Feedback Dynamics in High-Trust Relationships

Q. Is a "feedback sandwich" still a best practice? (a word of praise followed by constructive feedback, then more praise)? A. No. When a "feedback sandwich" is effective it's not because of the "sandwich" format. It's because there is already enough trust established between the manager and the employee that the employee can accept the manager's suggestions easily - meaning the "sandwich" wasn't even necessary. The reason so much managerial feedback is badly received by employees is not because of the way it's delivered. It's because the relationship between the manager and the employee isn't strong enough. We easily accept feedback from people we trust - like a family member or good friend. A manager can establish that level of trust by being someone employees look up to and respect. It takes time to build trust but it's absolutely worth it. When your teammates trust and respect you, it's because you trust and respect them too. When you reach that point, they'll not only listen to your feedback, they'll ask for it. For years managers have been taught that certain words or phrases or techniques like the "feedback sandwich" will help their feedback be better received, but this is bad advice. It goes counter to everything we know about people. If the reason you're able to give feedback is because you're the manager and they are not - an unequal power relationship - your feedback is not likely to do any good. It can easily damage your relationships even further. Trust is the key. Someone has a PTO request? Make it your highest priority to approve it. Someone needs you to look at a document? Do it as quickly as you can. There's no mystery about how to build trust on your team. The problem is that in many organizations they don't talk about this topic. They don't give it much importance. They assume that being a manager is enough. You're the manager, so employees must listen to you. But it's not true. If there's too little trust, your feedback will feel like a threat. With trust in the mix, you'll address anything that needs to be shared in the moment, like this: YOU: Sandy, what was the story with that Acme Explosives thing? SANDY: Oh, they have a new Receiving person who didn't see the Priority code on the bill of lading. We got it straightened out. YOU: Great, thanks. Somebody at Acme was hot about it. Leo, I think? He called me. I talked him down but he wasn't thrilled. SANDY: He's the Receiving manager. Thanks for talking to him. YOU: What can we do when that kind of thing happens, to avoid a small problem blowing up? SANDY: I got too worked up. I was trying to help the new Receiving guy but I guess he was nervous about making a mistake, so he was defensive and I was too harsh. That's my bad. Sorry about that. YOU: Okay, no problem, do I need to do anything else? SANDY: No, I'll shoot Leo an email and copy you in. I know what to say. YOU: Tremendous, thanks!

One insecure leader can ruin a high trust workplace. You think psychological safety means honest feedback. They experience feedback as a threat to their self-image. You raise concerns to protect the work. They hear criticism and feel exposed. Insecure leaders need to be seen as competent, liked, and unquestioned. They tolerate openness only as long as it reinforces their ideal image. The moment feedback disrupts that image, safety collapses. Trust becomes conditional. Candour becomes risky. People learn to speak carefully, not truthfully. High trust cultures don’t usually fall apart through discomfort or even conflict. They unravel when one leader cannot tolerate reality. Scapegoating begins when the person who speaks frankly becomes the problem. The feedback giver is reframed as negative, difficult, or misaligned. What was once encouraged is suddenly punished. In a workplace governed by a toxic leader, psychological safety is performative. It exists until it’s tested. When you understand that, you stop confusing stated values with lived behaviour. You learn to read when openness is real and when it’s decorative. You protect relationships without sacrificing your judgment. That’s where discernment becomes authority. 📫 If you’ve watched a healthy culture deteriorate under insecure or toxic leadership, you’re not imagining it. I help professionals assess trust, influence, and risk accurately so they can stay credible and in control when leadership can’t tolerate feedback. 🔗 How psychologically safe cultures erode under insecure leaders: https://lnkd.in/gKc_9Taq

