It happens in a heartbeat. A manager leans across the table or the webcam screen and offers a carefully chosen piece of feedback. The intention is supportive, even generous: to help someone grow, to remove a barrier, to make the work stronger. But instead of landing as helpful, the words spark a visible reaction. The team member stiffens. Their voice sharpens, or they go quiet. Perhaps they defend themselves point by point, or insist the feedback is unfair. What was meant as an act of care has become a moment of distance.
Most of us have been on both sides of this moment. As givers of feedback, we puzzle at how something offered in good faith provokes defensiveness. As receivers, we know the tightening in the chest, the instinct to explain, justify, or retreat. It is almost reflexive, as though feedback, however well-intended, is heard as a threat.
The easy explanation is to blame personality: some people “cannot take criticism.” But that does not ring true. Even the most resilient among us have moments of resistance. The harder, more honest answer is that feedback touches something human and universal: our need for dignity, safety, and belonging at work. When these feel under siege, the mind moves into defence long before we have had the chance to process the actual message.
From a biological point of view, feedback can light up the brain’s threat circuitry. Neuroscientists describe how the amygdala, the body’s alarm system, activates whenever our status or belonging feels questioned. Even mild, constructive comments can be misread as danger. What follows is fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. Fight looks like arguing. Flight looks like withdrawal. Freeze looks like silence. Fawn looks like a quick, hollow agreement. Seen this way, defensiveness is not a flaw but a stress response. It is the body’s way of saying, “I feel exposed.”
Identity adds another layer. Feedback often touches not only behaviour (“the report was late”) but also self-image (“I am not reliable”). When there is a gap between how we see ourselves and how others see us, the tension is uncomfortable. Psychologists call this cognitive dissonance. Defensiveness becomes a way of closing the gap: by pushing the feedback away, we protect a coherent sense of who we are.
And then there is culture. In workplaces where performance is constantly measured and ranked, feedback can feel less like guidance and more like judgement. Many employees carry the weight of years of reviews, ratings, and comparisons with peers. In such environments, even neutral observations are filtered through suspicion. No wonder the instinct is to shield oneself.
If defensiveness is built into our biology, identity, and workplaces, then the task is not to eliminate it. It is to understand it. What triggers it? What softens it? And how can we shift from moments of protection to moments of learning?
This article will explore three foundations leaders can strengthen to reduce defensiveness before it arises. We then add seven insights from behavioural science that go deeper. From there, we turn to a more relational way of thinking about feedback, one that replaces control with partnership. Finally, we explore how leaders can help team members build the self-awareness that makes defensiveness less necessary.
Three foundations for reducing defensiveness
When a colleague bristles at feedback, the instinct is often to treat the moment itself: what words to use, how to calm the reaction. But leaders can do much of the work beforehand, by strengthening three foundations that make defensiveness less likely in the first place.
1. Positive recognition as the baseline
In the language of Transactional Analysis, affirmation and attention are called strokes. Humans have a deep psychological need for these signals of recognition (Stewart & Joines, 2012). When feedback is mostly corrective, without balancing positive strokes, it creates scarcity. The recipient enters the conversation already braced for bad news.
By contrast, when recognition is regular and genuine, people approach feedback with less fear. They know their contribution is valued and are less likely to interpret critique as a wholesale judgement of their worth. Leaders can strengthen this foundation by making recognition part of daily life, not just a prelude to difficult conversations.
2. Feedback as inquiry, not imposition
The structure of feedback shapes how it is received. Directive phrasing such as “You need to…” positions the receiver as passive. By contrast, framing feedback as inquiry, “What did you notice about how that went?” creates space for reflection and ownership.
Research on feedback models such as AID (Action, Impact, Development) highlights that defensiveness is reduced when the conversation shifts from one-way critique to two-way dialogue (Roberts, 2019). Leaders who practice this stance signal that feedback is not a verdict handed down, but an exploration entered into together.
