The F Word; Three Thoughts for Swapping Empty Feedback for a Real Conversation

The word ‘feedback’ is what’s wrong with modern leadership attempts.

‘Have a Real Conversation’ — image by author, with the help of NightCafe AI

Here’s Some Feedback…

…I loathe the word ‘feedback’. I have much distain for that word. I very much dislike it. I might even hate it.

The only appropriate use for the word ‘feedback’ is in the context for which it was originally coined in the mid-20th century; that is to describe a process of returning a portion of the output of a system or machine back to the input for the purpose of making adjustments or improvements.

I’ll also accept the description of an infinitely resonating sound when that sounds get played back into an amplification device, and creates a new sound, usually the high-pitched screech of a microphone that is too close to it’s outputting speaker system. This sound is good for waking up a conference audience. This sound also ruins any live recording.

Using the word to describe the delivery of some useful (or otherwise) input for my human existence? No. F*ck off.

The concept of feedback in engineering and control systems is essential for maintaining stability and control in various mechanical and electronic devices.

Over time, the term ‘feedback’ has also been adopted and adapted in other fields, including psychology, education, and management, to describe the process of providing information or responses that help individuals or systems adjust and improve their performance.

In other words, we’ve mechanised the most sacred of human interacts, the essential act of conversation.

The term ‘feedback’ entered the management lexicon in the mid-20th century as part of the development of management and organisational theory.

One of the key figures associated with the introduction of feedback into management theory is Douglas McGregor. In his book “The Human Side of Enterprise,” published in 1960, McGregor discussed the concept of feedback in the context of his Theory X and Theory Y management styles. McGregor argued that feedback was an essential component of Theory Y management, which emphasised trust, collaboration, and employee engagement. This work helped popularise the concept of feedback in management discussions.

Since then, the concept of feedback has become a fundamental aspect of modern management practices. It is now widely recognised as a tool for improving performance, fostering communication, and facilitating employee development within organisations.

Mechanical Manipulation

I think the greatest beef I’ve got with the word ‘feedback’ is that it describes the very fine, fragile line between genuine care and loving-attention, and manipulative, agenda-laden influence.

But is my beef really just semantics?

Is the word ‘feedback’ actually just the codification of giving and receiving useful input?

No — and I’ve thought long and hard about this. I have a quarter-century of experience in corporate human resources, people, and culture functions. Latterly, I have nearly a decade of corporate experience of life outside of the HR bubble.

Putting that collective experience to use, I have to say that ‘feedback’, as it’s conveyed and used in the corporate world and leadership jargon, is really just an acceptable synonym for ‘manipulation’.

Worse still, ‘feedback’ as a leadership and management practice has become the cornerstone behaviour that has stripped leadership of any sense of authenticity. We’ve collectively recognised this inauthentic expression — thank goodness — and are now frantically trying to feedback our way to more authentic leadership interactions. As if that sandwich is ever going to taste nice.

Our use of the word ‘feedback’, and the mechanistic actions that it then permits and demands, allows us to conveniently step out of the vulnerability of an authentic conversation. We use ‘feedback’ to comment or opine on a particular behaviour, with the intention of either reinforcing that behaviour, or changing it. We use ‘feedback’ almost exclusively in one direction, and leave no room for any kind of reciprocity, explanation or context.

‘Feedback’ gives us the permission to say things that are knowingly confronting, without having to accept any sense of true responsibility for the confrontation. It’s like the professional way of saying “no disrespect, but <>”.

We allow ourselves to accept that a surface level form of interaction gives us permission to stop genuinely caring. The outcome becomes more important that the process.

Simple, deep, meaningful conversation has given way to the perfunctory transmission of data, for the express purpose of achieving an arbitrary form of better-ness.

No wonder we hate going to work.

Just Have a Real Conversation

What happened to simple, deep, meaningful conversation?

In short, real conversation has been discarded to serve the need to influence and manipulate a situation, in a hurry. The conversation became an agenda.

We don’t have time for real conversations, because someone once said that time is money, and in our collective drive for wealth creation, no-one stopped to ask if that was really the best way to calibrate the use of time.

Some the best guidance on the essential, crucial importance of conversation can be found in the intertwining writings and teachings of David Whyte and John O’Donohue. Whyte refers to their good friendship as a mix of philosophy and poetry, with each bringing an emphasis that is unique and at the same time beautifully complementary.

Whyte suggests that authentic conversation allows individuals to reveal their innermost thoughts and feelings, creating a space for a shared vulnerability and authenticity.

