In the landscape of professional development, one of the most valuable resources leaders have is feedback. Yet, paradoxically, it's also one of the most commonly rejected gifts. In our work with executives, we regularly witness the complex dance individuals do when confronted with insights about themselves, particularly when those insights highlight areas for improvement.
The I Already Fixed It Leader
Recently, we worked with a senior executive at a global organization who displayed a textbook case of feedback deflection. During our coaching sessions, whenever the coachee was given an observation about a less desirable aspect of his leadership style, such as his tendency to be overly directive, his responses followed a predictable pattern: "That used to be an issue, but I've already addressed it." Instead of pausing to consider the feedback, asking clarifying questions, or showing curiosity about how this behavior might be affecting his team, he immediately repositioned the issue as resolved history. The feedback was acknowledged but simultaneously neutralized, placed safely in the past where it required no further examination or action on his part. Pointing out the pattern became a topic for the coaching session and ultimately helped the executive see the behavior. Why do many accomplished leaders, like this executive, instinctively resist feedback that could benefit them?
The Psychology Of Deflection
Feedback deflection refers to the psychological mechanisms we employ to avoid fully processing or accepting information about ourselves that conflicts with our self-image. These mechanisms operate largely unconsciously and serve as protective functions for our egos.
Cognitive Dissonance: At the heart of feedback deflection lies cognitive dissonance, the mental discomfort that occurs when we encounter information contradicting our existing beliefs about ourselves (Festinger, 1957). For leaders who view themselves as highly competent, learning that others perceive limitations in their approach creates an uncomfortable psychological tension.
Research by Korn et al. (2016) demonstrated that when faced with self-threatening feedback, individuals typically resolve this dissonance not by changing their self-perception, but by discounting the feedback itself. This explains why many leaders' first instinct is to question the validity of the feedback rather than their own behavior.
Self-Verification Theory: People prefer feedback that confirms their existing self-views, even when those views are negative (Swann, 2012). However, for high-achievers with positive self-concepts, negative feedback creates a particular challenge. Their instinct is to preserve their positive self-image by reframing, minimizing, or redirecting the feedback.
Psychological Threat Response: Emanating from the field of neuroscience, we know that social threats, including threats to our status and autonomy, activate the same brain regions as physical threats. When feedback challenges a leader's competence, it can trigger a threat response in our brains, activating defensive mechanisms like deflection before conscious processing even occurs.
Temporal Self-Appraisal Theory: When our executive claimed he had already addressed the issues, he was engaging in what Wilson and Ross (2001) call temporal self-appraisal, distancing his current self from his past self to maintain a positive present identity. By acknowledging the feedback but placing it firmly in the past, he created psychological distance from the criticism while still appearing receptive to feedback.
Common Deflection Tactics
When confronted with feedback that challenges our self-perception, most individuals unconsciously deploy predictable defense mechanisms. These tactics serve as psychological buffers, allowing us to acknowledge the feedback at a surface level while protecting us from fully processing its implications. By recognizing these patterns in ourselves and others, we can begin to identify when genuine learning is being short-circuited by our defensive responses. The following represent some of the most common deflection strategies we observe in the workplace:
- Historical repositioning: "That was an issue before, but I've fixed it already."
- Context rejection: "That might be true in some situations, but not in mine."
- Source discrediting: "The people who reported that don't understand the full picture."
- Comparative defense: "Everyone in this industry struggles with that."
- Intention highlighting: "My intentions were good, even if the impact wasn't."
These tactics all share a common feature. They allow the individual to acknowledge the feedback superficially while avoiding its implications.
The Consequences of Chronic Deflection
While occasional feedback deflection is a natural human response, persistent patterns of deflection cost leaders over time. These consequences compound silently in the background, often invisible to the person engaging in deflection until they manifest as significant professional or organizational problems. What begins as a self-protective mechanism gradually transforms into self-limiting behavior with far-reaching implications. Leaders who habitually deflect feedback face a paradoxical reality: the very behaviors that protect their ego in the moment undermine their long-term effectiveness and growth. Some of the most significant costs include:
Stunted Development: Deflecting feedback prevents growth. Kegan and Lahey (2009) identified immunity to change as a primary barrier to personal development. When leaders deflect insights about themselves, they build immunity to the very information that could help them evolve. There are a number of risks for executives who remain stagnant such as repeating harmful mistakes and missteps, being overlooked for bigger opportunities, or being let go.
Eroded Trust and Damaged Relationships: Leaders who consistently deflect feedback create environments where honest communication becomes difficult. Team members stop offering valuable perspectives when they see their input consistently dismissed or deflected, leading to deteriorating trust.
Reinforced Blind Spots: Feedback deflection keeps leaders' blind spots firmly in place, eventually creating what Argyris (1991) called skilled incompetence, becoming increasingly adept at behaviors that undermine their effectiveness.
Reality Distortion: Sustained feedback deflection creates a gap between perception and reality. In some cases, this results in the most incompetent individuals being least able to recognize their incompetence, creating a double burden.
Breaking the Deflection Cycle
Overcoming the tendency to deflect requires deliberate practice:
- Recognize deflection patterns: Awareness is the first step. Leaders must learn to recognize their habitual deflection responses.
- Create space between stimulus and response: When receiving challenging feedback, practice pausing before responding. This interrupts the automatic deflection cycle.
- Cultivate curiosity: Approach feedback with genuine curiosity rather than judgment. Ask questions like "Can you tell me more about what you observed?"
- Separate identity from behavior: Remember that feedback about your behaviors is not an indictment of your worth as a person or professional.
- Seek patterns: Look for themes in the feedback. Focus on the story being told in the feedback rather than trying to work out who said what.
Conclusion
For the executive in our opening example, breakthrough finally came when he recognized his pattern of deflection. By acknowledging that his immediate "I've already fixed that" response was preventing him from receiving valuable insights, he began practicing a new response: "Can we explore where that's coming from in me?"
This simple shift, from deflection to curiosity, opened pathways for meaningful growth. He discovered that what he had fixed was only the most obvious manifestation of a deeper pattern, and that by truly engaging with feedback, he could address root causes rather than symptoms.
The capacity to receive feedback without deflection represents one of the most powerful developmental capabilities a leader can cultivate. By understanding the psychological mechanisms that drive our resistance and practicing more constructive responses, we transform feedback from a threat to be neutralized into a resource to be treasured.
References
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99-109.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock the potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.
Korn, C. W., Prehn, K., Park, S. Q., Walter, H., & Heekeren, H. R. (2016). Positively biased processing of self-relevant social feedback. Journal of Neuroscience, 36(15), 4474-4483.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121-1134.
Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1961). The Johari window: A graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Laboratory in Group Development. University of California, Los Angeles.
Swann, W. B. (2012). Self-verification theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 23-42). Sage Publications.
Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2001). From chump to champ: People's appraisals of their earlier and present selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 572-584.