3. Nurturing healthy self-regard
At the heart of defensiveness lies self-regard. Transactional Analysis suggests that healthy relationships rest on the stance “I’m OK, You’re OK” (Berne, 1964). If a person feels “not OK,” even neutral comments confirm their self-doubt and trigger a defensive wall.
Positive psychology research reinforces this: when people cultivate self-acceptance, they are better able to receive feedback without collapsing into shame (Neff, 2011). Similarly, Shirzad Chamine’s work on Positive Intelligence argues that people with stronger self-command can intercept negative self-talk and respond with curiosity rather than resistance (Chamine, 2012). Leaders can support this foundation by affirming strengths, modelling vulnerability, and creating space for people to see themselves as learners, not as fragile performers under scrutiny.
Bringing it together
These three foundations: regular recognition, feedback-as-inquiry, and healthy self-regard, do not eliminate defensiveness entirely, but they reduce the conditions that make it flare. They remind us that feedback is not just about the words spoken. It is about the reservoir of affirmation a person has experienced, whether the giver invites or dictates, and how secure the receiver feels in themselves.
Even with these in place, defensiveness will still arise at times. This is where insights from behavioural science add deeper understanding, showing how our brains, identities, and social contexts shape the way feedback is received.
Seven considerations for defensiveness
1 – The SCARF Model: Why feedback triggers the brain’s threat response
One of the most useful ways to understand defensiveness comes from neuroscience. David Rock’s SCARF model (2008) identifies five social domains that the brain treats as critical to survival: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness. When these are enhanced, the brain experiences reward and openness. When they are threatened, the brain reacts as if to physical danger, activating fight, flight, freeze, or fawn responses.
Feedback conversations often, without intention, touch one or more of these domains. A comment on performance can feel like a threat to status. A sudden piece of feedback can undermine certainty. Prescriptive advice can erode autonomy. Critical tone can weaken relatedness. And inconsistent standards can challenge fairness. Once one of these domains is triggered, defensiveness is not a choice. It is a neural reflex.
Think about a common feedback setting: the performance review. Employees arrive acutely aware of the power imbalance. Their status is literally on the table in the form of ratings or bonuses. They may feel low certainty because they do not know what will be said. They may fear loss of autonomy if improvement plans are imposed. If they sense the manager is not on their side, relatedness is shaky. And if colleagues seem to be judged differently, fairness is at risk. With so many triggers in play, it is unsurprising that reviews often generate defensiveness rather than growth.
Consider Priya, a skilled analyst. After a small error in a client report, her manager says, “I am going to need to check all your reports before they go to the client.” The intention is simple quality assurance, but the impact is quite different. In an instant, Priya feels her status drop, as though she has been pushed back into a junior role. Her sense of autonomy takes a hit, because suddenly she has less control over her own work. The loss of certainty also weighs on her: is this a one-off correction or the start of a pattern that will erode her client-facing responsibilities? On top of this, relatedness is strained, as she interprets the instruction as a sign that her manager no longer trusts her. All of these perceptions arrive in a flash, before she has had time to reason them through. Her response is defensive: “I do not think that is necessary. Everyone makes small mistakes. Why single me out?” What looks like pushback is really her nervous system protecting what feels like a threat to her standing.
Practical moves for feedback conversations:
• Protect status by affirming strengths before raising corrections. For example: “Your analysis is sharp. This is about formatting, not insight.”
• Create certainty by explaining the structure of the conversation. For example: “We will look at three areas today: strengths, development, and next steps.”
• Support autonomy by offering choice in how to act on feedback. For example: “Would you like to test this new approach on the next client call, or shadow me first?”
• Strengthen relatedness by signalling partnership. For example: “I know client deadlines are tough. We are in this together.”
• Ensure fairness by applying consistent standards across the team and explaining them. For example: “Everyone’s work is going through an extra review this quarter because the client raised concerns.”
