I. Introduction: The Giver's Fantasy

There's a fantasy underlying most conventional feedback models: if I say the feedback perfectly, at the right time, in the right way—it will be perfectly received.

No.

This fantasy drives entire industries of feedback training. Learn the SBI model. Master the BOOST framework. Follow the COIN structure. Get the timing right, choose your words carefully, deliver with proper balance and tone—and the person will hear you, understand you, and change accordingly.

Except they won't. Not always. Not even most of the time.

Because feedback isn't something you do TO someone. It's not a message you deliver, a technique you execute, or a skill you perfect. Feedback happens BETWEEN people—in the living, breathing, unpredictable space of relationship.

When we treat feedback as a one-sided event, we miss what's actually happening. We ignore that the receiver is a complete human being with their own scripts, defenses, contexts, and capacity to hear. We pretend power dynamics don't exist. We act as if timing, emotional state, and environmental stress don't shape what's possible. We forget that meaning emerges from relationships, not from perfect word choice.

Most dangerously, we mistake our models and frameworks for reality itself.

This article offers a different approach—one that honors feedback as a living relational process requiring both giving and receiving, unfolding over time, generating mutual learning. We'll explore a framework that can guide this work, while remembering that the real territory is the relationships we're building together.

But if the giver's fantasy is just that—a fantasy—then what's actually happening in all those feedback models we've been taught? What are they missing?

‍

II. Why Conventional Feedback Models Fall Short

Look at any popular feedback model—SBI, BOOST, COIN, GROW, STAR-AR—and you'll notice something striking: they're all about giving feedback. The entire focus is on what the giver should do, say, and consider.

This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. These models treat feedback as a transmission problem: if the sender encodes correctly, the receiver will decode accurately. But human communication doesn't work like radio signals. We're creating meaning together in relationships.

Here's what most models leave out:

The receiver's experience. How do people actually hear feedback? What makes them able—or unable—to receive it? What's happening with their nervous system, emotional state, sense of safety?

The relational space. Feedback unfolds within a relationship that has history, power dynamics, trust or distrust, patterns and wounds. That relationship determines what's possible far more than perfect technique.

The ongoing process. These models treat feedback as discrete events. But real feedback is continuous loops of information flowing between people over time.

Context and the whole system. A person who is stressed and overwhelmed can't receive feedback the same way someone who is feeling safe can. Your child is sick. Their dog died. It's winter and they hate winter. The company announced layoffs. Traffic was terrible. All these threads weave through the conversation. There's no simple cause and effect.

The hidden assumption: If I do my part correctly, the feedback will work. This puts all the responsibility—and an illusion of control—on the giver. It guarantees disappointment when even "perfect" feedback doesn't land as intended.

These conventional models aren't useless—they're helpful tools. But here's the problem: we've been mistaking the map for the territory. And that confusion is costing us the quality of our relationships.

III. The Map Is Not the Territory

Alfred Korzybski¹ gave us one of the most important insights about human understanding: "The map is not the territory."

A map of New York City shows streets, landmarks, subway lines. It helps you navigate. But you can't smell the bagels or feel the subway rumble by looking at a map. The map leaves out infinitely more than it includes.

Feedback models work the same way. SBI, BOOST, COIN—they give us language and structure. But they're representations, not reality.

But the territory? That's the actual lived experience. The flutter in your chest approaching a difficult conversation. The way their jaw tightens when you mention the project. The unspoken history between you. The power dynamics that trigger a desire to please. The way your nervous systems co-regulate or dysregulate. What gets triggered, what defenses arise, what possibilities emerge or collapse in real time. 

The territory is reality–messy, complex, alive, full of nuance that no map can capture. 

We need maps for orientation, patterns, vocabulary. But maps become dangerous when we mistake them for territory itself—when we think following the model means we're handling reality.

The deepest work happens in relational space—the territory where two unique human beings meet, each bringing their full complexity. This requires all our intelligences: emotional intelligence reading shifts in tone, somatic intelligence feeling tension or relaxation, relational intelligence sensing what's possible now, intuition picking up what's not being said.

The framework we'll explore is also a map, but of a different flavor. Use it as a guide. But never forget: the real work happens in the territory—in the living relationship you're creating together, one imperfect conversation at a time.

So if the territory is reality itself—the actual living, breathing, messy relational space—how do we understand what's really happening there? What does feedback look like when we see it as it actually is?

