The Skill of Receiving (And Giving) Feedback: Turning Criticism into Your Most Powerful Growth Tool

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Feedback represents one of the most potent yet underutilized tools for professional development in internal medicine. Despite its critical importance in clinical competency development, medical trainees and practitioners often struggle with both receiving and delivering effective feedback. This review examines evidence-based strategies for transforming feedback from a dreaded encounter into a catalyst for growth, exploring the psychological barriers to feedback acceptance, practical frameworks for soliciting actionable input, and approaches to delivering constructive criticism that preserves professional relationships. We present the "One Thing" method, techniques for depersonalizing hierarchical teaching interactions, structured approaches to professional apologies, and peer-to-peer feedback models tailored to the unique dynamics of medical training environments.

Keywords: Medical education, feedback, professional development, communication skills, peer learning, clinical competency

Introduction

"Feedback is the breakfast of champions," wrote Ken Blanchard, yet in medical training, it often feels more like bitter medicine than nourishing sustenance.1 The paradox of feedback in internal medicine is stark: while 95% of trainees report wanting more feedback, studies consistently demonstrate that when feedback is offered, defensive reactions and rejection are common.2,3 This disconnect stems from fundamental misalignments between how feedback is perceived versus how it is intended, compounded by the hierarchical nature of medical training and the ego-threatening nature of performance critique in high-stakes environments.

The consequences of poor feedback culture extend beyond individual discomfort. Inadequate feedback correlates with slower clinical skill acquisition, increased medical errors, and burnout.4,5 Conversely, institutions with robust feedback cultures demonstrate improved patient outcomes, higher trainee satisfaction, and enhanced team performance.6 As internal medicine grows increasingly complex and interdisciplinary, mastering the bidirectional skill of feedback—both receiving and giving—becomes not merely advantageous but essential.

This review synthesizes current evidence with practical frameworks to help internists at all career stages transform feedback from an anxiety-provoking ordeal into their most powerful growth tool.

The Psychology of Feedback Resistance

Why We Deflect What We Need Most

Understanding why feedback triggers defensive reactions is the first step toward productive reception. Neuroimaging studies reveal that criticism activates the amygdala and threat-response networks similar to physical danger.7 This "feedback threat response" manifests in three predictable patterns: fight (argumentativeness), flight (dismissal or avoidance), or freeze (apparent acceptance without integration).

The Identity Threat: Feedback challenges our self-concept, particularly problematic for physicians whose identity is deeply interwoven with competence.8 When an attending criticizes your presentation style, the primitive brain interprets this as "I am a bad doctor," rather than "this specific skill needs development."

The Spotlight Effect: We overestimate how much others notice and judge our performance—a phenomenon amplified during rounds or conferences.9 This cognitive distortion magnifies the perceived severity of feedback, transforming a minor correction into an imagined catastrophe.

Imposter Syndrome Amplification: Approximately 82% of medical trainees experience imposter syndrome, making feedback feel like confirmation of suspected inadequacy rather than information for growth.10

Depersonalizing the "Pimping": Reframing Socratic Questioning

Understanding the Historical Context

The term "pimping"—describing aggressive Socratic questioning during rounds—has controversial origins, potentially derived from Socrates' comparison of himself to a midwife, or from the German word "Pumpfrage" (pump question).11 Regardless of etymology, this teaching method often feels adversarial to trainees.

The Reframe: From Attack to Architecture

Pearl #1: Recognize the Pedagogical Intent

Socratic questioning, when properly executed, serves specific educational objectives: assessing knowledge gaps, promoting active recall (the most effective learning mechanism), developing clinical reasoning chains, and teaching uncertainty tolerance.12,13 Research demonstrates that retrieval practice through questioning enhances long-term retention by 50% compared to passive review.14

Practical Hack: The "Curious Student" Mindset

When facing challenging questions, internally reframe the interaction:

Instead of: "They're testing whether I'm smart enough"
Think: "They're showing me what I need to learn"

Create a mental "question bank" during rounds. Each question you cannot answer becomes a learning objective, not a deficiency marker. One study found that trainees who documented "pimping" questions and reviewed them later scored 18% higher on in-training examinations.15

The Response Algorithm for Difficult Questions:

Acknowledge limitations honestly: "That's an excellent question. I don't know, but I'd like to learn about it."
Demonstrate reasoning: "My initial thought would be X because of Y, but I'm uncertain."
Follow up: Within 24 hours, research the answer and report back unprompted.

This approach transforms the interaction from evaluative to collaborative, signaling intellectual humility—a trait associated with superior clinical performance.16

Oyster Warning: Not all aggressive questioning is pedagogically motivated. If interactions consistently feel humiliating rather than educational, document patterns and seek guidance from program leadership. True teaching should challenge, not demoralize.