Reflection question:
When you give feedback, which SCARF domain might you be threatening without realising, and what would it take to protect it?
2. Cognitive Dissonance: protecting self-image
Another explanation for defensiveness comes from Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1957). This describes the mental discomfort that arises when new information conflicts with our existing beliefs or self-image. Humans have a strong need for consistency. When feedback challenges how we see ourselves, we experience dissonance, and one way to reduce that discomfort is to reject or argue with the feedback.
This explains why even accurate feedback can meet resistance. If I think of myself as a careful communicator and someone says my emails are brusque, the gap between my self-perception and their perception is painful. Rather than adjust my self-image, I may protect it by pushing back: “That is not true, I am always polite.” Defensiveness is the mind’s attempt to close the gap.
At work, this often appears when feedback is given around qualities people take pride in. A detail-oriented person will resist being told they are careless. A confident presenter will struggle to hear that they lose the audience. A team player will bristle at the suggestion that they dominate. In each case, the threat is not just to behaviour but to identity. That is why the reaction can feel disproportionate to the comment itself.
Consider Marcus, a consultant who prides himself on accuracy. His manager says, “Your last report contained several errors.” In that instant Marcus experiences dissonance. His self-image says, “I am precise.” The feedback says, “I am careless.” To resolve the clash, he protests: “That cannot be right. I checked everything twice.” What looks like arrogance is in fact a struggle to protect a valued part of his identity.
Practical moves for feedback conversations:
• Begin with affirmation of identity: “I know accuracy is important to you.” This reduces the threat by acknowledging the person’s self-image.
• Reframe the gap as alignment, not contradiction: “Your eye for detail is valuable. A second review process could help show that strength even more.”
• Use language that focuses on the work, not the person: “This report had errors” instead of “You are careless.”
• Invite the person to co-create solutions: “How might we reduce the chance of errors next time?” This reinforces competence and agency.
• Normalise imperfection by sharing your own mistakes, which reduces the shame of dissonance.
Reflection question:
When feedback clashes with how someone sees themselves, do you try to protect their identity while still pointing to change, or do you inadvertently deepen the gap?
3. Self-Determination Theory: Meeting Core Psychological Needs
Self-Determination Theory, developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (2000), argues that human motivation rests on three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are met, people thrive, learn, and adapt. When they are undermined, defensiveness and disengagement rise. Feedback often threatens one or more of these needs without the giver realising it.
Autonomy is our need to feel in control of our actions. Feedback delivered as instruction: “You need to do this differently”, chips away at autonomy, leaving the recipient feeling powerless. Competence is our need to feel capable. Feedback that focuses only on gaps can leave people doubting their ability. Relatedness is our need to feel connected and respected. If feedback arrives coldly or critically, the relational bond weakens, making the words harder to hear.
In practice, feedback conversations can unintentionally erode all three. A manager might say, “You need to stop leading client calls this way.” The phrasing undermines autonomy (“you need to”), competence (implying the person cannot handle calls), and relatedness (lacking empathy). Defensiveness follows naturally: the recipient is not just protecting behaviour, but protecting core psychological needs.
Take the case of Sarah, a team leader who runs client meetings. Her manager comments, “Your approach confuses clients. From now on, let me handle the openings.” Sarah immediately feels stripped of autonomy, as if she is no longer trusted to manage her own calls. Her competence is questioned, since the feedback suggests she is not good enough. And the absence of relational support makes her feel isolated. She replies curtly, “Fine, if that is what you want,” but inside she is angry and demoralised. The issue is not simply her technique, but how the feedback has threatened her fundamental needs.
Practical moves for feedback conversations:
• Preserve autonomy by framing feedback as choice: “Would you like to try structuring the call differently, or watch me model an approach first?”
• Affirm competence by naming strengths alongside areas for growth: “Your product knowledge is excellent. What could make your delivery as strong as your content?”
• Strengthen relatedness by expressing partnership: “I know client calls can be tough. I am here to support, not to take over.”
