Upward Feedback Doesn't Matter If You Don't Do Anything About It

Okay, bear with me as I write this mini-essay about something very corporate but important—the need for real, actionable upward feedback in the workplace.

We've all heard the classic adage that feedback is a "two-way street." But what if there are corporate roadblocks and institutional traffic jams? What if HR actively protects traffic going one way and closes the lanes going back to the corporate office?

Employees are regularly reviewed and given feedback on their performance, but what happens when managers, directors, and executives need feedback about how they’re leading?

Many workplaces have some kind of system for providing manager feedback, but let’s be real—it’s often flawed. Power dynamics, fear of retaliation (subtle or outright), and a lack of clear accountability make it difficult for employees to be truly honest about their experiences with leadership.

After working in the nonprofit sector for close to a decade—both at small grassroots organizations and large corporate institutions—here are some observations and humble learnings.

?? Power Dynamics Make Honest Feedback… Not So Honest

Picture this: You’re filling out an annual performance review for your manager. You have real concerns—maybe about their leadership style, their communication, or how they handle (or don’t handle) conflict.

But then you remember: They’re the ones reviewing your performance, too.

How honest can you really be?

Sure, some companies say they take feedback seriously. But when your direct manager is also the one reviewing their own performance feedback, it’s hard not to wonder:

• Will this come back to bite me?
• Will they retaliate, even subtly, by giving me fewer opportunities or being less supportive?
• Will anything actually be done about it?

This is why a truly effective feedback system needs to acknowledge the inherent power imbalance between managers and employees. If companies genuinely want to create a culture of honest feedback and accountability, they need to build transparent processes where employees feel safe about speaking up—without fear of consequences.

They need to actively encourage feedback and implement processes that demonstrate they take the feedback seriously. Otherwise, feedback mechanisms are just another institutional checkbox.

?? Upward Feedback Shouldn’t Stop at Direct Managers

Here’s another common issue: Employees can usually only review their immediate supervisors.

But work dynamics don’t stop at the direct manager level. Directors, VPs, and executives shape company culture and team experiences just as much—if not more.

For example, in many organizations:

• Directors set the tone for entire teams—but only middle managers can provide feedback.
• Employees interact with higher-ups who aren’t their direct managers but have no formal way to share concerns about them.
• There’s no clear way to address issues with senior leadership beyond “talk to HR” (which, let’s be honest, isn’t always an option people feel comfortable using).

If leadership wants to create a truly accountable workplace, there needs to be a structured and transparent way for employees at all levels to provide feedback about all levels of leadership.

???? Fear of Retaliation & The “Nothing Happens” Problem

One of the biggest reasons people don’t share upward feedback is that they don’t believe anything will change.

A lot of employees have been burned before. They’ve:

• Submitted concerns about a manager, only to get a vague, noncommittal response from leadership.
• Seen other employees speak up and face quiet retaliation (fewer opportunities, less support, etc.).
• Had HR meetings that ended in a he-said-she-said deadlock, with no real resolution.

I’ve personally gone to HR with concerns about upper management, and the response is always the same mix of platitudes:

"Thanks for sharing. We take this very seriously, but anything we do to address these concerns is confidential."

So I ask, “How will I know if my concerns are actually being addressed?”

And the answer is another runaround about confidentiality. Especially when the feedback is about a manager or director, there’s no visibility into whether action was taken, if the concern was even acknowledged, or if it was just filed away somewhere.

I’m lucky that I’ve worked at organizations that were unionized. In one instance, multiple complaints about a director were dismissed by HR—they were said to be “unsubstantiated” because the director themselves denied all the complaints. It was only after union action that the director was removed. Afterward, upper management tried to empathize and apologize to the employees. But what about other organizations without a strong union?

At some point, employees start to wonder: What’s the point of speaking up if nothing changes—or if we’re never told what’s being done to address our concerns?

So instead of risking retaliation, they do what so many others do: keep their heads down, move on, and maybe start looking for another job.

A real feedback culture doesn’t just collect concerns—it acts on them.

If employees don’t see follow-through, they stop engaging with the process altogether.

Companies that take this seriously need to:

• Clearly communicate how feedback is reviewed and what steps follow.
• Have a system where feedback isn’t just sent to the person being reviewed (because… that’s not exactly effective).
• Protect employees from retaliation, and make it clear that consequences exist for leaders who violate that trust.
• Provide some level of transparency—without violating confidentiality—so employees know that concerns are being taken seriously, and not just disappearing into an HR void.

Because at the end of the day, if employees only ever hear “this is confidential”, what they’re really hearing is “this isn’t your concern.” And that’s how trust in the system erodes.

?? Exit Interviews: A Wasted Opportunity?

People tend to be the most honest when they’re leaving a company. But what actually happens to that exit interview feedback?

In many places, the answer is… nothing.

Even when multiple employees leave due to the same leadership issues, those patterns often go unaddressed. Maybe the feedback gets watered down when it’s passed along. Maybe leadership chooses to dismiss it as “just a few bad experiences.” Either way, the cycle continues—good employees leave, and leadership stays the same.

If companies really want to reduce turnover and improve culture, they need to stop treating exit feedback as a box to check and start using it as a tool for meaningful change.

?? If We Preach Accountability, We Have to Practice It

A lot of organizations—especially mission-driven ones in the nonprofit sector—talk a big game about accountability, transparency, and equity.

But true accountability means holding leadership to the same standards as employees.

It means making feedback a true two-way street, not just a top-down directive.

It means ensuring that employees—at every level—can safely voice concerns, give input, and be heard without fear of retaliation or inaction.

At the end of the day, leadership should be held to the same high standards they expect from their teams. And if companies really want to create better, healthier workplaces, they need to start by asking:

• Are we actually making it safe for employees to speak up?
• Do we have real systems in place to address leadership concerns?
• Are we willing to make changes based on what employees tell us?

Because if honest feedback isn’t truly welcome, employees will eventually stop giving it—and start leaving instead.