A client asked me whether she needed to be friends with everyone she worked with. The tension I heard within her question? A deep desire to be liked. A fear that any measure of conflict signals failure. What she was really asking me: should I lean into this pressure to smooth, affirm, accommodate? Is it OK to be a cause of, or participant in, friction? In my work, I am often invited in to support executives in one of two leadership situations: 1 — Sometimes the executive in front of me is highly effective and deeply competent, and now needs to strengthen empathy and relational fluency so their leadership expands through trust rather than authority alone. 2 — Other times, the leader is beloved and steady, someone people genuinely enjoy working with, and now needs to build sharper executive presence to carry more weight and be considered for the next level. Different starting points. But the underlying work is the same: both situations hinge on the QUALITY of the executive's relationships. Durable professional relationships are defined not by constant agreement or easy rapport (that's what the bots are for these days). Our most powerful relationships - professional and personal - are built through candor, standards, repair... and STAYING through tension. Avoiding friction does NOT create strong leadership. What does? Navigating the friction effectively, and introducing friction - through feedback, or hard choices - as necessary. Approval is pleasant. TRUST is powerful. Think about the people who have shaped your life and work. The friendships that became integral professional relationships. The connections formed through shared effort, challenge, and time. These are some of mine. One from Grad school. One from CrossFit. One from back in the day at Ragnar. One from a life lived in Spain. Two friends of friends. And the daughter of a longtime client. Every one of those relationships has included feedback, pushback, discomfort, and growth. And abundant laughter. These are relationships that prioritize trust over likability. Which is why I know I can count on them. And vice versa. So what did I tell this leader? People pleasing won't get you where you want to go, but investing in high-quality, resilient, trust-based relationships. YES. Yes yes yes. Build them. Cultivate them. They're worth their weight in gold.

A 15-minute disagreement can predict divorce with 94% accuracy. The same pattern predicts which teams succeed or fail. Marriages and teams do not fall apart because of conflict. They fall apart when they fail the 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼. I first learned this as an undergraduate (pictured in my incredible shirt below), analyzing conversations for a Stanford project linked to John Gottman’s research. Couples sat face to face in a windowless room, cameras centimeters away, electrodes everywhere, with no semblance of privacy. What amazed me then, and still does today, was how simply asking them to have a “productive conversation” was enough to spark conflict almost every time. The finding was simple. Stable couples kept at least 𝑓𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑛𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑜𝑛𝑒. Negative interactions include behaviors such as eye-rolling, dismissiveness, or subtle withdrawal. Positive interactions include a nod of understanding, a small smile, or expressing appreciation. Leadership research shows the same pattern. In a study of 60 business teams: - High-performance teams maintained a 5.6-to-1 ratio - Low performers ran at 0.36-to-1 (nearly three negatives for every positive) One dismissive comment in a meeting does not just sting. It shapes whether people speak up next time or whether they tell you what you need to hear. The magic ratio is not about avoiding tough feedback. It is about building enough trust that people can hear your criticism without retreating into self-protection. Think of your best manager and your worst. What ratio were they running?

"How do I give performance feedback well?" is often the wrong question. It’s based on a paradigm that can 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦 performance. In what ways? 𝗔) 𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 Performance feedback is typically framed as something a superior does to a subordinate - an act of evaluation. That dynamic is not neutral. It amplifies the power gradient, reduces perceived support, and increases negative emotions. These responses don’t just accompany feedback; they interfere with the improvement it is meant to drive - even when softened with good technique. Worse, this approach often displaces more effective ones: shared understanding, joint problem-solving, and genuine support. 𝗕) 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 Feedback is often described as developmental, but experienced as control. The pattern is familiar: identify what was wrong, prescribe the correction, expect improvement. Whatever the phrasing, the intent is usually clear. People are highly sensitive to this. When feedback feels controlling, it creates resistance by threatening autonomy. Compliance may follow, but at the cost of trust, openness, and sustained engagement. 𝗖) 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 Feedback is not an isolated event. It sits within an ongoing relationship. That relationship shapes interpretation far more than any phrasing or technique. In low-trust relationships, even well-intended feedback struggles to land well. In high-trust relationships, even direct or critical input is workable. When leaders focus on technique, they often overlook the relationship. This is backwards. Build the relationship first, and the interaction follows. 𝗗) 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 Relying on feedback to change behaviour often places the responsibility entirely on the individual while overlooking the situational factors that drive behaviour. Motivation adapts to circumstances and is maintained by them, so telling people to act differently in unchanged conditions rarely works. Behaviour is both 100% individual and 100% situational - but situations are often easier to change. Support the desired behaviours more through better ways of working makes sustained improvement more likely. Of course we need to understand the impact of our work to improve it and maintain a sense of meaning and motivation. That is not the issue. The issue is the paradigm: Judgement → Problem-solving Control → Autonomy & Empowerment   Technique → Relationship   Individual responsibility→ Situational change Leaders who focus only on “how to give feedback” are working at the wrong level. The more useful question is this: How do we build relationships and craft situations to support belonging, autonomy, and competence? Curious how others think about this. ——— I'm Reuben Rusk, PhD 💡 I help leaders enable human flourishing.