• Ask open questions that restore agency: “How do you think clients respond when you start with detail first?”
• Position development as opportunity, not deficiency: “This is a chance to expand your toolkit, not a sign you are failing.”
Reflection question:
When you give feedback, do you protect the other person’s sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, or do you inadvertently erode the very foundations of their motivation?
4. Psychological Safety: The culture that shapes feedback
Amy Edmondson’s research (1999) on psychological safety shows that people are only willing to take interpersonal risks, like admitting mistakes, asking for help, or receiving feedback, when they feel safe from ridicule, rejection, or punishment. In environments where safety is low, feedback is interpreted not as a chance to learn but as a signal of danger. Defensiveness becomes a shield against the risk of being exposed.
Feedback conversations do not happen in isolation. They are coloured by the wider team culture. If people have seen colleagues punished for errors, or if leaders only use feedback to assign blame, the default stance will be self-protection. Even neutral comments will be filtered through suspicion: “What is the hidden agenda here?” By contrast, when leaders model vulnerability and normalise fallibility, feedback lands in a very different way.
Consider a design team preparing for a product launch. In one meeting, the manager begins by saying, “I missed a key detail last week that delayed our timeline. I should have spotted it earlier.” By admitting her own mistake first, she sets a tone of openness. Later in the meeting she tells a colleague, “Your mock-up is strong, though the client may struggle with the technical language.” Instead of bristling, the colleague nods and says, “That makes sense. I’ll simplify the next draft.” The difference is not the wording of the feedback, but the culture of safety in which it is delivered. Because mistakes are already acknowledged at the top, feedback is heard as part of collective learning, not individual shaming.
Practical moves for building safety around feedback:
• Leaders go first: admit mistakes and model that errors are part of growth.
• Frame feedback as curiosity rather than judgement: “What do you think made this challenging?”
• Respond to errors with learning questions: “What can we take from this?” instead of “Why did you mess this up?”
• Publicly appreciate those who take risks, even if the outcome is imperfect.
• Establish team rituals that make feedback routine, such as quick debriefs after meetings where everyone shares “one thing that worked, one thing to improve.”
Reflection question:
When you give feedback, does the wider team culture make it feel like a risk or an opportunity, and what could you do to shift that climate toward safety?
5. Attribution Theory: Behaviour or Character?
Attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1985) explains how people interpret causes for behaviour. We tend to either attribute outcomes to internal traits (“she is careless”) or to external circumstances (“the deadline was unrealistic”). When feedback sounds like it targets internal character rather than observable behaviour, the natural reaction is defensiveness.
This is because feedback that labels identity feels permanent and global. “You are disorganised” suggests a fixed flaw, leaving no room for growth. In contrast, feedback that focuses on behaviour in context: “the slides arrived after the meeting started”, feels specific and actionable. People can change behaviour; they cannot easily change how someone else defines their character.
In the workplace, the difference in framing makes all the difference. Imagine a manager who tells Jordan, “You are unreliable.” The comment hits hard, attacking identity and creating shame. Jordan quickly defends himself: “That’s not true, I always deliver.” The conversation stalls in argument. If instead the manager says, “The last two reports were submitted after the deadline,” the focus shifts to behaviour. Jordan can acknowledge this without feeling that his entire professional identity has been condemned. The chance for constructive problem-solving opens.
Practical moves for framing feedback with attribution in mind:
• Anchor comments in observable behaviours: “The report was submitted at 11 am” rather than “You’re always late.”
• Describe impact without labelling: “The delay meant the team could not prepare” rather than “You let the team down.”
• Use specific examples, not generalisations: “In yesterday’s meeting…” instead of “You never listen.”
• Invite the other person’s perspective: “What made it difficult to get the slides in earlier?”
• Keep identity separate from behaviour: affirm competence even while pointing to issues. For example: “Your analysis is strong. The timing is what needs work.”
