We often hear that feedback is a gift.
I think that idea can become dangerous when it quietly turns into:
“If someone gives you feedback, you should accept it, even if it is not perfectly delivered.”
That is where I think psychological safety can begin to unravel.
Feedback contains at least two separate things:
Content — what the person is actually saying.
Delivery — how they choose to say it.
Those two things should not be collapsed.
Someone might give me “useful” feedback while talking down to me.
They might be right about the problem while being sarcastic, overly dogmatic or unnecessarily aggressive.
I can therefore agree with the substance of the feedback while objecting to the behaviour surrounding it.
Alternatively I can disagree with the substance while still accepting that it was delivered fairly.
The problem arises when workplace culture places all the responsibility on the recipient:
Be open to feedback.
Don’t be defensive.
Assume positive intent.
Feedback is a gift.
All reasonable advice.
But where is the reciprocal obligation?
What is required of the person giving the feedback when the recipient says:
“Caution. I’m happy to discuss the issue, but not like this.”
If the answer is essentially, toughen up and take the feedback, we may have created precisely the environment psychological safety is supposed to prevent.
I believe that a genuinely safe feedback culture needs accountability in both directions.
First participants would need to agree to this.
Second define a process for addressing any poorly delivered feedback, or use a standard process like SpatzAI.
Then recipient has a responsibility to engage with legitimate feedback and object to any poor behaviour during the delivery.
The giver has a responsibility to deliver it, and to course-correct when their behaviour is reasonably challenged.
Perhaps feedback is a gift.
But the recipient should still be allowed to object to the way it is wrapped, thrown across the room, or shoved down their throat.
Leave a Reply