Feedback

What happens when feedback is missing, and why do we notice it so quickly?

Feedback is often described as a hallmark of good leadership. At the same time, this is precisely where many organizations fail. Many associate feedback with performance reviews, appraisals, or criticism. In practice, feedback is something far more fundamental. It is the very nervous system of the interaction between people, teams, and organizations. When feedback flows, we continuously adjust to one another. We find it easier to understand what works, what is off, and what we should do more or less of. When feedback is absent, we lose this ongoing correction. It is quickly felt in the form of uncertainty, misunderstandings, and declining engagement.

What is feedback, really?

A simple way to understand feedback is as information we give each other about how behavior, actions, or results affect others and the task at hand. It is not just about speaking up when something isn't working, but just as much about reinforcing what does work. In organizations, feedback serves several key functions.

It creates direction. We understand what is expected, what is important, and where we stand.
It builds learning. We adjust our course based on experience, not just gut feeling.
It strengthens relationships when given with respect, openness, and clarity.
It prevents misunderstandings and conflicts before small irritations develop into larger problems.

Research on teams and organizations clearly shows that regular, constructive feedback is linked to better learning, more innovation, and higher psychological safety. Therefore, a lack of feedback is not neutral. It affects performance, engagement, and trust alike.

When feedback is missing. What happens to people and teams?

When feedback fails over time, we often see clear patterns. Uncertainty increases. Employees start guessing what really applies and spend more energy on interpretation than on completing tasks. Motivation drops. When effort is neither seen nor commented on, it is easy to conclude that what you do doesn't really matter. Learning grinds to a halt. Without concrete information about what works and what doesn't, the same mistakes are repeated, or people become so cautious that they stop trying anything new. Psychological safety is weakened. When no one asks, corrects, or follows up, the silence becomes a message in itself. It is often interpreted as a sign that it doesn't pay to speak up. In complex work environments where work requires collaboration, sharing mistakes, and rapid learning, the absence of feedback becomes a direct risk to both quality and safety.

Employees and feedback. What Linda Lai finds in her research

Feedback is often portrayed as a universal good, but Linda Lai's research shows that the reality is more complex. Two findings are particularly important for leaders. First, many leaders hold back. Leaders are often more reserved than they should be when it comes to giving clear feedback. This is due to factors such as time pressure, uncertainty about how the message will be received, and fear of damaging the relationship. Many also underestimate the significant positive impact that good feedback can actually have. Second, employees react very differently. Some are well-equipped to use feedback constructively, while others are at higher risk of reacting negatively, even to well-intentioned and professionally sound input.

Why do some react well, while others react with resistance?

Lai points to several personality traits that increase the likelihood of employees using feedback for learning and development. These include high self-efficacy, good self-esteem, a strong desire to learn, high openness to new experiences, and a high degree of conscientiousness and agreeableness. When these qualities are present, feedback is more often interpreted as support and help rather than a threat to one's self-image. Over time, this leads to better motivation, greater effort, and better results. On the other hand, research shows that certain traits increase the risk of negative reactions. Employees with lower self-esteem, low self-efficacy, or a high degree of narcissism may react with defensiveness, irritation, obstruction, or reduced effort, even when the feedback is concrete and objective. Outwardly, the reaction may seem calm, while the resistance is expressed through sarcasm, trivialization, or a lack of follow-up afterward.

This is why standardized feedback recipes don't work

Much of the literature on feedback gives the impression that there is one right way to provide it. Lai's findings challenge this notion. Feedback given the same way to everyone will necessarily have very different effects. For leaders, this means, among other things, that certain personality traits increase the risk of stress and resistance when feedback is given, that extroversion and emotional stability seem to have less significance than many believe, and that some employees actively ask for feedback without having the sufficient self-awareness or emotional resilience to absorb it. This reinforces an important point. A lack of feedback is not neutral, but neither is the way feedback is given. Poorly adapted feedback can, in practice, worsen motivation, collaboration, and results.

When feedback fails. Examples from practice

In the public sector, several audits and investigations have pointed to inadequate follow-up on critical input and whistleblowing. Employees report that they have raised concerns without experiencing a real response. The feeling that something is noted, but that nothing happens, is a recurring theme. Over time, this leads to three well-known consequences: fewer people dare to speak up, risk deviations remain unaddressed for longer, and trust in leadership is weakened. At the system level, audits show that recurring deviations are rarely just about individuals. Often, it is management and culture that fail. Information, feedback, and corrections stop in the line and are not translated into learning. The problem is therefore not just too little feedback, but also feedback without real follow-up.

What can leaders do to strengthen feedback in the organization?

Creating a strong feedback culture is about everyday practice. Encouraging openness is not enough. The following steps are particularly important. Normalize feedback in daily life. Make feedback frequent, brief, and situational, rather than something that only happens in formal meetings. Clearly distinguish between the person and their behavior. Focus on observable behavior and consequences, not personal traits or assumed intentions. Adapt to different employees. Consider the format, timing, and amount, especially with employees you know may react strongly. Make feedback as non-judgmental as possible. Provide feedback one-on-one, focusing on learning and future actions. Actively ask for feedback yourself. When leaders ask for feedback, they demonstrate in practice that it is safe to speak up. Practice receiving feedback. How you react when someone speaks up sets the standard. Thank them for their input, ask questions, and be clear about what you are taking with you. Connect feedback to shared goals. When feedback is linked to tasks, quality, and goals, it is perceived less as personal criticism and more as collective improvement.

Reflection questions for leaders

When did I last receive honest and concrete feedback from an employee?
How do I react when someone points out my mistakes or disagrees with me?
Is it safe for people in my team to speak up, even to me?
Do we provide as much appreciative feedback as we do corrective feedback?
What do employees learn from what happens when feedback is ignored?