How Leaders Can Give Feedback Effectively

Many of us know that constructive feedback can be difficult to both give and receive. But many might not know the neuroscience that explains this difficulty. Knowing the neuroscience of giving and receiving constructive feedback can support us in better navigating constructive feedback with intention, (self-)compassion, and grace.

It is often true that constructive feedback is a gift, given with the intention of elevating another’s interpersonal and/or professional performance and the trust that the receiver has the will and capacity to both consider the feedback and act on it. However, it is equally if not more often true that constructive feedback can be given in a way that does not consider the other person and their development or emotional well-being. In most instances, constructive feedback is likely well-intended but poorly delivered, either in form or timing.

In all instances where feedback is given without consideration for the person receiving the feedback, the feedback can trigger the receiver’s stress, or “fight or flight,” response.

The stress response generally arises in response to a trigger and often encompasses one or more of the following reactions: fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. The stress response includes both a psychological and physical response in the body and overall impedes executive functioning, including the ability to process information, problem-solve, and learn. The physical response is sometimes also called “amygdala hijacking,” because the amygdala, the part of your brain most responsible for processing threatening stimuli, overrides the other parts of your brain that may rationally know that a trigger is not truly threatening to you and your well-being. In this state, your body releases both cortisol and adrenaline and your heartrate, breathing, and alertness are all heightened. Psychologically, you may experience quickened thoughts and an attentional focus on the threat.

The “SCARF” model can be helpful to understand what elements of feedback might trigger a stress response and why. The acronym “SCARF” stands for “Status,” “Certainty,” “Autonomy,” “Relatedness,” and “Fairness.” It was first identified by David Rock (NeuroLeadership Journal, 2008). Let’s move through “SCARF” to understand both why and how feedback might trigger a stress response.

1. Status
   • When somebody is offered constructive feedback in a way that is negative or challenges their sense of relative ability, they may feel singled out or like something is wrong. They may also feel that they are being left out of a team or organizational culture.
2. Certainty
   • Sometimes constructive feedback can challenge somebody’s ability to predict outcomes. They may be caught off guard by changes in expectations or by the realization that they didn’t understand what was expected of them. They may also feel unsettled by not having a clear path forward.
3. Autonomy
   • Learning from another person is a vulnerable process and implies trusting the person giving feedback with one’s own path to mastery. People can often feel triggered by the sense that they don’t have control over their own learning and performance. Many dislike when they feel that others are making decisions for them.
4. Relatedness
   • Relatedness is similar to Status in that it highlights the capacity for somebody to feel isolated from a group in receiving constructive feedback. This sense of isolation can be especially present when individuals are collaborating across personalities, communication styles, and behavioral preferences.
5. Fairness
   • Constructive feedback can be triggering if the person receiving it perceives it to be unfair, especially given any unclear communication or instructions.

The SCARF model can also help us envision more effective ways to offer constructive feedback.

1. Status
   • Offer a framework for learning as well as constructive suggestions and feedback.
   • E.g., “I’d like to offer you some feedback now that we have concluded this project, so that we can identify what you did well and how you can improve.”
2. Certainty
   • Give explanations for even small changes. Explain the “why” and “how” of feedback and future actions to be taken. Co-create goals.
   • E.g., “When you write to the client, it’s important to include our recommendation in the first few sentences of our email, and then provided a detailed and succinct explanation. I’ll happily review the next few emails you prepare for the client so that you can learn to draft communications in this way.”
3. Autonomy
   • Provide opportunities for self-directed learning as well as choices and opportunities to take ownership over projects or tasks.
   • E.g., “There are many firm-sponsored and outside opportunities to learn client relationship management skills. Let’s set aside some time in the next two weeks to discuss your goals and how I can help you achieve them.”
4. Relatedness
   • Embrace deep, empathetic listening and nurture psychological safety for the person receiving feedback.
   • E.g., “Now that I’ve given you my feedback, I’ll stop talking and let you react.”
   • E.g., “My door is always open, and I’ll be sure to make some time if you want to discuss this again later.”
5. Fairness
   • Provide clear instructions and a roadmap for success to ensure that the person receiving feedback can know exactly where and how to improve for next time. Others will be more motivated to act on feedback if they have a sense that the goals are fair and attainable.
   • E.g., “Now that we’ve discussed some ways to enhance your writing, you can use the sample briefs/agreements as models. I’ll be editing the next few drafts to emphasize the topics we discussed so that you can track your progress and learning.”