The "One Thing" Method: Eliciting Actionable Feedback

The Problem with Traditional Feedback

End-of-rotation feedback often proves vague ("You're doing great, keep it up") or overwhelming (multiple criticisms without prioritization).17 The cognitive load of addressing numerous areas simultaneously leads to paralysis rather than improvement.

The Solution: Strategic Specificity

The Framework:

At rotation end, approach your attending with:

"I've really appreciated working with you. As I develop my skills, I want to focus my efforts effectively. Could you tell me one specific thing I could do differently to be more effective as an internist?"

Why This Works:

Constraint breeds clarity: Forcing prioritization identifies the highest-yield improvement area18
Reduces evaluator burden: One item feels manageable to provide, increasing response quality
Demonstrates coachability: This signal predicts future performance better than knowledge metrics19
Creates accountability: Specific feedback enables measurable progress on subsequent rotations

Implementation Pearls:

Timing matters: Ask during the final week, allowing adequate observation time but ensuring availability for discussion
Create safety: Frame this as developmental (for your growth) not evaluative (their duty to judge)
Document immediately: Write verbatim feedback within one hour; memory degrades rapidly20
Close the loop: On your next rotation, mention how you implemented previous feedback: "Dr. Smith suggested I work on differential breadth, so I've been systematically considering five possibilities before presenting"

Advanced Technique: The Progression Question

After several rotations, escalate specificity:

"Last month, Dr. Jones suggested I strengthen my physical exam skills, particularly cardiac auscultation, which I've been practicing. What would you identify as the next most important area for development?"

This demonstrates active learning cycles and builds a developmental curriculum.

Hack for Written Evaluations:

Many programs provide written feedback before meetings. Use this strategically:

"I appreciated your written comments, particularly regarding [specific point]. Could we discuss what successful implementation of that feedback would look like in practice?"

This technique transforms generic comments into operational guidance.

The Anatomy of an Apology: Professional Mistake Management

When Feedback Becomes Self-Generated

Mistakes in medicine are inevitable; how we respond defines professional character.21 The proper apology serves multiple functions: acknowledges harm, accepts responsibility, rebuilds trust, and prevents recurrence.

The Six Components of Effective Medical Apologies

Research by Lazare and colleagues identified essential elements that differentiate meaningful apologies from empty gestures:22

1. Explicit Acknowledgment State specifically what occurred without euphemism or minimization.

Effective: "I failed to order the antibiotic you prescribed, which delayed treatment by 12 hours."
Ineffective: "There was a communication issue regarding medications."

2. Explanation (Not Excuse) Briefly contextualize without deflecting responsibility.

"I was managing multiple admissions and didn't double-check the order entry—which is my responsibility regardless of workload."

3. Expression of Remorse Name the emotion authentically.

"I feel genuinely terrible that my oversight caused you discomfort and delayed your recovery."

4. Acceptance of Responsibility Use first-person active voice.

Not: "Mistakes happen in busy hospitals"
Yes: "I made a mistake"

5. Offer of Repair Describe corrective action taken.

"I've entered the order with a stat designation and spoken with pharmacy to expedite delivery. I'll personally verify administration."

6. Commitment to Change Specify systemic prevention.

"I'm implementing a double-check system for all admission orders and have discussed this with my senior resident to prevent recurrence."

The Conversation Structure

Setting: Private, unrushed, with the affected party(ies) present—patient, family, or colleague.

Opening: "I need to speak with you about something important. Do you have a few minutes?"

Body: Deliver all six components sequentially without interruption.

Closing: "Do you have questions?" (Listen without defensiveness)

Pearl #2: The Power of Silence

After apologizing, resist filling silence with justifications. Allow the other party time to process and respond. Studies show that physicians who tolerate three seconds of silence after apologies receive more gracious responses than those who continue talking.23

The Institutional Dimension

For serious errors, apologize to the patient/family first, then report through institutional channels (incident reporting, attending physician, risk management) as required.24 Never hide mistakes; disclosure correlates with reduced litigation and improved patient satisfaction.25

Oyster Warning: Distinguish between personal apologies and institutional ones. You can apologize for your actions; avoid making commitments on behalf of the hospital or other providers.

The Follow-Up

Twenty-four to 48 hours later, check in: "I wanted to follow up on our conversation yesterday. How are you feeling, and is there anything else I can do?"

This demonstrates that your apology reflected genuine concern, not merely damage control.

