Why your feedback isn't landing
THE RUB
When I first became a supervisor, I thought I was good at giving feedback. I’d ask the associate how they felt they handled a situation. I’d listen to their response, and then ask, “Would you be open to some feedback from what I observed?” Whoever says no to that question? Nobody.
Then I would share how they came across condescending, only to be oblivious to how condescending I was coming across. Specific results are easy to debrief and provide coaching for change. Subjective qualities like tone and style are much more difficult.
For years, I’ve labeled associates as “defensive” or worse, “resistant to feedback.” Recently, I stumbled into a breakthrough on one of these conversations. I don’t yet know if it will lead to long-lasting change, but I finally walked away from the conversation with the associate thanking me for the feedback and committing to improvement.
Basking in the glow of what an amazing supervisor I’ve become, I picked up Edgar Schein’s Process Consultation, and it put words to what I’d accidentally done right. Now the question is: how do I make this a standard practice?
THE FRAMEWORK
I often fall into the trap of believing the fastest way to motivate someone to change is to prove them wrong. That rarely works. They dig in and get defensive. Schein shares why:
“The person receiving the disconfirming information can accept it only if it does not involve personal humiliation and loss of face or self-esteem.”
I saw this play out recently when someone said, “I’m gonna call you out on that because I think you played a significant role in how we ended up here.” The person called out shifted in tone immediately. She had been vulnerable and open, and became guarded and defensive.
Schein explains why building trust and safety is one of the hardest things a leader can do:
“Making a client or subordinate feel psychologically safe so that fairly threatening things can be said is probably one of the most complex and artful of human endeavors, involving real caring on part of the consultant or manager and a real commitment to helping the receiver of the disconfirming information to improve his situation.”
That’s because in the moment, the other person’s assumptions don’t make sense to us – so we skip past their perspective and go straight to correction. The trick is getting others to consider new alternatives without making them feel that their current thinking is bad. Schein suggests:
“Sometimes psychological safety is created simply by the presence of the consultant reassuring people that the situation is under control, is not that unusual, has been faced by others successfully before, and can be managed.”
THE PRACTICE
How can I take a step forward in building more psychological safety in my relationships this week?
Become a student of face. This week, I’ll pay attention to moments when someone shifts from open to guarded. What happened right before the shift? I’m not trying to fix anything yet, just building awareness and pattern recognition. I’ll keep a running log in my notebook.
Replace one statement with a question. When I have the urge to share my perspective, I’ll switch to asking a question instead. “What were you going for there?” Or “Walk me through your thinking on that.” I won’t worry about the technique – just genuine curiosity. Then I’ll notice what happens to the other person’s posture, tone, and willingness to stay in the conversation.
Make it collaborative before it gets corrective. When I’m about to tell someone they’re wrong, I’ll try Schein’s reframe: normalize the situation. “This is something a lot of people wrestle with” or “I’ve gotten this wrong myself.” The goal isn’t to soften the message – it’s to remove the humiliation so it can actually land.
Here’s what I keep coming back to: the corrective intervention worked not because I finally found the right words. It worked because of I kept showing up, listening badly sometimes, and trying again. Psychological safety isn’t a technique. It’s a relationship.