Feedback Loops That Foster a Culture of Improvement

I once had a team of insecure overachiever analysts. They were introverts, brilliant at their work, and incredibly nice people. Too nice, as it turned out. They were so nice that they wouldn't tell each other what was really going on. Instead, they'd come to me: "So-and-so is doing this thing that's really annoying. Can you do something about it?" I got sick of everyone putting me in the middle instead of taking ownership of their issues with each other. So I did something about it. I brought in trainers from the Center for Creative Leadership to teach everyone the Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) model (link in comments). The process was simple but powerful: 1. Describe the situation so everyone's on the same page. 2. Share the specific behavior you observed (no judgments about intent). 3. Explain the impact on you or the other people in the room. We started with positive feedback to create safety. We practiced saying things like, “When you walked into that meeting with a big smile, the impact was that it put everyone at ease." Everyone started spotlighting the good that was happening, and that encouraged more thoughtful interactions. Then, we practiced constructive feedback—harder, but even more important. The impact was almost immediate. Soon, I heard people asking each other, "Hey, can I give you an SBI?" The framework made it safe. More importantly, we came to give and receive feedback for the gift that it is. That ability to give and receive honest, thoughtful feedback is the foundation of every healthy team culture. But it's a skill we rarely train for. I’m curious: What frameworks have you used in your organizations to create a culture of feedback?

Your brain can't process praise and criticism simultaneously. That's why traditional feedback methods are harmful. But there's ONE discovery that creates growth, not resistance: Direct. Then Connect. Neuroscience shows our brains process praise and criticism through completely different neural pathways. That's why the "feedback sandwich" fails so spectacularly. When we buffer criticism with praise... The brain cannot process these mixed signals effectively. People see through it anyway. Studies show 74% of professionals detect sandwich feedback within seconds. Having directly managed 300+ people and coached over 100 founders on leadership and culture, I’ve seen the real impact of feedback. Here’s what works... Two simple steps: 1. DIRECT: First, get permission and deliver unfiltered feedback. "May I share some observations about your presentation?" Then state exactly what needs improvement. This activates voluntary participation, and increases receptivity greatly. 2. CONNECT: Then, separately reaffirm their value "Your contributions remain vital to our success." The key? Complete separation between these steps. Direct feedback gives a clean signal about what needs to change. Connection maintains psychological safety. They know their status isn't threatened. Getting permission isn’t a minor detail - it’s crucial. It fosters respect and trust before you give tough feedback. Setting the stage for it to land well. The neuroscience behind this is clear: A Gallup study shows regular feedback mechanisms result in 14.9% increase in employee engagement and a 21% increase in profitability. Companies implementing this see remarkable results: • Cisco saw 54% faster resolution of team conflicts • Adobe reported 30% reduction in employee turnover • Pixar found 22% higher willingness to challenge assumptions • Microsoft under Nadella accelerated deployment cycles by 31% The traditional sandwich approach can feel safer, but it creates distrust. Direct Then Connect can feel scarier, but it builds psychological safety. Humans are wired to prioritize belonging above almost everything. When feedback threatens our status, our brains go into protection mode. When feedback becomes clear and non-threatening, learning accelerates. Implementing this approach requires courage. You have to trust your relationship is strong enough to handle direct feedback. But that's the paradox: By being more direct, you actually build stronger relationships. Try it with your team this week. You might feel uncomfortable at first, but watch what happens to your culture. When feedback becomes clear and non-threatening, learning accelerates. And companies that learn faster win. - If you liked this post? Follow us for more insights on conscious leadership and building companies from the inside out. Proud to coach with Inside-Out Leadership: executive coaching by trained coaches who have founded, funded, scaled, & sold their own companies.

If someone is surprised by the feedback they receive, this is a management failure. After witnessing multiple instances of this failure at Amazon, we realized our feedback mechanism was deeply flawed. So, we fixed it. In order for the organization to perform at its highest, employees need to know not only what is expected of them, but also how those expectations will be measured. Too often, managers assume that capable people will simply “figure things out,” but this is difficult and destined to fail without explicit expectations and continuous feedback. I remember the experience of an employee we can call “Melinda.” She had been a strong performer for two years before she transitioned into a new role on another team. She attacked the new opportunity with enthusiasm, working long hours and believing she was on the right track. Then, her manager expressed concerns about her performance and the criticism came as a shock. The feedback was vague, and there had been no regular check-ins or early signs to help her course-correct. This caused her motivation to suffer and her performance declined significantly. Eventually, she left the company. Afterward, we conducted a full review and we discovered that Melinda’s manager had never clearly articulated the expectations of the new role. Worse, her previous achievements had been disregarded in her evaluation. The system had failed her. This incident was not isolated. It illustrated a pattern. It revealed broader gaps in how we managed performance transitions and feedback loops. So, in response, we developed and deployed new mechanisms to ensure clarity from day one. We began requiring managers to explicitly define role expectations and conduct structured check-ins during an employee’s first 90 days in a new position. We also reinforced the cultural norm that feedback must be timely, specific, and actionable. These changes were rooted in a core principle of leadership: you have to make others successful too. Good management does not involve catching people off guard or putting them in “sink or swim” situations. When employees fail because expectations were unclear, that failure belongs to the manager. The best thing to do when you see those failures is to treat them as systems to improve. That’s how you build a culture of high performance.