High-trust teams are often the ones most afraid of saying what needs to be said. Not because they lack courage, but because they fear damaging something that already matters. Over the last couple of weeks, I’ve seen this play out in three different organizations and geographies. It brought into focus something about trust frameworks I hadn’t quite named before. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀 Trust frameworks ask: “𝘋𝘰 𝘐 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶?” They don’t ask: “𝘋𝘰 𝘐 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺?” Feeling safe is not the same as believing a relationship is repairable. I might trust that I won't be hurt—but I don't yet trust that the relationship won't be. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗽 Frameworks measure trust through qualities like integrity, benevolence, reliability. These are moral judgments. So when trust breaks, the story is simple. Someone crossed a line. They let us down. And responsibility shifts outward: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬.” That framing keeps leaders waiting. It makes them speak 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 instead of honestly. 𝗔𝗻 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 When we believe a relationship can survive strain, leaders stop waiting for trust to be restored and start taking responsibility for repair. The question changes: “𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵?” For CEOs, this is often a blind spot. High trust doesn’t always create honest teams. Sometimes it creates restraint — when the team isn’t yet confident it can repair what honesty might strain.

Giving feedback shouldn’t cost you trust. But it does when you deliver it from urgency instead of regulation. What happens is usually: ➝ Someone hears your feedback as blame, judgment, or threat.  ➝ Their nervous system goes into defense mode and learning stops. I've done this. Said the right words while in the wrong state and watched someone shut down completely. I’ve learned from experience and from working with teams that: ➝ The words matter less than the state you're in when you say them. If you're frustrated, anxious, or rushed when you give feedback, they'll feel that before they hear your actual words. But feedback that builds trust within your team focuses on behaviour, not identity. Not "You're disorganised" → "The last three deadlines were missed. What's getting in the way?" Names impact without shaming. Not "This is embarrassing" → "When the client brief is incomplete, it delays the whole team. Here's what needs to be included." This invites reflection instead of forcing agreement. Not "You need to fix this" → "This didn't go well. What would you do differently next time?" Leaves the relationship intact. After the conversation, the person should feel clearer about what to do, not worse about themselves. This sounds softer, but it's actually more precise. Most people don't need more pressure in order to do their job well. They already care about their work. What they need is clarity, safety, and respect. If your feedback consistently damages trust, the issue is how honesty is being expressed. Try this before you give feedback: Ask yourself “am I calm enough to be direct without being harsh?” If not, wait. Regulate first, then speak. The feedback will land so much better when you're grounded. And try making these switches to how you approach giving feedback to your team. What's one shift you've made that changed how your feedback landed? ♻️ Share if you're working on giving feedback that doesn't cost you trust ➕ Follow Maya Knight for more on leading teams in ways that build trust