IV. Feedback as Characteristic of Living Systems

Humans are living systems. We're not machines that can be programmed with inputs to produce predictable outputs. We're complex, organic beings in continuous relationship with our environment and each other.

Ongoing feedback is fundamental to how living systems function. As Donald MacKay² stated, "Information is a distinction that makes a difference"—later echoed by Gregory Bateson³ as "a difference which makes a difference."

That insight reframes how we can approach feedback.

Feedback isn't something you do TO someone, or even WITH someone occasionally. It is what is always happening between people in living relationships. Information flows constantly—in words, body language, what gets done or left undone, in the energy between you. The question isn't whether feedback is happening. It's whether you're paying attention to it and using it to learn.

How we think about learning matters. In living systems, feedback flows in multiple directions simultaneously, generating learning at many levels, conscious and unconscious.

The dynamics of learning are why conventional models that focus only on "giving" feedback miss the point. Tending to receiving is as important as tending to giving. If someone can't receive—because they're stressed, defensive, unclear about safety, or simply not ready—then no amount of perfect delivery will create learning.

Here are three core principles about feedback in living systems:

1. Feedback flows in circular loops, not linear lines. You share an observation. They interpret it through their filters. Their interpretation triggers a response in you. Your response affects their next move. Round and round. There's no clear beginning or end, no simple cause and effect. This is how living systems work.

2. Context shapes everything, and everything is connected. The same words mean different things in different contexts. Feedback given in crisis feels different than feedback in calm reflection. Feedback from a supervisor carries different weight than feedback from a peer. And none of this happens in isolation. Many threads move through every conversation.

3. Defense mechanisms are normal information. When feedback touches something tender, defenses arise: deny, ignore, distort, avoid, attack, justify. These aren't character flaws. They're protective mechanisms serving important purposes. They tell you something important has been activated. Learning to work with defenses rather than against them is essential.

When feedback is working well, it generates learning (though not always the same learning for everyone), clarity about next steps, balance and equilibrium, flow of energy and information, signal emerging from noise.

Feedback is not an event you schedule and complete. It's an ongoing process, a continuous feedback loop that—when tended well—can become the basis of mutual learning and trust.

Understanding ourselves as living systems shifts how we can approach feedback. Now let's explore a framework that can guide this work—one that honors the giver's fantasy for what it is, while opening up what's actually possible in the territory...

VI. The Framework: A Map for the Territory

Now we come to a different map—a framework that can guide your navigation of the whole feedback territory. Remember: this is a map, not the territory itself. Use it for orientation. Hold it lightly. Stay present to the living reality unfolding between you and another person.

This framework is adapted from Betty Martin's Wheel of Consent⁴. Her work illuminates the often-invisible dynamics of who initiates giving feedback, who receives, who benefits, and what is being given—distinctions that are essential for understanding what's actually happening in any exchange between people. It involves consent from both sides after an understanding of language and possibilities is established.

An Introduction to the Feedback Exchange Framework

Every feedback interaction can be understood through two distinct dynamic exchanges, based on two questions:

1. Who initiates and will receive benefit?
2. What is being given? 

These two questions create two types of exchanges, each with two sides. Understanding which exchange you're in—and which side of that exchange—helps clarify expectations, honor different needs, recognize mismatches, and build reciprocity in relationships.

Let's start by understanding the two exchange types.

Exchange Type 1: TAKING/ALLOWING (Asking to Share)

How you might typically think about giving feedback, keeping receiving in mind.

• One person initiates by asking to share feedback for their own benefit
• The other person considers whether they will allow the exchange
• If yes, the initiator shares what they want or need

Exchange Type 2: ACCEPTING/SERVING (Requesting to Receive)

• One person initiates by requesting feedback for their own benefit
• The other person considers whether they will serve this request
• If yes, the other person provides the information requested

These two types of exchanges, each with two sides, result in four quadrants which you’ll see in the Feedback Exchange Framework diagram below. In healthy feedback relationships, everyone initiates both types of exchanges, participating in all four quadrants. This creates reciprocity. 

Why These Distinctions Matter

Understanding which exchange you're in helps you:

Clarify expectations. When you know who initiated and will benefit, and what kind of exchange is happening, you can be clear about what you're asking for and what you're offering.