Reflection question:
When you give feedback, are you pointing to specific behaviours in context, or are you labelling identity in ways that leave the other person no room to grow?
6. Motivational Interviewing: evoking change instead of pushing Ii
Motivational interviewing, originally developed in counselling by William Miller and Stephen Rollnick (2013), is based on a simple but powerful insight: people are far more likely to change when they voice their own reasons for change rather than when someone else tells them what to do. Defensiveness often arises because feedback is delivered as a push. The giver supplies all the reasons, advice, and solutions, leaving the receiver little space to own the process. The natural response is resistance.
In motivational interviewing, the focus shifts from instructing to evoking. Instead of saying, “You need to prepare more for client calls,” the feedback-giver asks, “What do you notice about the calls where clients respond best?” This question draws the person into reflecting on their own experience. The feedback is still present, but it arrives in the form of self-discovery rather than imposed judgement. When people hear their own voice describing why change is needed, defensiveness decreases and motivation increases.
This approach is particularly useful in workplaces where repeated advice has failed. Consider Anna, a salesperson. Her manager has often told her, “You are not preparing enough for client meetings.” Anna always replies, “I don’t have time to prepare,” and the conversation ends in stalemate. One day, the manager tries a different approach: “Think back to your most successful client meeting this year. What made it work so well?” Anna reflects and says, “I had prepared carefully and anticipated their questions.” The insight now comes from her. When the manager follows up with, “What would it take to prepare like that more often?” Anna is more open to exploring solutions, because the motivation is her own.
Practical moves for using motivational interviewing in feedback:
• Ask open questions that invite reflection: “What went well? What would you change?”
• Listen actively and mirror back what the person says: “I hear you noticed that preparation helped.”
• Affirm strengths before exploring gaps: “You connect well with clients. How could preparation make those connections even stronger?”
• Avoid arguing or persuading, let the other person make the case for change.
• End with choice and ownership: “What is one thing you would like to try differently next time?”
Reflection question:
In your feedback conversations, are you supplying all the reasons for change, or are you giving the other person space to voice their own?
7. Immunity to Change: Hidden commitments beneath resistance
Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey’s work on Immunity to Change (2009) reveals that resistance to feedback is often not about stubbornness or lack of willpower. Instead, people may hold competing commitments, unspoken promises to themselves that protect something deeply important. Defensiveness, in this view, is not opposition but protection.
These hidden commitments usually come from fear. For example, someone who resists delegating may be secretly committed to never letting others down. A leader who avoids slowing down might be dedicated to proving their worth through relentless productivity. When feedback challenges these commitments, people push back because the stakes feel existential. Until the hidden layer is surfaced, change remains blocked.
Consider James, a project lead who struggles to delegate. His manager tells him, “You need to trust your team more and stop doing all the work yourself.” James bristles and replies, “It’s faster if I just do it.” On the surface it looks like defensiveness. But beneath the resistance is a hidden commitment: James is determined never to appear incompetent or let his team fail. Delegating feels risky, because if someone else makes a mistake, James believes he will be blamed. The defensive response is his way of honouring that hidden promise.
By reframing defensiveness as protection, leaders can respond with curiosity rather than frustration. Asking “What feels risky about trying it differently?” opens the door to uncovering the hidden commitment. Once named, it can be re-examined. James might come to see that his deeper goal is to safeguard the team’s reputation, and that delegation, done well, can support that aim rather than threaten it.
Practical moves for feedback conversations when hidden commitments may be at play:
• Ask about concerns behind resistance: “What worries you about changing this approach?”
• Explore what the current behaviour achieves: “What do you gain by holding onto this way of working?”
• Reframe growth as experiment: “What if we try a small change as a test and see what happens?”
• Normalise fears by sharing your own: “I used to avoid delegating because I worried about mistakes too.”
• Align feedback with the hidden value: “Delegating can also protect the team’s reputation by making sure no one is overloaded.”