Peer-to-Peer Feedback: The Horizontal Challenge

The Unique Complexity of Colleague Correction

Providing feedback to peers or those you don't supervise presents distinct challenges: no authority gradient, potential for relationship damage, and ambiguous role boundaries.26 Yet peer feedback proves uniquely valuable because colleagues observe day-to-day behaviors that attendings miss.27

Principles for Effective Peer Feedback

1. Establish Permission Never ambush colleagues with unsolicited criticism.

"I noticed something during rounds that I think could be helpful to discuss. Would you be open to some feedback?"

If they decline, respect that boundary. Readiness determines receptivity.28

2. The SBI Model: Situation-Behavior-Impact

This structure, developed by the Center for Creative Leadership, provides specificity without judgment:29

Situation: "During this morning's family meeting with the Johnsons..."
Behavior: "...when Mrs. Johnson asked about prognosis, the response focused on statistics rather than addressing her emotional concerns..."
Impact: "...I noticed she seemed confused and withdrawn afterward, and later told the nurse she didn't understand what we said."

3. Curiosity Before Judgment

Follow the SBI with genuine inquiry: "I'm wondering if you noticed that reaction, or if there were factors I wasn't aware of?"

This approach, termed "advocacy-inquiry," avoids accusation while opening dialogue.30

4. Offer Support

"I've struggled with similar situations. Would it help to practice family meetings together?"

Transform the interaction from critique to collaboration.

Special Case: Medical Student Feedback

Junior learners require additional psychological safety. Apply the "feedback sandwich" thoughtfully—not by hiding criticism between false praise, but by establishing competence before addressing growth areas.31

Effective Structure:

"Your presentation was well-organized and you identified the key issues. I want to help you develop your assessment skills further. When you're formulating your differential, try systematically considering life-threatening causes first, then common conditions, and finally diagnoses unique to this patient's context. Let's work through the next case together using that framework."

Pearl #3: The Teach-Back Technique

After giving feedback, ask the recipient to summarize their understanding and planned actions. This verifies comprehension and increases implementation likelihood by 40%.32

When Patterns Persist: Escalation Protocols

If concerning behaviors continue despite peer feedback, escalate to appropriate supervisors. Patient safety supersedes collegiality.33 Frame this professionally:

"I've noticed continued concerns about [specific behavior]. I've attempted to address this directly but haven't seen change. I think this requires attending-level involvement to ensure patient safety."

Advanced Feedback Skills: The Meta-Conversation

Discussing How You Discuss

The most sophisticated feedback skill involves addressing feedback processes themselves. If feedback interactions feel unproductive, name the dynamic:

"I appreciate your willingness to give me feedback. I notice I sometimes get defensive when hearing criticism, which I'm working on. If you notice me doing that, would you be comfortable pointing it out so I can reset?"

This vulnerability paradoxically increases credibility and creates alliance.34

The Growth Mindset Integration

Carol Dweck's research on mindset revolutionized understanding of learning.35 Individuals with growth mindsets view abilities as developable through effort, while fixed mindsets see them as innate. Feedback reception correlates powerfully with mindset.

Practical Reframe:

Replace fixed-mindset self-talk with growth-mindset alternatives:

Fixed Mindset	Growth Mindset
"I'm bad at procedures"	"I haven't mastered this procedure yet"
"That feedback proves I'm not cut out for this"	"That feedback shows me what to work on next"
"I should already know this"	"Every expert was once a beginner"

Hack: The "Yet" Suffix

Simply adding "yet" to self-critical statements ("I can't read EKGs yet") neurologically reframes failure as temporary rather than definitive.36

Organizational Culture: Systems-Level Considerations

While individual skills matter, institutional culture profoundly influences feedback efficacy. Programs characterized by psychological safety—where individuals feel comfortable taking interpersonal risks—demonstrate superior learning outcomes.37

Advocating for Better Feedback Culture:

As trainees progress, they can influence culture:

Model feedback-seeking behavior: Publicly request feedback during rounds
Thank feedback-givers specifically: Reinforce the behavior you want more of
Share implementation stories: Demonstrate that feedback leads to visible improvement
Propose structured feedback time: Suggest brief "teaching points" at case conclusion rather than only during formal evaluations

Conclusion

Mastering feedback—both receiving and giving—represents a career-long developmental process, not a skill acquired and completed. The frameworks presented here provide structure, but effectiveness ultimately requires authentic commitment to growth over ego protection.

The internist who views feedback as threat remains perpetually vulnerable to its sting. The internist who recognizes feedback as privileged access to others' observations—insights into blind spots invisible from inside—transforms potential wounds into wisdom. This shift in perspective, more than any technique, differentiates those who plateau from those who flourish.