Honor different needs. Sometimes you need to initiate sharing for your benefit (TAKE). Sometimes you need to request to receive for your benefit (ACCEPT). Sometimes you need to be willing to allow what others want to share (ALLOW). Sometimes you need to give what others request (SERVE). All are valid.

Recognize mismatches. Confusion often arises when people think they're in different exchanges. You think you're SERVING (they asked for feedback and you're providing it), but they experience it as you TAKING (you're sharing what you want to say, not what they asked for). Making the kind of exchange explicit can resolve confusion.

Build reciprocity. Healthy feedback relationships move through both types of exchanges over time. All aspects of reciprocal relationships require active participation.

Now, let's explore how these exchanges work, using Sally and John as our two people in a feedback relationship.

Feedback Exchange Framework‍

The TAKING/ALLOWING Exchange: "May I do (to you), for me?"

These two quadrants are two sides of the same exchange.

Sally initiates by asking: "May I share this with you / give you feedback / tell you what I need from you?" This is asking John to LET her do something to him, for her benefit. John ALLOWS by considering and saying yes or no. If yes, Sally TAKES action by sharing what she wants. Together, they create one complete exchange where:

• Sally initiates a request to share what she wants to share: “May I…?”
• John considers and says yes (or no)
• When yes, Sally shares what she wants to share or asks for what she needs
• John allows Sally to share
• The exchange is about what Sally wants
• The benefit is for Sally, expressing herself, getting her needs met

This exchange honors both people: Sally gets to express what she wants or get her needs met, John gets to choose whether he's willing and able to allow it.

The ACCEPTING/SERVING Exchange: "Will YOU do (to me), for me?"

These two quadrants are two sides of the same exchange.

John initiates by asking: "Will you help me / give me feedback / share your perspective?" This is asking Sally to DO something for him, for his benefit. Sally SERVES by considering and saying yes or no. If yes, Sally provides what John asked for, and John ACCEPTS what Sally gives him. Together, they create one complete exchange where:

• John initiates a request for information and shares how he wants it: “Will you…?”
• Sally considers and says yes (or no)
• When yes, Sally provides the information requested in a way John wants
• John receives the information with additional requests as needed
• The exchange is about what John wants
• The benefit is for John's learning/development

This exchange honors both people: John gets the help he asked for in the way he needs it, Sally gets to contribute by serving John's request.

Now let's explore examples in each quadrant, starting with the TAKING/ALLOWING exchange.

TAKING (Upper Right) - Sally's Action of Sharing What She Wants

TAKING is Sally's side of the TAKING/ALLOWING exchange. Sally takes action by asking permission to share what SHE wants to share. Sally initiates by asking "May I do this / tell you this / share this with you?" John can say yes or no. If yes, Sally shares what she wants, either for the benefit of expressing herself OR for getting a specific need met.

Example: Sally approaches John and says, "May I share some feedback with you about the project timeline? I need to tell you how the delays are affecting my work, and I need us to figure out a solution." John responds, "Yes, you can share that with me." Sally then shares her concerns and what she needs from John: "When the report was late last week, it created cascade problems for the product launch. I need you to deliver on time or give me advance notice so I can adjust my planning or we need to brainstorm something that works for us both."

ALLOWING (Lower Left) - John's Response to What Sally Wants

ALLOWING is John's side of the TAKING/ALLOWING exchange. Sally asks permission to share something she wants, John considers her request, and John allows Sally to do what she's asking to do. John allows what Sally wants to share.

Example: John hears Sally's request to share feedback about the project timeline. He considers whether he’s willing and able to talk about it. Eventually, he says, "Yes, you can share that with me." John then listens as Sally shares her concerns or needs. He's allowing Sally to express what she wants to express and make the request she needs to make. John might respond, "I hear what you're saying about the impact of the delays. Let me think about how I can meet your need for advance notice. OR I’d like to brainstorm what works for us both."

Let's continue exploring quadrant examples, within the ACCEPTING/SERVING exchange.

ACCEPTING (Lower Right) - John's Reception of What Sally Served

ACCEPTING is John's side of the ACCEPTING/SERVING exchange. John asks for help/information. If Sally agrees and can give, John receives what Sally shares. The exchange remains focused on what John wants and is for John's benefit.

Example: John approaches Sally and says, "Will you help me understand what happened in yesterday's client meeting? I'm not sure how I came across and I'd really value your perspective. Could you be direct with me about what you observed?" Sally responds, "Yes, I can do that." John then listens as Sally shares her observations from the client meeting. He receives her feedback in the direct way he requested. John might respond, "Thank you, that's helpful. I see what you mean about how I came across." John is accepting the information Sally served in response to his request. 

