Bruna Batista

Feedback is a routine part of working life, yet it is often one of the most uncomfortable experiences for both managers and employees.

From a behavioural science perspective, this discomfort is not accidental. Feedback conversations can trigger a threat response in the brain. When individuals perceive criticism, even when it is constructive, it can activate the same neural pathways associated with social rejection. This is why people may become defensive, withdrawn, or overly self-critical during feedback discussions.

In day-to-day work, this shows up in familiar ways.

A manager prepares clear, well-intended feedback, but the conversation becomes tense. The employee focuses on a single critical comment and overlooks everything else. Or they agree in the moment but do not change behaviour afterwards. In some cases, managers avoid giving honest feedback altogether to prevent conflict.

These reactions are not simply about attitude or professionalism. They are shaped by how people interpret and respond to perceived threat.

Behavioural science suggests that how feedback is delivered has a significant impact on how it is received.

For example, research associated with Amy Edmondson highlights the importance of psychological safety in enabling open dialogue. When individuals feel respected and safe, they are more likely to engage with feedback rather than resist it.

Similarly, the work of Daniel Kahneman on cognitive biases helps explain why people may struggle to process feedback objectively. Under pressure, individuals are more likely to rely on fast, emotional thinking rather than slower, reflective reasoning.

In practice, small behavioural adjustments can significantly improve the quality of feedback conversations.

Clarity matters. Vague feedback creates uncertainty and increases anxiety. Specific examples help anchor the conversation in observable behaviour rather than personal judgement.

Timing also plays a role. Delivering feedback immediately after a stressful event can heighten defensiveness. Allowing space for reflection can lead to more constructive dialogue.

The framing of the conversation is equally important. Feedback that focuses on behaviour and impact, rather than personality, is more likely to be received as fair and actionable. For example, “In that meeting, the interruption meant others could not contribute” is more effective than “You tend to dominate conversations.”

Another key factor is involvement. When individuals are invited to reflect on their own performance first, they are more likely to engage with feedback. This shifts the conversation from being something done “to” them to something developed “with” them.

It is also important to recognise that listening is as critical as speaking. Feedback conversations are not one-directional. Understanding context, constraints, and perspectives can change both the interpretation and the outcome.

In everyday leadership, effective feedback is less about delivering a message perfectly and more about managing the human response to it.

When approached with an understanding of behavioural science, feedback becomes less about criticism and more about creating the conditions for learning, accountability, and continuous improvement.