O’Donohue believed that meaningful conversations serve as a source of healing and a way to deepen our relationships with each other. O’Donohue’s writings explore the idea that authentic conversations allow us to share our stories, hopes, and fears, leading to a deeper sense of communion and belonging. He saw conversation as a way to honour the sacredness of human interaction and as an opportunity for us to encounter the mystery and beauty of existence.

A real conversation is more than “intersecting monologues”, as O’Donohue once described the modern dialogue-esque experience. It is time spent sharing time — the kind of sharing that involves true immersion in the moment, across a kind of time that transcends liminal, chronological time.

A real conversation results in the altering of states, not because of an agenda, but because the alteration is inevitable and required.

Go Deeper

In our time-starved work (and personal) lives, the ask for a real conversation seems an almost impossible request.

However, guided by Whyte and O’Donohue, the route to conversation isn’t just a question of time. Conversations of the kind that we need to have will grow out of experience, not necessarily the simple allocation of time. As we become accustomed to real conversing, and begin to feel the effects of what a true conversation can uncover, we’ll automatically prioritise conversing.

Three ways of laying the foundation for true, authentic conversations are;

1. Find-and-replace ‘feedback’. Seriously, a simple path to authentic conversation is to stop using the word ‘feedback’. Instead, look for words and phrases that convey what it is that you are really trying to say.

“I have some feedback on your presentation” becomes a more forthright and authentic “I think you did really well on creating trust, and I also think you could have done more to describe the detail of the product”.

“I have some feedback…” becomes “I just want to tell you…, and I’m interested in what you think about…”.

Use more authentic synonyms for feedback, even if those words sound more on-the-nose. Reflections. Responses. Reactions. Thoughts. Opinions. Observations. Assessments.

The odds are that the use of those words will solicit an exchange of ideas, and open a path to a two-way dialogue, which is the basis of a conversation. That might feel clunky and odd at first — authenticity often does.

Here’s playful flip in this idea, for the brave — do a reverse find-and-replace for ‘feedback’ at home, or in your close personal friendships.

Start using the word ‘feedback’ with your significant other or your kids. Start a chat with your best friend with “hey, I have some feedback for you…”.

The reactions you get will inform you about the level of authenticity that the word ‘feedback’ promotes, and how much of a dick you sound when you use the word ‘feedback’.

2. Context is critical. Feedback is almost always situational, and very seldom contextual. A real conversation digs into the context surrounding the situation. The context then begets the situation.

Time and time again, western businessmen (often men, sometimes women) express their frustrations in dealing with ‘other’ cultures. There’s often too much talkie talkie, and not enough do-ie do-ie to satisfy the western expectations.

In western culture, we frequently blast past context in our hurry to satisfy the speed of a situational requirement. The broader context becomes irrelevant, and just gets in the way.

‘Other’ cultures, however, haven’t lost the importance of conversation, and more specifically understanding context. The talkie-talkie is in service of exploring context; understanding consequence, respecting history, contemplating real importance. These cultures will understand that any situation always sits within a deep and complex context. They understand that the situation can’t be properly addressed without addressing the context.

To explore context, bring to the surface what is in the background of the conversation. Give space for what’s not being said. It’s in this space where a delivery of feedback will become the brave and authentic conversation.

Time is essential for context to be fully understood. A deep contextualisation can’t — and shouldn’t — be rushed. The benefits of the patient conversation will always outweigh the cost. Taking the time to have the contextually informed conversation is a great example of slowing down to speed up.

3. Listen. A good conversationalist will listen intently before they even form a word to speak. And sometimes the deepest, most reverent, listening response is to say nothing at all, and let contemplative silence form the shared understanding.

The old trope of ears and mouths and ratable use is a truism. But listening is more than a quantifiable ratio in a dialogue. Listening begins long before the conversation has officially begun.

Truly listening is a form of constant attentiveness. It’s observation. It’s paying attention not only to what was said, but how it was said. True listening also notices what wasn’t said.

In leadership training we talk about active listening, and wrap a formulaic set of actions around ‘listening’; be empathetic, avoid interrupting, use non-verbal cues, ask open ended questions, reflect the speakers words, reframe, avoid judgement, manage your response.

Imagine what authentic listening would feel like. Pay attention. Participate for their needs, not yours. Be patient. Invest the time. Be comfortable with silence.

True listening only ever serves the conversation partner. It only serves to inform a response if that response is required, and a good listener will be able to discern that requirement.

We so often think a conversation needs active and equal participation of words. It might, but it always requires an active and equal participation of attention.

Now, maybe more than ever, we need real, deep, and true conversations. We need to solve real problems.