Feedback in the company, why it remains a challenge for managers

On the one hand, there is a technical dimension: feedback requires method, precision and a certain discipline in the way it is formulated. On the other hand - and perhaps above all - there is a relational dimension. Giving feedback means entering the other person's space and inevitably touching personal perceptions, identities and sensibilities. And this is where things often get complicated.

It may be useful to take a brief step back.

The concept of feedback originated in cybernetics: it is the mechanism by which the output of a system is fed back into the system as input to correct its trajectory. In other words, the system observes the effects of its own actions and uses this information to adjust its trajectory.

When this idea is brought into organisations, feedback becomes something very concrete: the feedback we give people on their behaviour to help them be more aware of the impact of their actions.

Traditionally, a distinction is made between two types of feedback:

- corrective feedback, the purpose of which is to help change a behaviour.

- positive feedback, which serves instead to reinforce effective behaviour.

This distinction is certainly useful. But if the ultimate goal of feedback is awareness, one could even make a small provocation: the difference between positive and negative feedback may not be so essential.

After all, feedback is simply useful information to improve the quality of future actions.

Curiously, however, this very distinction highlights a very common dynamic in organisations.

Corrective feedback is difficult to give. It requires attention, courage and relational sensitivity. That is why it is often postponed or avoided.

Positive feedback, on the other hand, is easy to give. And precisely because of this, it often ends up not being given at all, as if it were implied.

The result is paradoxical: little negative feedback is given because it is difficult and little positive feedback because it seems superfluous.

There are also some very simple rules that can help.

The first is precision. Effective feedback is not generic: it must refer to a concrete situation and specific behaviour.

The second is objectivity. Feedback is always about the action, never about the person.

A very useful technique for maintaining this clarity is the SBI model: Situation, Behaviour, Impact, to which a fourth step, the Next Step, can be added.

One starts with the situation in which a behaviour has been observed.

Behaviour is then described objectively.

The impact that behaviour has generated is made explicit.

Finally, space opens up for the next step, namely a suggestion for the future.

This structure helps to keep the feedback anchored to the facts, avoiding interpretations and judgements that risk generating defences.

But even the most technically correct feedback runs the risk of not working if one key ingredient is missing: trust.

Feedback only produces value within a sufficiently solid relationship. When trust exists between two people, feedback is perceived as an aid to growth. When trust is lacking, the same feedback can be interpreted as criticism or attack.

In this sense, feedback is not just a technique.

It is first and foremost a relational phenomenon.

And it is perhaps for this very reason that, despite our great familiarity with the subject, we continue to find it difficult. It is not enough to know the rules: it is necessary to train them within real relationships, with all the complexity that this entails.

And it is probably for this very reason that feedback keeps returning, stubbornly, to the training rooms. Not because it is a new topic, but because it remains a skill that requires practice, attention and constant training.

*Partner of Newton S.p.A.