We use the word feedback almost every day in organizations. Give feedback. Ask for feedback. Receive feedback. Build a feedback culture. Celebrate feedback. Survive feedback.
But have you ever stopped and asked yourself: What does this word actually mean? And is it even the right word for human-to-human communication?
Let me challenge a popular — and often superficial — organizational obsession.
The origin of the word
The term feedback comes from engineering and cybernetics. In machines, feedback loops correct deviations from an expected output. The goal is stability, accuracy, and self-regulation. A thermostat receives temperature feedback and adjusts accordingly. A rocket adjusts its trajectory. A sound system eliminates unwanted noise.
The word is mechanical and mathematical — designed for systems, not human beings.
And yet, we borrowed this term from engineering and casually placed it on top of human relationships, emotions, egos, identities, and power dynamics. We imported a technical metaphor and forced it to function as if it belonged to psychology and leadership. But it doesn’t. At least not in the same way, because humans are not devices. Of course, we also need to adapt, adjust, self-regulate, and change — but we do so in ways far more complex than machines controlled by those in charge.
Is everything feedback?
No. In organizations, we have created an illusion: that anything someone tells us — an opinion, preference, irritation, request, instruction — is “feedback.” But it’s not. Most of what is called feedback is simply a request for personal convenience, disguised as organizational necessity:
- “Could you be more proactive?”
- “I’d prefer shorter emails.”
- “Can you speak less in meetings?”
- “You should be more strategic.”
None of these qualify as feedback unless there were explicit, mutually agreed-upon criteria beforehand. If there are no shared and clear criteria, whatever the person says is not feedback. It is a subjective expression of their needs, discomforts, biases, or preferences. That’s a request. And requests belong to the domain of communication, not performance evaluation.
Feedback requires one essential thing: mutually agreed criteria
Feedback without criteria is like grading a student subjectively. Or like reviewing a coach without competencies. We, coaches, know how valuable it is to have professional competencies and behavioral markers for learning, mentoring, and evaluation. Criteria create fairness, clarity, autonomy, and psychological safety — all essential social needs that determine whether humans accept or reject information.
When criteria exist and are mutually agreed upon, we evaluate behaviors and skills, not personalities, moods, projections, or preferences.
Without criteria and unmistakable evidence, “feedback” becomes a socially acceptable form of domination — subtle, polite, but still domination. It elevates one person into the role of evaluator and reduces the other into the role of being evaluated.
Words matter. Once a word becomes a buzzword, we stop thinking.
Is “feedback” even the right term for humans?
I doubt it. Human beings are interpretive, emotional, creative, narrative, meaning-making organisms. We respond to tone, timing, power, trust, fairness, psychological safety, our own fears and hopes, and the relationship itself. Machines do not.
Feedback assumes a direct signal-response model. Humans don’t work like that. What we call feedback is often a story, a projection, an interpretation, an unmet need, a lack of clarity, an emotional reaction, or simply… a preference.
This is why, in coaching, we do not evaluate — we explore.
We don’t impose — we inquire.
We don’t diagnose — we co-create meaning.
This is the deeper logic behind coaching as a creative, emergent, phenomenological inquiry rather than a corrective mechanism.
The real danger: when “feedback culture” replaces thinking
Organizations say: “We need a feedback culture.” But what they often create is:
- a culture of judgement
- a culture of pleasing
- a culture of fear and defensiveness
- a culture of sanitized, polite criticism
- a culture where people talk about each other, not to each other
What disappears?
The real conversations — the ones that require honesty, sincerity, courage, respect, and mutual willingness to grow.
What should we use instead?
Depending on the situation, we should choose more human, clearer words:
- a request
- a review of a shared agreement
- a clarification of expectations
- a reflection
- a dialogue
- a co-created learning moment
- a sense-making conversation
- a discussion of impact, etc.
These words honor autonomy, psychological safety, relationship, and dignity. They also require maturity and responsibility from both sides — which is exactly what vertical development aims to strengthen.
So what is feedback, really, if we decide to keep using the term?
Feedback is evidence-based information given in relation to agreed-upon criteria, with the purpose of helping someone grow — and only when both people are committed to that growth.
This is not semantics. This is ethics, maturity, and psychological clarity. When we misuse words, we misuse people.
Where do we go from here?
If organizations want to mature beyond superficial buzzwords, they need:
- shared criteria
- mutual agreements
- intentional requests (not disguised as feedback)
- dialogue instead of evaluation
- reflection instead of correction
- presence instead of performance.
And above all, we must understand that real growth does not happen through feedback loops. It happens through relationship, curiosity, trust, honesty, and thoughtful presence.
-Leda