Building a Culture of Continuous, Authentic Feedback and Leadership Maturity

The hardest part of giving feedback isn’t telling the truth, but resisting the instinct to soften the message or manage the other person’s reaction. This reframes leadership maturity not as a matter of charisma, but as an exercise in self-control, delivering a clear message with respect and then stepping back to allow the other person space to process and respond.

To learn how to better deliver feedback, we turned to Mariana Barba Gastiazoro, a Human Resources Business Partner at MarineMax. A specialist in untangling organizational knots over a career at firms like Millicom (Tigo) and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, she maintains that the purpose of feedback is often misunderstood because leaders haven’t mastered that key internal skill. “The biggest challenge is removing yourself, parking your ego on the side. This is not about me as the manager providing the feedback. It’s about the other person,” she says.

• Checking boxes: When feedback doesn’t happen regularly, the process can devolve into a bureaucratic chore. Instead of focusing on alignment, leaders can end up concentrating on filling out forms, an approach that can strip the exercise of its true purpose. Infrequent feedback elevates the stakes, turning what should be a routine check-in into a high-pressure, dreaded event for both parties. “The reason we have to somewhat force it is because it doesn’t happen naturally. And it gets to this instance where we need you to sit down with the person once and give them a little something,” Gastiazoro explains. Because of this tension and lack of feedback focus, some are axing the annual performance review altogether.

The impulse to over-explain, soften the blow, or manage feelings is often a primary manifestation of an ego problem. Resisting that impulse is the core of self-control, which can make feedback constructive rather than demoralizing and help employees act on it without feeling personally attacked. A leader’s true maturity is demonstrated by their ability to deliver a clear message and then actively allow the recipient to process and engage, rather than dictating an emotional outcome. “We have to take a step back and understand that we’re all adults. And provided that I give you something constructive, I have to hold my place and allow you to process your feelings and tell me how you feel, what you see, and open up that space,” Gastiazoro advises.

She describes feedback formulas as “scaffolding” for leaders who might otherwise freeze under pressure. The risk, Gastiazoro explains, is that relying on these scripts without regular practice can lead to an inauthentic, “performative” interaction that undermines trust. While resources on employee feedback best practices can offer a starting point, she notes they are no substitute for sincerity.

• Acting the part: When feedback feels like a performance, it hinders genuine connection, making the interaction feel disingenuous and directly contradicting the goal of building trust. “This is not about performing a role that I’m not. It’s supposed to be a conversation where there is clarity, where there’s alignment, and that creates trust,” she states.

• Crutch in a pinch: While frameworks can provide a necessary starting point for inexperienced leaders, their utility diminishes without the underlying skill development and cultural support that makes feedback natural. “I’m not a big fan of a script or a model. But it is useful for some, especially if you don’t have support or a sounding board to process ideas or get comfortable with,” Gastiazoro admits.

A better approach to forced, performative feedback is a culture where it is continuous and organic. Her perspective reflects a broader industry trend toward more flexible performance management. Gastiazoro’s ideal model for feedback timing is elegantly simple, and she offers a pragmatic tip for those stuck in a more structured system.

• Ditch the calendar: This “as-needed” approach integrates feedback into the natural flow of work, making it less disruptive and more responsive to real-time performance rather than arbitrary dates. “I think that, ideally, it will be when it’s needed. If something is happening, you start noticing a pattern, you address it. We talk about it, we agree on what needs to be done… You circle back on it. You do a little follow-up if needed. Move on,” she explains.

• The upside of nothing: Rigidly scheduled feedback can force leaders to invent issues or praise, whereas an “as-needed” model allows for genuine recognition without artificial constraints. “On the flip side, it could be a great opportunity to say, ‘Hey, you know what? I have nothing to say because it’s working out really great. I love what you’re doing. Keep doing it,'” Gastiazoro adds.

This perspective helps depersonalize performance conversations by shifting the focus from perceived personal flaws to situational fit. It frames the issue more objectively and reduces the emotional threat for the employee. “It’s not a judgment on your skills or abilities. It’s simply that, in this specific moment, the needs of the role may not align with where things currently stand. Let’s address the mismatch,” she concludes.