Navigating the Complexities of Feedback: Understanding Discomfort and Misinterpretation

Becoming more comfortable with giving feedback often leads me to question why the act of giving feedback can be so uncomfortable. From a young age, we’ve experienced feedback in various forms—through Parent-Teacher Meetings (PTMs), entrance exam results reflecting our preparation, and even the rejections we've faced in personal situations like proposals. We've encountered countless instances of feedback throughout our lives, so why does it often make us squirm?

If we think about it, feedback has been a constant companion through school, college, and even in our personal lives. We've received nuggets of wisdom from various people over time. So, what is it about feedback that many of us find unsettling? Has this constant evaluation done more harm than good? Have we become overly reliant on external validation through constructive feedback? And if so, who is interpreting feedback incorrectly—the giver or the receiver?

According to Britannica, “feedback is helpful information or criticism that is given to someone to indicate what can be done to improve performance, a product, etc.” The idea of "helpful information" resonates, but the term "criticism"... well, that’s where it gets tricky.

Britannica further defines criticism as "the act of expressing disapproval and noting the problems or faults of a person or thing." Both feedback and criticism seem fine in theory, but these definitions assume a perfect world where everyone understands and applies these concepts correctly.

In reality, feedback means different things to different people. We must consider the diverse human behaviors, mindsets, and perspectives at play. So, how can we create a shared understanding of feedback? Should every organization establish its own definition of feedback to make it easier for everyone to accept?

Once a definition is agreed upon, what should the dynamics of the feedback process look like? The space where feedback is given demands respect from all parties involved. There are three key players in this space: the giver of feedback, the receiver, and the space itself. This space should be governed by principles that transcend the individuals involved—empathy, compassion, practicality, warmth, and a genuine passion for the receiver's growth and evolution. The receiver may come from a place of low self-esteem, personality challenges, or communication issues, but the space for feedback requires the giver to operate from a higher plane, not to diminish the receiver.

This sounds good in theory, but problems arise when the giver fails to meet the demands of this space. Ego, internal politics, and personal vendettas can disrupt the process, leading to chaos. This brings us to some important questions: Who is giving the feedback? Who has been giving it over the years? Equally crucial is understanding who is receiving the feedback and in what context.

For instance, feedback once meant simply informing me that I scored poorly in physics at school. However, it was interpreted as a sign that I wasn't suited for science, with reasons like lack of attention in class or being too talkative (even though I was merely asking questions). The result? I quit science at the first opportunity, only realizing years later that the feedback wasn't delivered or received properly. The feedback space had been misused.

So, what has your feedback experience been like today? Care to share?