Reflection question:
When you meet defensiveness, do you assume resistance, or do you look for the hidden commitment the person may be trying to protect?
8. The Circle of Control: restoring agency in feedback
Defensiveness often comes from a sense of powerlessness. When feedback lands as if it is about things outside our reach, the only response left is to resist. People fold their arms, explain away, or retreat, not because they do not care, but because they feel cornered by what they cannot change.
One way to loosen this corner is the simple image of the Circle of Control. Imagine three rings. At the centre is what we can truly control; our choices, words, tone, behaviour. Around that is the circle of influence, places where we cannot dictate outcomes but can shape them, through relationships, clarity, and persistence. Beyond that is the circle of concern, everything else. The economy. Corporate decisions. What the client does after the meeting.
When leaders weave this into feedback, something shifts. Instead of “you failed,” the conversation becomes, “what was in your control, what could you influence, and what was simply concern?” The question invites ownership without shame. It puts the focus back on where agency still lives.
Example: Ella, a project manager, received feedback that her client report caused confusion. She bristled. “They always ask impossible questions!” The protest made sense, she was locating the problem in the circle of concern, where she had no power. Her manager drew the three circles on a page. Together they sorted: client unpredictability (concern), setting clearer expectations (influence), structuring her slides with a simple summary upfront (control). Ella’s defensiveness softened. She saw where she did have room to act. What began as pushback turned into a plan.
Practice moves for leaders
• In the moment, pause and ask: “Which part of this was truly in your control?”
• Add a second step: “What might you influence if this situation came up again?”
• Acknowledge the third circle: “What do we need to simply name as outside your control?”
• Sketch the three circles on a piece of paper together. Sometimes a visual creates more calm than another explanation.
The circle is not a tool for minimising responsibility. It is a way to honour limits and at the same time strengthen ownership where it is possible. Defensiveness fades when people are given back their sense of agency.
Reflective questions
• When giving feedback, do I mix together what is in someone’s control, what they can influence, and what is beyond them?
• What difference would it make if I helped them sort these out?
• Do I myself know how to stay in my own circle of control when I respond to others?
Helping team members grow self-awareness
When a team member responds defensively to feedback, the instinct of many leaders is to double down. We repeat the point more firmly, offer extra evidence, or escalate the seriousness of the issue. Often this backfires. The more we push, the more the person resists. What sits beneath defensiveness is usually not unwillingness, but a gap in self-awareness. The individual does not see themselves in the way others do, and the feedback lands as shock or accusation.
For leaders, the question is not only how do I give feedback? but how do I help this person see themselves more clearly, so feedback is no longer such a threat?
Why self-awareness matters
Self-awareness acts like insulation against defensiveness. When people already have some language for their own patterns, feedback no longer feels like an ambush. Instead, it comes as confirmation, refinement, or an extra angle. Think of the difference between a leader saying, “You tend to dominate meetings,” and the team member already knowing, “Sometimes my enthusiasm means I speak too much.” The first statement provokes resistance; the second invites dialogue: “Yes, I’ve noticed that too. What would help me balance my energy better?”
Building this awareness is not about catching people out. It is about creating the conditions where they can notice themselves without shame, and gradually integrate those insights into how they work.
Shaping the conditions
The first move is to build safety. If feedback is always associated with judgment, it will always provoke defensiveness. Leaders can shift this by weaving reflection into everyday work. A quick check-in after a presentation, “How did that feel to you?”, normalises self-assessment. An informal debrief after a project “What would you repeat, what would you change?” signals that reflection is a regular part of growth, not a punishment.
Curiosity also matters more than correction. Instead of saying, “You spoke too much in that meeting,” a leader might ask, “What did you notice about your participation today?” Curiosity helps the person discover the pattern themselves, which is far less threatening than having it pointed out.
