Companies build frameworks for it, train for it, and request it weekly, all under the banner of improvement and open-door policies. Yet if we were to ask how often this feedback leads to genuine structural or behavioural change, the number shrinks considerably.
Too many companies think they have a feedback culture, when really, it’s just a ritual.
As a workplace sociologist I’m on the sidelines looking in. More often than not, I see feedback used less as a communication tool, and rather a performance of social exchange. It isn’t just spoken, it’s negotiated, and sits at the intersection of identity, hierarchy, and psychological safety. When we understand that, we can tackle the realities of receiving and giving it.
Why feedback feels difficult
Erving Goffman, one of the most influential sociologists of the 20th century, argued that people are constantly engaged in impression management. We perform competence, composure, leadership and intellect (sometimes with startling precision). Feedback, or the mere threat of it, can threaten this performance and disrupt the image we work hard to present.
Neurobiologically, the body treats criticism (even the constructive kind) as a potential threat. The amygdala activates the body’s natural stress response as the brain floods with cortisol. Who we believe ourselves to be, and who someone else experienced in that moment, become intertwined as our identity and safety are threatened.
This tension is rarely acknowledged in corporate settings, yet it can underpin so many of our awkward feedback conversations.
The hierarchy problem
Feedback is never neutral. It flows through power, authority and status.
- Upward feedback often requires courage and tactics.
- Downward feedback should hold sensitivity and empathy.
- Peer feedback requires diplomacy.
This is where the fallacy sits: organisations assume feedback is a skill based in confidence. In reality, it is a form of relationship structure. We have all experienced the below at some point in our careers:
- An employee worries that honesty will damage their available opportunities, so they soften the truth or do not speak at all.
- A leader fears losing authority, so they interpret challenge as disrespect.
- A structure where feedback is only truly welcomed when it’s flattering, so progress stops.
In all of these common examples, feedback is an exercise in performance rather than learning.
More feedback isn’t the goal, better conditions are
Amy Edmondson found in her 1999 study Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams that “teams with high psychological safety show significantly higher learning, innovation, and feedback receptivity.” Fong et al. later discovered in 2019 that “threat response reduces feedback processing, while safety cues increase integration and application.”
Useful feedback tends to share four traits:
- It describes behaviour, not identity. (The meeting ran over because we lost focus vs. You’re disorganised.)
- It is specific, not interpretive. (Two missed deadlines last month vs. You’re not committed.)
- It invites dialogue, not compliance. (“What do you need to succeed next time?” opens possibilities.)
- It prioritises learning, not judgement. The purpose is improvement, not evaluation.
Feedback that lacks these conditions becomes defensive rather than developmental. I wonder what the number one enemy of growth is… bingo, you’ve guessed it.
So how do we get better at receiving feedback, not just giving it?
A similar question was asked on my panel at Elite Business Live last year. My answer? If you want to be a better manager, leader, or simply a better person: go to therapy, practise self-awareness, face your triggers. But that may be more long-term thinking for the individual.
For teams and companies: those who do this well don’t train employees to tolerate discomfort — they design environments that reduce the unnecessary threat. They normalise curiosity and truly encourage challenge without penalty. They view feedback as data, not personal verdict.
As a side point: for the leaders who say they have an “open door policy,” yet still ignore or fight the feedback — you’re not fooling anyone. Least of all your team, who are still scared to tell the truth.
A practical shift I teach founders is simple:
Ask for insight, not opinion. Feedback improves when the receiver takes responsibility for shaping it.
Instead of “Any feedback?”, ask:
- What was one thing I could have communicated more clearly?
- Did anything I said create confusion for you?
- If we repeated this project, what would we refine first?
When people know what to answer, they answer honestly.
The real evolution is deeper self-awareness
The most feedback-resistant leaders are not unintelligent. They are unexamined and often fixed-mindset. They have not built the emotional capacity to sit with discrepancy and deal with their own emotions; to accept the gap between intention and impact. Hence… therapy.
Growth begins when we resist the urge to defend our image and instead ask: What part of this is useful? What might I not be seeing? Feedback becomes much less threatening when we do not require it to validate who we think we are.
Why this matters now
Work is evolving faster than organisational psychology can keep up. With remote teams, flattened hierarchies, and AI-mediated communication, trust and open exchange is vital.
And the uncomfortable truth? Most organisations don’t have a feedback problem — they have a psychological safety problem. If we build environments where curiosity is rewarded, where leaders are humbled not threatened, and where challenge is a contribution not a career risk, feedback stops being noise and becomes intelligence. Not performance, but progress.
That is how companies grow. One honest conversation at a time.