SERVING (Upper Left) - Sally's Action of Giving What John Asked For

SERVING is Sally's side of the ACCEPTING/SERVING exchange. John initiates by asking, "Will you help me?" and Sally responds by considering whether she can and will provide the information or feedback John requests, in the way he wants to receive it.

Example: After John asks, "Will you help me understand what happened in yesterday's client meeting? I'm not sure how I came across and I'd really value your perspective. Could you be direct with me about what you observed?" Sally responds, "Yes, I can do that." Sally then shares her observations directly, the way John requested, for John's benefit. The Situation, Behavior, Impact tool would be useful here for Sally and she could check out using it with John. 

What the Feedback Exchange Framework Offers

This map gives you:

• Language for the different dynamics of feedback that are often invisible
• Clarity about whose needs are being served
• Permission to move through different exchanges as needs shift
• Orientation when you're lost in the territory

What it doesn't give you:

• A script for what to say
• Guarantee that it will work
• Control over the other person's reactions
• A way to avoid messiness and discomfort

Use this framework as a guide. But remember: the real work happens in a relationship, in the territory where two unique human beings meet and attempt to create something together.

The framework provides the map. But to navigate the territory well, you need to bring something essential: your grounded, authentic presence. This is where True Self leadership comes in...

VII. True Self Leadership: What You Bring to the Framework

Your own state matters more than your technique. Most conventional feedback models don't address this fact (though approaches like the IAMX Define Your True Self⁵ course and Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication⁶ do).

Before you can create space for a feedback process, you need to be aware of your own nervous system, recognize your own reactivity, and connect to your authentic presence. This is True Self leadership—the foundation you bring to any feedback exchange, regardless of which exchange you're in.

The process is leading from your Best Self, learning from your Drama. Not one or the other. Both have essential roles.

Best Self: Your Responsive Nervous System States

Your Best Self is you when you're in a responsive nervous system state, connected to what matters most. This state is central to transformational leadership. It's characterized by:

• Broader perspective beyond the immediate exchange
• Connection to values and purpose—why this relationship matters
• Capacity for curiosity rather than defensiveness
• Relational awareness of what's happening between you
• Strategic clarity about what truly matters

When you're in Best Self, feedback becomes an act of care rather than correction. You can hold complexity. You can allow the conversation to unfold rather than controlling it toward a predetermined outcome.

Drama: Your Reactive Nervous System States

Drama is what emerges when you're triggered, defensive, contracted—patterns that often fuel team dysfunction. It includes:

• Defense mechanisms: deny, ignore, distort, avoid, attack, justify
• Scripts that make it hard to hear feedback accurately
• Reactions that arise before you can choose

Drama isn't bad. It's information about what matters to you.

When Drama arises, it's telling you something important. Maybe this topic touches a wound. Maybe you're not feeling safe. Maybe your needs aren't being met. This is where you'll find your unmet needs.

The issue isn't having Drama. The issue is being unconscious of it, letting it run the show.

Learning from Drama

True Self leadership means developing the capacity to orient from your Best Self and learn from Drama.

You're rarely completely in one state or the other. Responsive and reactive states are usually a complex combination. The practice is about noticing from which you're primarily orienting from and being aware of what's happening within yourself.

When you're in Drama: Notice it. Welcome it as information. Get curious about what's going on. Give yourself what you need.

When you're in Best Self: Appreciate it. Use it—this is when learning from Drama becomes possible. Know it won't last forever.

The movement between responsive and reactive states is natural. Building capacity means getting more fluid at recognizing where you are and choosing how to respond, rather than being unconsciously driven by reactivity.

The 100% Rule: Developing the Capacity to Choose

In IAMX, we work with the 100% Rule: you are 100% responsible for your experience.

This doesn't mean everything is your fault or that you get to control everything. It means when you're in a responsive state, you can develop the capacity to choose your responses to situations. When you're reactive, this capacity isn't available. That's important to recognize.

In feedback contexts:

• I'm responsible for my state
• I'm responsible for asking for what I want or need
• I'm responsible for my contribution to this relationship

This isn't about controlling outcomes. It's about showing up authentically while honoring the other person's full agency.

