Why do individuals often avoid giving negative feedback in organizational settings, despite its recognized value for learning, improvement, and accountability? In our interviews, we found that there is a lot of emotional friction in the process. Giving that negative feedback is a very emotionally charged experience for many individuals; giving the feedback feels like a conflict. Individuals worry about the consequences on workplace relationships and career outcomes, even if they often recognize that giving negative feedback would be beneficial to the individual and the organization. But a lack of structure means no safety. Thus, individuals face internal conflict when considering doing it. At the same time, giving negative feedback is a skill that few exercise, and organizations play a huge role in facilitating that. In other words, organizational and social contexts either enable or constrain the giving of negative feedback. It is important for managers to understand how this happens because their goal is to drive performance.
Organizational and social contexts either enable or constrain the giving of negative feedback. It is important for managers to understand how this happens because their goal is to drive performance.
Then how does the social context enable or constrain negative feedback giving?
First of all, negative feedback is often seen as a “necessary evil”—something people know is important but dread doing. People give or avoid giving feedback based on two core influences:
- Organizational Authorization: Norms, structures, and leadership that legitimize giving feedback.
- Individual Imprinting: Habits and expectations around giving negative feedback shaped by past work experiences.
Individuals with feedback-positive prior experiences, meaning that they have experienced the benefit of regularly exchanging positive and negative feedback in their prior workplace, are more likely to engage in giving negative feedback—even in less supportive current environments.
Individuals with feedback-positive prior experiences, meaning that they have experienced the benefit of regularly exchanging positive and negative feedback in their prior workplace, are more likely to engage in giving negative feedback—even in less supportive current environments. That is because through the formal structure to exchange feedback set by the organization or their managers, they were able to experience the added value of sharing negative feedback for performance and development. Conversely, those without such imprinting often remained passive and avoided giving negative feedback, even if they thought it would be beneficial, unless the current organization strongly supported and structured feedback exchanges. To illustrate, a manager from a feedback-rich firm noted:
“Here, it’s not personal. It’s expected that we tell each other what’s not working—just part of the job.”
Another employee from a non-feedback-oriented organization said:
“At my old place, people just avoided tough conversations. So even now, I find myself holding back unless I know it’s okay to speak up.”
In a firm without feedback structures, an employee shared:
“I know it’s needed, but honestly, I just don’t want to be the bad guy. There’s no support for it here.”
These quotes highlight the internal conflict and environmental influence that shape negative feedback behavior.
Actionable takeaways for managers
- Stop Thinking of Negative Feedback as “Negative”. Many managers internalize the idea that giving negative feedback harms relationships and that is also how their employees come to see it. Instead, they should treat it as constructive coaching that’s part of a healthy team dynamic and frame negative feedback as ”performance fuel” or similar. Stop soft-pedaling. Frame it as growth—not criticism.
- Normalize Feedback Through Organizational Authorization. Managers play a central role in shaping norms. So, they must decree: “Feedback isn’t personal—it’s your job.” When feedback becomes a systematic, expected part of a team culture (e.g., through structured check-ins, peer reviews, and retrospectives), the emotional weight attached to it will lessen, the skill to give negative feedback will develop, and the benefit of sharing negative feedback for performance and growth will surface.
- Hire (and Retain) Feedback-Experienced Talent. Individuals who come from feedback-rich environments carry imprinted norms that help sustain feedback practices, even when formal structures are weak. Hire them as they are likely to transfer their feedback habits across organizations and facilitate feedback exchanges in your organization too! Screen for it. Ask: “Tell me about a time you gave tough feedback.” Hire those who don’t flinch.
- Train for Feedback, Not Just Communication. Soft skills training often focuses on generic communication or conflict resolution. But giving constructive negative feedback is a distinct skill. Equip managers and employees with role-play, scripts, and case scenarios to build confidence and establish shared language around feedback in the organization.
- Model Vulnerability and Learning. When senior leaders request feedback publicly and openly reflect on mistakes, it signals that negative feedback is safe, valued, and reciprocal. Show it’s safe. No vulnerability? No credibility.
Conclusion: Reframing the “Necessary Evil”
Negative feedback doesn’t have to be feared and avoided—it can be restructured, reframed, and normalized through thoughtful organizational design and personal leadership. The key insight? People give (or don’t give) negative feedback not just because of who they are, but because of the cultures they’ve come from and the norms they’re in now. Feedback fails because of culture, not cowardice. As a manager, you can’t change someone’s past—but you can build a present that encourages courage, clarity, and candor. This blog was based on the research of Bouwens et al (2025).
