Let’s be real – feedback can sometimes feel like a ritual where the higher-ups drop pearls of wisdom while everyone else nods along, hoping not to take it personally. But the real question isn’t “Who’s in charge?” It’s “Who has the most relevant insights, the best ideas, and the clearest understanding of what the client actually needs?” Feedback should be driven by expertise and knowledge, not rank.

As we move toward 2025, the workplace is shifting not just toward more Zoom meetings in sweatpants – but toward a culture of authenticity and innovation, two things that can be SUPERCHARGED through constructive feedback. While those higher up the ladder often have experience and a broader perspective, the key shift is this: feedback shouldn’t be implemented just because it comes from the top – it should be followed because it’s the best path forward.

“The future of feedback is all about ideas over titles,” says Kate de Wet, Co-founder and Creative Director at 4Time. “If the feedback comes from someone who’s closest to the problem or who understands the client better, it’s more valuable than anything passed down through rank.”

Prioritising Relevant Expertise

The most valuable feedback comes from those with the clearest understanding of the challenge at hand. Whether that’s leadership, a peer, or someone who’s been closely involved with the client, the goal is to prioritise solutions that move the project forward. When this mindset takes hold, feedback transforms from something people dread into a constructive, respected, and solution-driven conversation. Suddenly, people start seeking feedback instead of avoiding it (and let’s be honest, we’ve all been there).

“We’re aiming for a feedback culture where people look forward to input, because it’s about growth, not criticism,” explains de Wet. “It’s not just about who has seniority; it’s about who has the best ideas to move the project forward.”

What Makes Feedback “Good”?

The next question becomes: How can you ensure that everyone on your team knows how to give good feedback?

The person providing feedback must be more than just a critic. They need to understand the problem deeply, recognize the effort behind the work, and focus on the solution – not just assert their opinion and expect no resistance. A feedback giver who simply wants to “get their way” derails the process. Instead, they should be asking questions like, “What’s working here? What’s the intention?” Feedback should aim to enhance the work and reflect a commitment to the project’s success.

“Good feedback isn’t about being right,” de Wet notes. “It’s about helping the other person see a better way forward. When feedback is given with the project’s success in mind, rather than personal preferences, it’s far more productive.”

On the flip side, the receiver has a responsibility too. It’s easy to fall into the “woe is me” trap when hearing feedback, especially when it feels critical. But taking on a victim mindset when receiving feedback will only repel growth. Defensiveness is the number-one killer of constructive feedback.

“The toughest part of receiving feedback is resisting the urge to get defensive,” says de Wet. “But defensiveness shuts down the conversation, and that’s when growth stops.”

To grow, the receiver must be open to change and willing to take on new challenges. Approach feedback with curiosity, not self-pity. Defensiveness doesn’t just block growth – it also breaks the feedback loop. When people feel their feedback is unwelcome or likely to be met with hostility, they’ll stop offering it altogether. And that’s a huge loss for any team or individual aiming for improvement.

Creating the Ideal Feedback Dynamic

The magic of constructive feedback happens when both parties are engaged in the process of problem-solving and growth. The feedback giver must be mindful, patient, and focused on solutions. The receiver needs to be open to suggestions, willing to embrace new ideas, and unafraid of change.

“Feedback works best when both sides are committed to finding the best solution,” de Wet adds. “It’s a two-way street, not a one-sided lecture.”