Why This Matters for the Framework

You cannot navigate the framework well if you've been hijacked by your nervous system. Whether you're in a TAKING/ALLOWING exchange or an ACCEPTING/SERVING exchange—your state determines what's possible.

When you're in Drama (reactive states):

• You can't truly ALLOW someone else's request to share—you're too defended to receive
• You can't genuinely SERVE someone's request—you're too contracted to give freely
• You can't authentically TAKE (ask to share)—you might demand rather than request
• You can't clearly ACCEPT (request to receive)—you might be too angry to ask for help

When you're in Best Self (responsive states):

• You can ALLOW with genuine openness, even if what's shared is difficult
• You can SERVE from care rather than obligation
• You can TAKE (ask to share) from clarity about your needs
• You can ACCEPT (request to receive) from curiosity rather than fear

The framework shows you the territory of feedback exchanges. True Self leadership is how you can successfully navigate that territory.

A Simple Self-Check Practice

Before engaging in any feedback exchange, ask yourself:

1. What state am I in right now? (Best Self? Drama? Some of both?)
2. Which exchange am I initiating or responding to? (Am I asking to share something? Being asked to allow someone to share? Requesting feedback? Being asked to provide feedback?)
3. What do I genuinely want or need from this exchange?
4. Am I able to be present with another person's experience, or am I too caught in my own?

If you're too caught in Drama to be present, that's okay. It means this isn't the right time. Do your own work first—process with a colleague or coach, journal, take a walk, reconnect to what personally matters. Then come back to the conversation when you have more capacity.

Conclusion: Beginning the Journey

We've explored why the giver's fantasy falls short, why we need to distinguish the map from the territory, and what it means to see feedback as characteristic of living systems. We've introduced a framework adapted from Betty Martin's Wheel of Consent that illuminates the invisible dynamics of feedback exchanges—the TAKING/ALLOWING exchange (asking to share) and the ACCEPTING/SERVING exchange (requesting to receive).

But a map is just a beginning.

The real work happens in the messy territory of actual relationships—where power dynamics complicate everything, where defense mechanisms arise unbidden, where reactive environments make learning nearly impossible.

In our next article, we'll venture into that territory together. We'll explore the specific challenges you'll encounter and practical moves for navigating them. We'll examine what makes feedback life-affirming rather than soul-crushing.

For now, begin here:

• Notice which exchange most of your feedback interactions fall into
• Practice connecting to your Best Self before initiating either exchange
• Get curious about your Drama when it arises
• Hold the framework lightly as you pay attention to what's actually happening

The territory of feedback is where some of the most important personal and organizational work happens—the work of building relationships that can handle truth, creating cultures where people can be authentic, and tending the aliveness that makes everything else possible.

Welcome to the journey! 

‍

Footnotes

¹ Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950) was a Polish-American philosopher who developed general semantics and coined the famous phrase "the map is not the territory" in his 1933 work Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Learn more: Wikipedia - Alfred Korzybski

² Donald MacKay (1922-1987) was a British physicist and professor at Keele University known for his contributions to information theory and the theory of brain organization. His work explored the relationship between information, mechanism, and meaning. Learn more: Wikipedia - Donald MacCrimmon MacKay

³ Gregory Bateson (1904-1980) was an English anthropologist, social scientist, and cyberneticist who described information as "a difference which makes a difference" in his influential 1972 work Steps to an Ecology of Mind. His work profoundly influenced systems thinking and family therapy. Learn more: Wikiquote - Gregory Bateson

⁴ Betty Martin developed the Wheel of Consent based on over 40 years of hands-on work as a chiropractor, somatic sex educator, and intimacy coach. Her framework illuminates the dynamics of giving and receiving in all types of relationships and has been taught in communities worldwide. Learn more: BettyMartin.org | The Art of Receiving and Giving: The Wheel of Consent

⁵ IAMX Define Your True Self Course is a transformational leadership program that helps leaders access their authentic presence and orient from their responsive self rather than reactive patterns. The course integrates nervous system awareness, emotional intelligence, and strategic clarity. Learn more: IAMX Define Your True Self

⁶ Marshall Rosenberg (1934-2015) was an American psychologist who developed Nonviolent Communication (NVC), a communication process that emphasizes compassion, empathy, and honest self-expression. His work has influenced conflict resolution and interpersonal communication worldwide. Learn more: Center for Nonviolent Communication

‍

‍

‍