Techniques for cultivating self-awareness
Leaders cannot force awareness onto someone else, but they can create conditions where it becomes more likely. The following practices are less about telling people what they are like, and more about helping them to notice for themselves. Over time, these moves encourage reflection to become a habit rather than a rare event.
Prompt reflection regularly: Self-awareness grows from practice, not from occasional breakthroughs. Leaders can normalise reflection by weaving it into ordinary conversations. After a meeting, instead of giving your assessment straight away, begin with a simple prompt: “What did you notice about how you came across today?” At first, the answers may be superficial “I think it went fine.” With repetition, people start to scan their behaviour more closely: “I noticed I spoke quickly at the start,” or “I lost track of time in the middle.” This habit builds internal observers, so feedback is no longer the only mirror. It is less threatening because people have already begun to see themselves.
Offer gentle mirrors: When people lack awareness, it helps to provide a mirror—but the mirror must be offered, not forced. Instead of a blunt correction“You interrupted three times”try: “Here’s what I observed: I counted three interruptions. How does that fit with what you noticed?” This framing does two things. It grounds feedback in specific behaviour, and it invites comparison rather than confrontation. The person can agree, disagree, or add context. Even if they resist at first, they are still being nudged into noticing. Gentle mirrors reduce defensiveness because they preserve dignity.
Use playback: Some behaviours are difficult to grasp until we see them ourselves. For roles involving presentations, facilitation, or client work, recording can be invaluable. Watching oneself on video often reveals more than words ever could: posture, tone, interruptions, nervous habits. A leader might say: “I’d like us to watch this clip of your presentation together. What do you notice?” At first it can feel uncomfortable, but the benefit is that awareness comes directly from the person’s own observation, not from external judgement. Leaders should position playback as a tool for growth, not evaluation, and always pair it with encouragement.
Highlight strengths as entry points: Feedback is easier to receive when it grows out of what is already valued. Instead of saying, “You dominate discussions,” a leader might begin with: “Your energy drives meetings forward.” Once the strength is acknowledged, it becomes possible to ask, “Do you see moments where that same energy might make less space for others?” The shift is subtle but important: the person is not hearing, “I am a problem,” but “My strength has different effects in different contexts.” This framing protects self-esteem while still opening a door to growth. People become more curious and less defensive when they feel their best qualities are being recognised.
Encourage personal reflection practices: Self-awareness is most powerful when it extends beyond feedback conversations. Leaders can encourage team members to adopt simple practices of their own. A short weekly “stop–start–continue” reflection: What should I stop doing? Start doing? Continue doing? builds the habit of noticing. Journaling after key projects helps people process what worked and what did not. Peer check-ins, where colleagues share quick impressions of how they experienced each other, spread awareness across the team. These practices make reflection normal, so when formal feedback arrives, it is not the only moment of evaluation. Instead, it becomes part of a larger rhythm of learning.
A workplace vignette: Consider Daniel, a capable and enthusiastic consultant. In meetings he often dominates discussion. When his manager told him directly, “You need to talk less,” Daniel reacted defensively: “I was only trying to keep things moving. If others had something to say, they could have spoken up.” The feedback bounced off.
The manager decided to try a different approach. After the next team meeting she asked Daniel, “How did you feel your contributions shaped the discussion today?” Daniel replied, “I thought I kept things on track.” The manager affirmed this: “Yes, your energy really does keep the momentum. I also noticed that some colleagues were quieter. What do you think they might have experienced?” For the first time, Daniel paused. “Maybe they didn’t get much space,” he admitted.
This was not a dramatic breakthrough, but it was a shift. By asking reflective questions and affirming Daniel’s strengths, the manager helped him notice something for himself. Over the following months, she continued these gentle prompts. Daniel began to acknowledge the pattern more openly and even asked colleagues for signals when he was taking too much airtime. What had once provoked defensiveness slowly became an area of growth.
The leader’s role
The role of the leader in this process is not to supply all the answers but to create space where people can see themselves more clearly. Self-awareness cannot be imposed; it can only be invited. Leaders offer the mirror, pose the question, and hold the conversation in a way that allows the team member to connect the dots.
