On Why It’s Difficult to Give Negative Feedback

I was recently reading an article¹ on the science of kindness that emphasized how acts of kindness (doing them and witnessing them) produce measurable neurochemical and physiological effects. Being kind or experiencing kindness triggers a biological “safe zone” that includes bonding, reward, lowered threat, and lowered physiological arousal. That zone is comfortable and reinforces prosocial behavior. Within a day of reading that article, I got a call from a colleague who had received a sharp, critical email from another colleague. The way my colleague responded so kindly and amicably left me astonished because I thought an equally sharp response was warranted and justified.

Afterwards, in reflection, I thought about the many times that I have coached individuals through giving feedback and some of my own experiences giving feedback to direct reports. Even in situations like the one mentioned above, my reflection took me to a place where I wanted to understand exactly what happens when we give and or receive feedback. Some of what happens are mechanisms at work that are automatic and occur below the surface, often without our conscious input. I knew from my colleague’s response that something else was at work, underneath. I thought: Neurophysiology is a critical piece of the story that, if understood well, can help a leader be more effective at giving feedback.

Why critical feedback trips our biology

We are hard-wired to respond to threat or danger (via the amygdala-HPA axis) and also wired to respond to connection and kindness.² The amygdala–HPA axis is basically the body’s alarm system. When your brain thinks something might be dangerous (physically or psychologically), it sends signals that tell your body to release stress hormones so you can react quickly. The kindness pathway is soothing because acts of kindness trigger chemicals like oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin, which help the body relax and feel safe.

Given this neuro-chemical backdrop, it becomes clearer why critical feedback often triggers discomfort or resistance rather than being a simple transaction of information. When someone receives direct feedback that their performance or behavior is not acceptable, the brain often perceives a potential threat to their self‐esteem, social belonging, status, and or identity. Research on criticism shows that brain areas tied to emotion processing are engaged when someone is criticized.³ Physiologically, this means the “threat” circuitry is engaged.

When this feedback arrives, even if well-intentioned, the body may treat it like a social threat: “Am I safe? Am I valued? Am I still okay in this relationship?” That immediate physiology interferes with a calm reception of the feedback. This makes it harder for the giver and receiver alike. Conversely, when our default habit is kindness, the discomfort may cause avoidance.

Why we hesitate and the cost of hesitation

Here’s how this physiological-psychological blend plays out in practical leadership or coaching settings: You might know someone whose performance needs improvement. You know that tact, compassion, and respect are essential, so you seek to be kind. But then you find yourself hesitating: you may delay giving feedback, you may soften the message, or you may even hope the behavior will self-correct. Why?

1. The neurochemistry reinforces kindness
   You feel good when you’re kind; your body rewards it. You may unconsciously prefer actions that give that “kindness reward” rather than actions that trigger threat physiology.
2. Threat circuitry overrides rational intention
   When giving feedback, you may anticipate the discomfort activation (for you or them) of the amygdala-sympathetic system. This can lead to avoidance. At the same time, the receiver’s physiology may go into threat or defensiveness mode before they process the content.
3. Early socialization prioritizes harmony
   If you were raised or socialized to avoid conflict, your default may be “don’t rock the boat.” That habit interacts with physiology, where avoidance keeps cortisol tension lower (for now), but prevents the necessary correction in behavior.

It’s important to pause here and emphasize that kindness, tact, and compassion are important to you as a leader. The benefits of kindness are real in organizations: it creates bonding, reduces stress among team members, and helps to formulate better relationships. However, when we avoid giving direct feedback, we pay a cost. Often, behavior fails to change, expectations become unclear, team morale and performance suffer, and resentment may build (silently). Yet our physiology and social habits act like roadblocks. “Nice” wins in the moment, but sometimes the necessary message loses out.

Bringing kindness and critical feedback into alignment

To move forward effectively, here are some integrated ideas grounded in what we know about neurobiology and social-psychological development:

• Frame feedback as a connection, not an attack. Because kindness activates bonding systems, you can structure feedback so the receiver registers “we are on the same side.” That helps shift physiology toward safety rather than threat.
• Use physiological awareness. Recognize your own elevated heart rate, tension, or urge to soften the message. Pause, breathe, engage your prefrontal cortex before you speak. This helps to override the threat response.
• Be developmentally informed. Recognize that team members, like children, may have internalized “avoid conflict” norms. Explicitly invite the feedback conversation: “We care about you and your growth, so I’m sharing this because I believe in you.”
• Maintain kindness in tone and respect, but speak the truth. Tact is essential. However, being tactful doesn’t mean avoiding the message: “I want you to succeed, so I need to share something that isn’t working, and we’ll partner on a plan to improve.”
• Encourage repeated, low-threat feedback moments. Just as kindness must be repeated to build the neurochemical effect,⁴feedback quality improves when it’s normalized. Create a culture where honest, supportive feedback is expected and safe. Over time, threat physiology reduces, and reflection becomes easier.

It is sometimes difficult to “get out of your own way” when direct, critical feedback is necessary because our brains and bodies are generally wired for kindness. The very neurochemistry that rewards kindness (oxytocin, dopamine, serotonin) and the stress circuitry that flags criticism as a threat (cortisol, sympathetic activation) make giving and receiving honest feedback a real challenge. Add to that the deep-rooted socialization from childhood to “play nice,”⁴ and keep harmony, and you have a complex set of forces working in favor of avoidance rather than constructive confrontation.

Understand this: kindness and empathy are not the antagonists of accountability. When approached thoughtfully, feedback becomes an act of caring rather than an act of confrontation. The physiological and psychological pathways that support connection can be harnessed rather than circumvented. Recognizing the body’s reaction and designing feedback with intentionality lets us speak the truth while preserving dignity. It also allows us to leverage the neurobiology of goodness rather than fighting it.