Rethinking Feedback

The term ‘feedback’ describes a mechanism in which the result of a process is fed back into the process itself in order to influence its future behaviour. These concepts were developed particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries when engineers and scientists were looking for ways to control systems such as machines or electrical circuits. This cybernetic feedback model was applied as a metaphor to human systems and has influenced thinking about performance improvement ever since. Today, feedback is used as a tool for coaching, continuous improvement and leadership development. This model sets clear, measurable goals, defines corrective actions and enables iterative improvement. It is based on a view that strongly resonates with the way we understand the human world - perhaps mirroring the logical, iterative processes we use in software development and systems management. While a feedback model based on cybernetics assumes a stable environment in which cause-and-effect chains are predictable and treats human development as just another system to be optimised, complex human interactions require a different approach. When dealing with intrinsic human qualities, emer
gent properties of non-linear processes and relationship dynamics, the model falls short.

Weaknesses of the cybernetic model
The inherently reductionist approach assumes that everything can be categorised as right or wrong. Unfortunately, such a clear-cut judgement is often not possible and leads to a feeling of injustice and discomfort when the person receiving the feedback is confronted with it. What really bothers is the feeling of being misunderstood, of not being recognised in one's own identity and when behaviour is viewed in isolation. This feeling of injustice when receiving feedback is based on 
basically two aspects:

• The simple black and white cybernetic model, which assumes that it is clear what the right and wrong solution is, which can be communicated simply and clearly,
• retrospective coherence, where we tend to see past events as more predictable and clear than they actually were at the time. This means that the person giving the feedback looks at situations in hindsight and sees how everything has developed over time.

Therein lies the problem: this clarity available in hindsight is rarely available while things are happening. When we are in the middle of a situation, our ability to predict the future is limited and our understanding of how our actions will affect things is often based on guesswork. Our human motivation is much more complex and requires more than just outside information. In fact, this very feature of the cybernetic model - the assumption that external information will sufficiently change or correct the situation runs counter to the intended direction of development. Feedback should help people to become independent, intrinsically motivated and self-determined actors. However, feedback that demands behaviour in accordance with external instructions has the opposite effect: if it uses external standards and benchmarks, it suppresses intrinsic motivation and personal agency. Last but not least, this feedback model promotes a deficit-based mindset. Instead of building on strengths and unique skills, it corrects weaknesses and often aims for uniformity and standards, which inhibits creativity and innovation.

 A non-directive feedback approach wins
 To tackle these problems, a fundamental change in the feedback approach is required. One promising direction is to abandon the need to give information or instructions to the recipient of the feedback. Instead, the focus shifts to understanding the meaning-making process of the person to whom we want to give feedback. This non-directive approach to feedback requires a change in our mindset: Curiosity instead of judgement. Instead of trying to correct the other person's behaviour, try to understand the other person's motivation and behaviour. Non-directive feedback enables a deeper dialogue by asking about the context, motives and perhaps also their relationship structure. It frees the feedback provider from worrying about conveying their own viewpoints correctly and enables a deeper exploration of the perceived situations and their interpretation by those involved.