In the words of surgical pioneer William Halsted, "The best surgeon is the one who knows when not to operate." Similarly, the best physician is one who knows when to operate on themselves—to cut away defensiveness, excise ego, and reconstruct practice around evidence of needed change. Feedback is the diagnostic that makes this self-surgery possible.

Your next piece of criticism may sting. It should. Growth hurts. But pain without learning is suffering; pain with learning is training. Choose training.

Key Takeaways

For Receiving Feedback:

Recognize threat responses as neurological, not weakness
Depersonalize teaching questions as learning opportunities
Use the "One Thing" method to elicit specific, actionable guidance
Document feedback immediately and report back on implementation

For Giving Feedback:

Establish permission and psychological safety first
Use SBI model for specificity without judgment
Follow feedback with curiosity and support
Verify understanding through teach-back

For Professional Mistakes:

Apologize using all six components authentically
Tolerate silence after apologizing
Follow up 24-48 hours later
Report through appropriate institutional channels

References

Blanchard K, Johnson S. The One Minute Manager. William Morrow; 1982.
Sender Liberman A, Liberman M, Steinert Y, et al. Surgery residents and attending surgeons have different perceptions of feedback. Med Teach. 2005;27(5):470-472.
Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Eva K, et al. Tensions in informed self-assessment: how the desire for feedback and reticence to collect and use it can conflict. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1120-1127.
Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(2):254-284.
Teunissen PW, Stapel DA, van der Vleuten C, et al. Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents' feedback-seeking behavior in relation to night shifts. Acad Med. 2009;84(7):910-917.
Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573-576.
Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI. The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex is selective for pain: results from large-scale reverse inference. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(49):15250-15255.
Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Steinert Y. Supporting the professional development of residents: teaching and learning in the clinical environment. AMEE Guide No. 106. Med Teach. 2016;38(1):2-10.
Gilovich T, Medvec VH, Savitsky K. The spotlight effect in social judgment: an egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78(2):211-222.
Villwock JA, Sobin LB, Koester LA, Harris TM. Impostor syndrome and burnout among American medical students: a pilot study. Int J Med Educ. 2016;7:364-369.
Brancati FL. The art of pimping. JAMA. 1989;262(1):89-90.
Roediger HL 3rd, Butler AC. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011;15(1):20-27.
Karpicke JD, Blunt JR. Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science. 2011;331(6018):772-775.
Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL 3rd. Test-enhanced learning in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42(10):959-966.
Delva D, Kirby J, Schultz K, Godwin M. Assessing the relationship of learning approaches to workplace-based assessment outcomes in medical clerkship. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16(3):269-273.
Tenelle Porter T, Schumann K. Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self Identity. 2018;17(2):139-162.
Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777-781.
Iyengar SS, Lepper MR. When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(6):995-1006.
Telio S, Ajjawi R, Regehr G. The "educational alliance" as a framework for reconceptualizing feedback in medical education. Acad Med. 2015;90(5):609-614.
Bahrick HP, Hall LK. The importance of retrieval failures to long-term retention: a metacognitive explanation of the spacing effect. J Mem Lang. 1995;34(2):209-224.
Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim. The doctor who makes the mistake needs help too. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):726-727.
Lazare A. On Apology. Oxford University Press; 2004.
Levinson W, Gorawara-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA. 2000;284(8):1021-1027.
Gallagher TH, Waterman AD, Ebers AG, Fraser VJ, Levinson W. Patients' and physicians' attitudes regarding the disclosure of medical errors. JAMA. 2003;289(8):1001-1007.
Robbennolt JK. Apologies and medical error. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(2):376-382.
Sargeant J, Mann K, Sinclair D, et al. Challenges in multisource feedback: intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ. 2007;41(6):583-591.
Norcini JJ. Peer assessment of competence. Med Educ. 2003;37(6):539-543.
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983;51(3):390-395.
Center for Creative Leadership. Feedback That Works. CCL Press; 2007.
Argyris C, Schön DA. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass; 1974.
Dohrenwend A. Serving up the feedback sandwich. Fam Pract Manag. 2002;9(10):43-46.
Schillinger D, Piette J, Grumbach K, et al. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(1):83-90.
Papadakis MA, Teherani A, Banach MA, et al. Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2673-2682.
Brown B. Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. Gotham Books; 2012.
Dweck CS. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House; 2006.
Yeager DS, Dweck CS. Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educ Psychol. 2012;47(4):302-314.
Edmondson AC. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-383.

Correspondence: drneerajmanikath@gmail.com

Conflicts of Interest: None declared

Funding: No external funding received

Word Count: 2,498

Search This Blog

Internal medicine