One of the hardest things in any workplace is providing constructive feedback. The internet is flooded with articles about "how to give feedback without offending", but in my experience, most of these tactical approaches fall flat when it comes to real human interactions. Why? Because we forget a crucial element: Trust. Here are some key points to consider: 1️⃣ Building Trust and Solid Relationships Instead of focusing exclusively on the "right way" to deliver feedback, invest time in building a strong, trust-based relationship with your colleagues. When you've developed mutual respect, even the most challenging conversations become easier. 2️⃣ We're Not Machines, We're People Sometimes, in the hustle of deadlines and targets, we start treating colleagues like cogs in a machine. It's only when conversations become difficult that we're jolted back to reality: we're dealing with human beings, not robots. People come with complexities, emotions, and unique circumstances. Recognize that. 3️⃣ Tactical Isn't Always Practical Before you Google "how to give constructive feedback without triggering a fight", STOP. Ask yourself, have you built a reputation that makes people trust your intentions? Every interaction you have at work is an opportunity—not just to transact business, but also to understand someone’s cause, offer support, and build credibility. 4️⃣ Time, Goals, and Emotions Matter Remember, your colleagues have their own goals and time constraints, just like you do. Ignoring the emotional part of your interactions isn't just unfair; it's unrealistic. And while we're on the subject, stop pretending you're devoid of emotions; it makes you less relatable, and therefore, less trustworthy. 5️⃣ The Cake Walk When you've made it a point to cultivate trust and mutual respect, offering constructive feedback becomes a piece of cake. You won't need a script or a 10-step guide. You'll simply speak your mind, as you would in any honest relationship. To sum up, if you find giving feedback hard, perhaps the real issue lies not in your delivery, but in the foundation of your work relationships. Build that trust and watch how the dynamic changes. I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Have you found that trust makes your workplace relations easier? 🙏 Thanks for reading! #leadership #culture #feedback #workplacerelations

A senior leader once asked me to stay on after a meeting. She looked at me and said, "What did you really think of how that went?" I knew exactly what I thought 👇 The attorney in that room had been out of line.  He had undermined her in front of everyone, and the whole dynamic shifted because of it. I relayed this to her, specifically and calmly. She stayed on the line for ten more minutes to talk it through. That conversation changed how she saw me,  As I gave her something real when most people would have played it safe. Upward feedback is one of the most underdeveloped skills I see at the VP and Director level. Because we just choose the clean, or nice, version when the moment comes. And over time, that breaks down the relationship more than honesty ever would. Senior leaders notice when they are not getting the full picture. Here is what makes upward feedback useful: 1️⃣ Specific over general. "I thought he was a bit off", says nothing. "He pushed back in a way that undermined your authority in front of the room" is insight. Action: Before you speak, ask yourself if you can point to the exact moment you noted. 2️⃣ Observation over opinion. Plainly state what you saw. You are there to give something they can use. Action: Lead with a fact, so you can separate what happened from how you felt about it. 3️⃣ Composure over emotion. Don't let ego and emotion get in the way of useful feedback. Prioritize relaying the information as reliably as possible. Action: If you are still affected by what happened, wait before you speak. When the moment arrives, name what you observed and connect it to the impact it had. Then, close with what you believe would serve them. Give your perspective, not a verdict. The leaders who earn genuine trust upward are the ones willing to say what others won't. Have you ever softened upward feedback and later wished you hadn't? Let me know in the comments. Every weekday, I publish a short leadership video inside The 5-Minute Leader newsletter. I coach you through real situations using essential frameworks. Subscribe here for more: https://lnkd.in/ezCguzc7 ♻️ Repost this to help another leader in your network give honest feedback. And follow me, Cicely Simpson, for leadership content that gets into the rooms most people avoid.

Trust doesn't automatically create the conditions for hard conversations. You've clarified your values and actually live them. Your team seems aligned. Engagement scores are solid. And still, 88% of employees in high-trust organizations avoid difficult conversations. Read that again. People need the skills, the language, and the confidence to say the uncomfortable thing. And more than that, they need to see their leader model it first. When you have the hard conversations behind closed doors, guess what happens? No one sees how you react to push back. No one hears you ask thoughtful questions. No one watches as the tension rises and then dissipates. Your team's psychological safety is not a culture problem. It's a mirror. The questions that actually tell you where you stand: What does your team do when you're wrong? Do people push back in meetings, or just after them? When you ask for honest feedback, do you get it? If the answers make you pause, that's not a failure. That's information. The ceiling of your team's honesty is set, in large part, by how safe it feels to be honest with you. And if you don't know the answer. You're not alone. But you don't have to stay in the unknown. This is what I help leaders and their teams navigate every day. -- 👋 Hi, I'm Kathy — former CEO, current coach, and bridge builder. I write for leaders who have reached the top and are quietly wondering if there's a better version of this. Glad you're here.