Making feedback work, part 3: Reframe it

Feedback culture. Feedback-friendly culture.

Constructive feedback. Positive feedback. Negative feedback.

The word “feedback” shows up in discussions of organizational culture so often that it can begin to resemble the whine of an electric guitar. Well-intentioned, feedback as an interpersonal action often fails in its goal to promote improvement and growth because of how our brain responds to it. David Rock has defined the SCARF model of threat response: that when we feel a threat to our status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, or fairness our amygdala reacts with fight/flight/freeze before we have the chance to absorb the situation rationally. Depending on the situation, feedback can trigger any one of those five reactions.

The actuall word “feedback” is based on the term for uncontrolled noise going through an electronic system. While used with artistry by many musicians, it usually implies something abrasive: Amplified, atonal, loud. Repetitive. From a human perspective, it is about the giver. It is their perspective, often perceived as emotional, reactive. It is experienced as directed at the receiver, intending to change something about them. The expression “Can I give you some feedback?” is known to trigger a threat response from the amygdala. In a moment that is intended to be about individual growth and improvement, the brain is in defensive mode and is not even listening. 

I want to suggest an alternative to that very triggering word:

Input. 

“Input” is also based in electronics, but it is intentional, controlled. “Input” implies that there is something to put the information into. It’s about connection.

Input connects the giver and the receiver.

In human terms, “Input” honors the receiver as having their own talents, intentions, and perspective. “Can I give you some input?” has a totally different feeling than using the word “feedback.” Input from another person is additive, developmental: it builds on what is already there.

With their independent existence acknowledged -- and the amygdala likely remaining calm -- the receiver has the agency to choose whether and how to take that input and integrate it into their existing knowledge and experience.

Other terms that honor the recipient are also available to us. “Can I offer my perspective/thoughts/ideas” emphasizes that the giver is the owner and that something is being shared. Once again, the recipient is honored as an individual with independent integrity and agency. 

It is essential that we take in information about how we are performing. Let us not fill the world with noise, but instead let’s use language that makes relational the process of providing information to each other to encourage growth and excellence.