Leaders open to dialogue and mutual exchange are more effective: neuroscience proves it.
Recent neuroscientific research conducted by Michela Balconi and colleagues shows that, in the workplace, when a manager provides qualitative feedback in words rather than using a numerical rating, the benefits are significantly greater.
This effect is amplified when a genuine dialogue takes place, allowing both parties to share their perspective.
It is not just the manager giving feedback to employees; the exchange is two-way. Employees also have the opportunity to express their beliefs, emotions, and personal experiences.
Research has revealed that initiating a generative dialogue during feedback and appraisal reviews is exceptionally beneficial—for the individuals being appraised, for the leader conducting the review, and ultimately for the organisation as a whole.
Looking ahead, perhaps the term “performance review” could be replaced by “feedback”, or even better, by “mutual dialogue”, where both parties contribute meaningfully.
Fostering an open, horizontal environment allows us to expand our understanding and discover new ways of thinking and working.
OPEN COMMUNICATION NOURISHES THE ORGANISATION
According to Ashley Hardin, researcher and professor at Washington University, dyadic interactions in the workplace are «the building blocks of organisations and the fabric of organisational life» (Hardin, 2018).
Exchanges with others encourage behavioural change and help shape core values.
Through constructive negotiation, they enable differences to be integrated, fostering personal empowerment.
Communication serves as a tool for monitoring, motivation, and strategy, while also playing a central role in making sense of experiences, clarifying objectives, and guiding decision-making.
Words can make all the difference to employee wellbeing, motivation, and performance. Here, too, we believe putting people at the centre is crucial.
The dialogue between a leader and their team members plays a decisive role precisely because of the influence a leader exerts as a guide.
Extensive research demonstrates that employees «mirror their leaders; literally», driven by mirror neurons that enable imitation and attunement.
HOW CAN EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP FOSTER THIS VIRTUOUS CYCLE?
In organisational life, leadership is a multifaceted process set within a complex ecosystem.
Leaders must continually make decisions and navigate evolving situations—especially today, as work involves ever greater degrees of unpredictability and risk.
Adopting a collaborative leadership style may be the most effective, practical way to navigate the complexity of relationships, emotions, and behaviours.
In our previous article, we highlighted Filippo Brunelleschi as a brilliant, accomplished leader—not only for his remarkable ability to see beyond and grasp the complexity and breadth of a project, but above all because he achieved his goals by “negotiating” his vision with those who could help bring it to life.
His success also stemmed from a deep willingness to engage in dialogue, viewing the contributions of others as an opportunity to learn.
Today, scientific research confirms that every organisational leader should cultivate these same qualities.
The very concept of a “performance review” could be replaced by feedback, or even better, by an open conversation where both sides bring value to the table.
NO MORE RATINGS: TWO-WAY, QUALITATIVE FEEDBACK BACKED BY NEUROSCIENCE
Scientific research conducted by Balconi and colleagues in 2019 shows that, in the workplace, qualitative feedback delivered in words is significantly more effective than a numerical rating.
The positive impact is even greater when communication is not one-directional—with only the manager giving feedback—but two-way, giving employees the space to voice their beliefs, emotions, and perspectives.
To demonstrate this, the researchers drew on neuromanagement.
What is it? It is an applied branch of social neuroscience that studies interpersonal behaviours within organisations. It is particularly valuable for examining the subconscious, implicit mechanisms that drive our behaviour.
WHAT NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS ARE TRIGGERED WHEN SOMEONE RECEIVES FEEDBACK FROM THEIR MANAGER?
Past studies have shown that employees improve after performance reviews and manager feedback only 40% of the time; in fact, there is a substantial risk of performance worsening (38%).
A decisive differentiator appears to be using narrative, verbal feedback rather than numerical scores. Assigning scores triggers anxiety, fear, negative emotions, and avoidance.
It is clear that a working environment grounded in empathy, active listening, and strong, open, horizontal communication can serve as a powerful stabiliser for interpersonal dynamics within organisations.
In recent years, several studies based on questionnaires and self-assessment tools have explored this, though they required a high degree of self-awareness and conscious reflection on relationships.
THE NEUROSCIENCE PERSPECTIVE
Neuroscience offers far more accurate insights. By tracking both conscious and automatic or subconscious responses, it allows us to see organisations through a fresh lens.
In their 2019 experiment, Balconi, Venturella, and colleagues asked 10 managers and 10 employees to simulate an appraisal interview in pairs, evaluating each other’s work performance.
In some scenarios, only the manager evaluated the employee’s performance. In others, the employee could also share their views on their manager. This enabled researchers to observe both role-related dynamics and the difference between one-way and mutual feedback.
Finally, they compared two distinct formats: numerical scoring versus qualitative performance feedback.
Throughout the interviews, participants’ heart rates and electrodermal activity were recorded. While an elevated heart rate typically indicates stress and adverse situations, increased electrodermal activity is more commonly associated with emotional engagement, enthusiasm, or positive stimulation.
The findings revealed that, while quantitative ratings can provoke fear and trigger negative emotions or avoidance, qualitative, conversational feedback is more effective, useful, and listened to with greater attention—especially when there is room for reciprocity.
This is why the two-way approach proves superior: it delivers greater wellbeing and satisfaction, not only for team members but for leaders as well.
Exchanging two-way, qualitative feedback is essential for building a healthier organisational climate.
Promoting cooperative, balanced relationships grounded in reciprocity and positive motivation clearly delivers powerful results.
HONING LISTENING SKILLS: OUR CALL TO ACTION
People are visibly more motivated and achieve stronger results when managers and leaders champion their strengths, welcome their contributions, and genuinely listen.
Cultivating this capability is therefore essential.
As Daniel Goleman noted, “When we focus on ourselves, our world contracts as our problems and preoccupations loom large. But when we focus on others, our world expands.”
Creating an open, horizontal environment for listening and dialogue expands our collective knowledge and reveals new ways forward.
Yet listening is not always easy. We all occasionally interrupt, lose focus, jump to conclusions, make assumptions, or focus more on our own thoughts than on the speaker. It becomes even harder when professional roles demand constant navigation of escalating complexity in information, situations, and strategic scenarios.
And yet, genuine dialogue is precisely what enables us to grasp that complexity from a broader vantage point.
Adopting simple listening practices can make all the difference.
Paraphrasing to reflect back what we have understood strengthens awareness; asking open-ended questions and requesting concrete examples demonstrates curiosity; and treating the other person’s perspective as an ongoing source of learning enriches everyone involved.
RESEARCH SOURCE:
Balconi, M., Venturella, I., Fronda, G., & Vanutelli, M. E. (2019). Who’s boss? Physiological measures during performance assessment. Managerial and Decision Economics, 40(2), 213–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2997
