Receiving Feedback
Feedback in my organization 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 – and an inherent power differential. Their jobs feel contingent on my approval. Their livelihood feels dependent on my satisfaction.
I understand that. And, if my team doesn’t feel comfortable telling me something isn’t working, they’re more at risk of burnout, disengagement, underperforming, and eventually, leaving.
So I built a mechanism. Anonymous responses. I explicitly asked for directness – accuracy over comfort, 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. They affect the team.
When my regulatory capacity overloads, validation drops. Tone shifts. Perceived safety decreases.
This is exactly the knowing-doing gap under pressure, in real time.
Feedback doesn’t create alignment. Regulatory capacity determines whether we can use it.
I am not the exception. My own capacity management requires attention.
I expressed gratitude for the openness. Identified clear patterns. 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 myself. I named the growth areas, what I’m working to change, and what I’m doing about it.
My heart was racing. Hands shaking. Voice unsteady. I focused on my breath. Reoriented toward my values. Stayed open.
This is what distress tolerance actually looks like. Not the absence of distress – the capacity to move through it.
It was uncomfortable. And the outcome was worth it.
My team named what they appreciated. They thanked me for asking.
They reinforced the willingness to tolerate discomfort.
This is what leaders actually need – the capacity to stay in the room when the conversation gets hard.
This capacity isn’t fixed. It evolves. It 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. Still catches himself mid-ineffective behavior. He names humility as the requirement.
The moment we identify as “highly regulated,” curiosity closes. 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.
A leader's intention doesn't matter if their behavior under pressure doesn't align.
What stands out about thought leaders like Brackett, Brown, and Grant is their willingness to work on this, publicly.
They model something many leaders avoid: acknowledging mistakes, learning from them, and adjusting behavior in real time.
That’s the point.