Receiving Feedback

Feedback in my company goes in one direction. I give it; my team receives it. The reverse almost never happens.  

Not because they have nothing to say. Because there is no mechanism, an obvious power differential, and a salary that feels contingent on my approval.

I understand that. And, if my team doesn’t feel comfortable telling me something isn’t working, they’re more at risk of burnout, underperforming, and eventually, leaving. 

So I built a mechanism for anonymous feedback. I explicitly asked for directness, accuracy over comfort, and facts over self-protection. 

The answers didn’t surprise me. I’m trustworthy, approachable, and credible; I’ve built the foundation. And, under pressure, my emotions are visible and affect the team. 

When my regulatory capacity overloads, my tone shifts, warmth decreases, and the perceived safety is limited. This is the knowing-doing gap in real time.

Feedback doesn’t create alignment. Regulatory capacity determines whether we can use it.

I am not the exception to my framework. My own regulatory capacity requires attention.

I expressed gratitude for the openness, identified clear patterns, and publicly committed to specific behavioral changes.

And, I asked something in return: a two-way process. When my team inevitably notices I’m not acting aligned, I want to know – respectfully, directly, and constructively.

The hardest part came at the team retreat. I put this on the agenda and opened the conversation. I named the growth areas, what I’m working to change, and what I’m doing about it. 

My heart was racing, hands shaking, and voice unsteady. I focused on my breath, reoriented toward my values, and kept my posture open.

This is what distress tolerance looks like. It’s the capacity to endure discomfort.

It was uncomfortable. And, the outcome was worth it. My team thanked me.

Their gratitude reinforced the behavior I wanted to avoid. It makes the discomfort easier to tolerate next time.

This is what leaders need: the capacity to stay in the room when the conversation gets hard. This is learned, evolves over time, and requires ongoing attention.

Even Marc Brackett – the leading expert on emotional intelligence – says he’s not a highly regulated human. He still monitors his capacity and catches himself mid-ineffectiveness. He names the importance of humility. 

The moment we identify as “highly regulated,” curiosity closes and protection patterns take over. 

On The Curiosity Shop, Brené Brown puts it directly: “If you want to win, you must create an environment of productive challenge. You must want to win more than you want to protect your ego.” 

Organizations that don’t win avoid hard conversations. Teams that don’t perform lack psychological safety. Intention doesn't matter if behavior under pressure doesn't align.

Thought leaders like Brackett and Brown teach us how to do these hard things by publicly working on them themselves. They acknowledge the mistake, learn from it, and adjust behavior in real time.

The knowing-doing gap doesn't close through better intentions. It closes through feedback we’re willing, and able, to receive.