The Best Performers Don’t Wait for Feedback

One Tale: Hungry for the Notes

‍

Watch almost any elite athlete after a great performance and you’ll hear familiar refrains:

“I need to watch it back.” Or perhaps “That’s something I’ve been working on in training.”

After winning Olympic gold in Beijing, freestyle skier Eileen Gu was asked how it felt to land her winning run. Her instinct was to respond with analysis. She talked about angles, landings, and what she’d tweak next time.

In sport — and in the arts — feedback isn’t a threat. It’s useful data.

The best performers don’t just accept critique. They actively chase it — after good performances and bad ones alike. That’s how learning compounds fastest.

Now contrast that with work.

In most organisations, feedback is something you’re given, not something you seek. It arrives late, wrapped in process, and quietly tethered to ratings, promotion, and even pay. No wonder people brace rather than open up.

We’ve built systems and environments where asking for feedback feels risky — even irrational.

Many performance systems claim to assess “potential.” In practice, it’s often vaguely defined, inconsistently applied, and riddled with bias. Instead of encouraging growth, it teaches people to manage impressions.

If you want to understand future contribution, stop guessing at “potential.” Look instead for something far more observable: feedback orientation — the hunger and habit of seeking input, adapting, and improving.

In sport, a mistake doesn’t threaten identity. It sharpens learning. The difference is the environment. Fast feedback loops. Clear standards. And a shared assumption that everyone is still practising — even the prodigies, like Lamine Yamal.

So if we want people at work to seek feedback like elite performers do we need to create environments where it's safe. We can do this - to some extent at the team level.

Build a team environment where asking for feedback feels normal — even expected. Where work is something to practise and improve, not something to defend.

‍

One Tip: Ask for Advice, Not Feedback

‍

A simple reframe from Dan Pink that makes feedback easier to get — and to give.

Instead of asking:

“Can you give me some feedback?”

Try asking:

“What’s one piece of advice you’d give me on this?”

Why it works:

‍

• Feedback sounds evaluative. People get cautious.
• Advice sounds generous. People lean in.
• Advice invites specificity.
• It lowers the social risk.
• And it gives you something concrete to act on.

‍

If you want honesty, make it easy for others to offer.

‍

One Truth: Actively Seek Criticism Is Seen Positively

‍

High performers don’t just work harder — they work with better information.

Research shows that people with a strong feedback orientation — those who believe feedback is useful, manageable, and their responsibility to act on — consistently perform better over time. Not because they enjoy criticism, but because they treat it as data, not judgement.

Crucially, this connects to a well-established distinction in psychology between learning orientation and performance orientation.

‍

• Learning orientation says: “This feedback helps me improve.”
• Performance orientation says: “This feedback evaluates my worth.”

‍

People who lean learning-oriented are more likely to seek feedback, tolerate discomfort, and adapt quickly. They see criticism as input. People who lean strongly performance-oriented often avoid negative feedback — not because they’re fragile, but because the stakes feel personal. Feedback isn’t information; it’s a verdict.

That’s the nuance that often gets missed: performance orientation isn’t bad. Wanting to win, to meet standards, to deliver results is essential. In fact, performance orientation is what drives focus and execution during the work.

The problem appears when performance orientation dominates all the time.

When every interaction feels like an evaluation, people protect their image instead of improving their craft. They ask safer questions. They defend more. They learn less — precisely when the work becomes complex and ambiguous.

This is where the counter-intuitive finding comes in: Managers who actively ask for critical feedback are rated as more effective by both bosses and subordinates. Asking “What should I improve?” builds credibility. Asking only “How did I do?” often doesn’t.

The best performers don’t choose between learning and performance. They sequence them:

‍

• Performance orientation during delivery — execute, decide, compete.
• Learning orientation before and after — reflect, inquire, adjust.

‍

The takeaway isn’t “be humble.” It’s this: accuracy beats confidence.

In fast-moving work, progress depends less on believing you’re right — and more on being willing to find out when you’re not.

‍

‍

👉 Link to the research [here]

‍