The mistake most organizations make when building a culture of feedback
I recently did a live Q&A for Simon Sinek's Optimism Library about feedback.
The first question was: What is one thing that most organizations get wrong when it comes to building a culture of feedback?
I loved this question because my answer is something I see all the time.
The biggest mistake I see organizations make is that they think that all it takes to have a thriving feedback culture is implementing a system for performance reviews.
From the outside, it looks like they’ve checked the box: Conversations about performance are routine; everyone knows about them and expects them to happen; and sometimes, there’s even training provided to help people have these conversations well.
The thing is, though, that reviews barely scratch the surface.
To me, a culture of feedback is what happens in between reviews. It’s how it feels to work together. It’s whether we choose to lean into discomfort when we feel it. It’s whether we feel safe to speak up and share a different viewpoint. It’s whether we address issues soon after they happen and feel empowered to address them directly with the person involved instead of going to someone else.
The way I see it, when an organization has a strong culture of feedback, reviews are actually reviews. Nothing discussed in these conversations is brand-new information to anyone present; the review is simply a time to follow up and check in about those things.
When an organization only has a review process and no other structure for feedback, it likely means people are sweeping issues under the rug until review time. And by then, so much time has passed that people feel awkward bringing them up—if they even remember what happened in the first place.
Reviews are important. We do them in our company quarterly, and I love them. But reviews alone cannot build the culture of trust and feedback that I know to be possible.
So what will?
If I had to boil it down to two things that make the biggest difference, I’d say it’s 1) committing to the 24-hour guideline, and 2) having a shared feedback language.
If you’ve been here awhile, you know that I’ve written about both of these things before, but I want to expand on them a bit more here.
First, my favorite: the 24-hour guideline. Without a doubt, this has been a game-changer for my own relationship with feedback and for the culture of our company.
The 24-hour guideline is a commitment to speaking up about things that bother you within about 24 hours. Doing so prevents issues from building up and builds trust: When you are consistently speaking up about what you feel and why, people know where they stand with you. They will never need to question if there is something you’re thinking but not saying out loud.
I used to call this the 24-hour rule. But once, someone challenged me on that. They suggested I call it a guideline because sometimes you need more than 24 hours to think about what you want to communicate and why. I love that perspective, so now, I call it a guideline. In general, I aim to speak up within 24 hours, but I take a little more time if I’m not feeling emotionally grounded or clear on what I want to say.
It’s powerful to commit to something like this on an individual level, but it’s even more powerful when you commit to it as a team. It gives you an easier segue into a feedback conversation, especially when you really don’t want to have the conversation. You could say, “I really don't want to have this conversation because this feels hard to talk about. But I know we've committed to the 24-hour guideline as a team, and I want to be honest with you, even though it might feel uncomfortable.” Even better, you’ll build a culture where people regularly address issues instead of sitting on them until a review comes around.
Two of my recent posts were about tough feedback conversations I’ve had. The 24-hour guideline is what encouraged me to keep leaning into those conversations, even when it felt really hard. As the leader, I think that modeling timeliness in these conversations is a huge part of why it’s become ingrained in our culture. I can’t expect our team to do something that I’m not willing to do myself.
The second thing that I believe will transform a team’s feedback culture is having a shared feedback language. A huge obstacle to giving and receiving feedback regularly is that people often don't know how to communicate their thoughts effectively. It’s not usually something we’re taught in school, which means it’s up to organizations to give people the tools to do it well.
In our company, we have two models that we love: the FBI method and Keeps and Considers.
The FBI is a sentence that has three components: feeling, behavior, and impact. You start by addressing how you feel, then you point to the behavior that made you feel that way, and finally, you explain the impact of that person’s behavior. (Example: “I felt taken aback when you put me on the spot in the meeting, and the impact is I wasn't able to communicate everything I wanted to. In the future, I would like more advance notice so that I can prepare my talking points.”)
Keeps and Considers is a way to highlight both what's going well and what you’d like the other person to consider doing differently. First, you say what you would like the person to keep doing that's having a positive impact. Then, you say what you want the person to consider doing differently that’s not having the best impact. (Example: “I loved the opening story of your presentation. It was really engaging and captivating, so I suggest keeping it the same in the future. Something to consider for next time would be better organizing and focusing your three main points in the beginning of your presentation. It wasn’t until later that I realized what they were.”)
Not only are we giving people the tools to communicate, but we are also giving them a natural entry point into the conversation. And because we have a shared feedback language, we can literally say, “I need to give you an FBI,” or, “I’d like to share some keeps and considers with you,” and everyone knows what that means.
If an organization can both commit to the 24-hour guideline (and have leaders consistently model it) and introduce a shared feedback language, it’s off to the races. That plus a system for performance reviews? Now we’re talking.
Reviews are great, and they absolutely have a place in a culture of feedback. (For those entering review season, there are even ways to make them better and more meaningful conversations). But reviews aren’t going to single-handedly build a culture of openness or make feedback a daily habit.
What do you think about all of this? Do you agree with me? Disagree? I’d love to know your perspective. Hit “reply” and tell me all about it! I always love reading what these posts bring up for you.
(By the way, in case you missed the Q&A and want to watch the recording, Simon Sinek’s team has kindly given our audience a discount! Receive 30% off when you sign up for a membership to the Optimism Library using code Hadeed30 (available until February 2026). Click here to get started!)
Big hugs,
