order to develop that talent, a leader does not assume they are “objective” but recognizes that they carry implicit biases shaped by culture and experience. Instead, leaders are curious about the people they lead and are attentive to how personality, cultural background, and past experiences shape how feedback is interpreted. These leaders adapt their approach as they learn more.
All of these actions move a leader closer to providing honest, high-quality feedback across lines of difference, especially in a context where the leader or the direct report might feel uncomfortable. Effective leaders prioritize dignity, respect, and development. Try these actions and let us know what you think.
*Footnotes:
https://www.conference-board.org/research/human-capital-briefs/blg-00-1-5186
https://journals.aua.ke/pajes/article/view/334; https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-44290-001
We define psychological safety as simply the belief that you will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.
As always, this section is about unlocking/disrupting your thinking. As you read, think about the ways in which your current models of leadership are serving (or not serving) you well!
A Story: Seeing Clearly in Feedback
A master sculptor was known for her exacting eye. Apprentices brought her their work, and she would pace around it slowly, tapping her chisel against the marble.
“Too rough,” she’d say.
“Unbalanced.”
“Lacking discipline.”
One apprentice, Lila, listened carefully. Each critique sent her back to her stone, sanding, reshaping, and correcting. Yet no matter how hard she worked, the master sculptor’s comments remained unchanged.
One afternoon, a traveler visited the studio. She watched quietly as Lila presented her latest piece—a figure emerging from marble, mid-motion, delicate and alive.
The master sculptor frowned. “You’ve lost control of the form.”
The traveler tilted her head. “Or perhaps she’s found a different kind of control.”
The master sculptor bristled. “Art requires precision.”
“Of course,” the traveler said. “But whose precision? Yours—or the work’s?”
That evening, the master sculptor walked alone through the studio. She paused at Lila’s sculpture. For the first time, she didn’t search for flaws. She noticed the tension in the figure’s hands, the sense of movement she herself had never captured.
She picked up her chisel, then set it down. The master sculptor saw imperfections, but she also saw something else alongside them: the outline of her own expectations.
The next morning, when Lila approached her work in progress, the master sculptor met her.
“What were you trying to express here?” she asked.
Lila hesitated, then answered. As she spoke, the master sculptor listened—not for errors, but for intention.
Her feedback changed. It grew more specific, more curious, less certain.
And Lila’s work changed too—stronger, clearer, unmistakably her own.
Each interaction deepened the master sculptor’s understanding that every critique should elevate the artist, not herself.
Applying the Learning - A Case Study: Feedback Reveals the Giver
At Meridian Tech, Priya prided herself on being a rigorous manager. Her team delivered strong results, but feedback conversations often felt tense and unproductive—especially with Jordan, a high-potential analyst.
After each project, Priya would point out gaps.
“You need to be more polished.”
“Think more strategically.”
“Communicate with more confidence.”
Jordan left these conversations frustrated. The feedback felt vague and, at times, personal. Despite working longer hours and revising deliverables repeatedly, Jordan wasn’t improving in the ways Priya expected.
In a leadership workshop, Priya reviewed anonymized feedback examples. One stood out—nearly identical to her own. The facilitator asked, “What assumptions might be embedded in this feedback?”
Priya paused. She realized her comments reflected her own style: concise, assertive, executive-facing. She valued direct communication and equated it with competence. But Jordan approached work differently—more analytical, detail-oriented, and cautious.
The end of the workshop offered Priya an opportunity to plan for what actions she would take when she returned to work. Priya began to feverishly plan. At the top of her page, she wrote in big letters and circled it:
Lead with curiosity, not critique!!
Case Study Questions
What assumptions was Priya making about effective communication and performance?
How did these shape her feedback? In what ways can vague feedback (e.g., “be more strategic”) limit an employee’s growth?
How did Priya’s shift from judgment to curiosity change the quality and impact of her feedback?
If you were looking at Priya’s plan, what would you expect to see that would tell you she is on the right track?