When leaders take this stance, defensiveness softens. Instead of being told who they are, team members discover it for themselves. Feedback shifts from being an external verdict to becoming part of an internal learning process. And in that shift lies the possibility of growth, partnership, and trust.
Reflection question:
As a leader, am I trying to force awareness onto others, or am I creating the conditions where they can discover themselves with curiosity and safety?
Conclusion: From defensiveness to growth
Defensiveness is easy to see but harder to interpret. From the outside, it can look like stubbornness, arrogance, or unwillingness to learn. But beneath the surface, it is something more human. Defensiveness is the body’s way of protecting dignity, safety, and identity in the face of perceived threat. It is less a choice than a reflex.
What we have seen is that defensiveness is not inevitable. By understanding it through different lense: recognition, self-regard, SCARF, cognitive dissonance, self-determination, psychological safety, attribution, motivational interviewing, and hidden commitments—we come to see that people resist feedback for good reasons. Each defensive response points to a need not yet met: the need for recognition, for autonomy, for fairness, for self-coherence, for safety.
We have also seen that feedback is never simply about techniques. It is about relationship. When leaders treat feedback as a delivery of judgement, they provoke defensiveness. When they treat it as an invitation into shared stewardship, they create space for growth.
And perhaps most importantly, leaders can help their team members build the self-awareness that makes defensiveness less necessary. When people have begun to notice their own patterns, feedback no longer feels like a verdict from outside but becomes part of their own reflection. Leaders cannot impose this awareness, but they can cultivate it: by prompting reflection, offering gentle mirrors, highlighting strengths, encouraging personal practices, and holding the conversation with care.
Taken together, these shifts move us from a culture of feedback-as-judgement to a culture of feedback-as-growth. They move us from a cycle of defensiveness and resistance to a cycle of curiosity and ownership. And they remind us that feedback, at its best, is not about control but about stewardship of the work we share and the relationships that carry it forward.
Reflective questions for leaders
• When I give feedback, am I protecting or threatening someone’s sense of status, autonomy, or belonging?
• Do I frame feedback as a verdict, or as an invitation into shared accountability?
• How often do I ask questions that help people notice themselves rather than telling them what I see?
• In what ways am I cultivating a culture of safety, where mistakes are seen as part of learning?
• How can I support my team in building their own self-awareness, so that feedback confirms rather than threatens?
The task of leadership is not to eliminate defensiveness. It is to understand it, to soften it, and to create the conditions where people can replace it with curiosity. When that shift happens, feedback stops being an ordeal and becomes what it was always meant to be: a pathway to stronger work, deeper relationships, and shared growth.
Thanks to Ioana Bora, a fellow European coach, friend and professional colleague, for sharing this question in a recent conversation.
References
Berne, E. (1964) Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. New York: Grove Press.
Chamine, S. (2012) Positive intelligence: Why only 20% of teams and individuals achieve their true potential and how you can achieve yours. New York: Greenleaf Book Group.
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78.
Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.
Festinger, L. (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heider, F. (1958) The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Kegan, R. and Lahey, L.L. (2009) Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Miller, W.R. and Rollnick, S. (2013) Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. 3rd edn. New York: Guilford Press.
Neff, K. (2011) Self-compassion: The proven power of being kind to yourself. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Roberts, A. (2019) The AID feedback model. Available at: https://andiroberts.com/feedback/aid-feedback-model (Accessed: 25 August 2025).
Rock, D. (2008) ‘SCARF: A brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others’, NeuroLeadership Journal, 1(1), pp. 1–9.
Stewart, I. and Joines, V. (2012) TA today: A new introduction to transactional analysis. 2nd edn. Nottingham: Lifespace Publishing.
Weiner, B. (1985) ‘An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion’, Psychological Review, 92(4), pp. 548–573.
Leave A Comment