Contact
During my military career, I’ve attended a multitude of management and leadership workshops and although they discussed the need for feedback, they rarely explored what effective feedback looks like in different situations. I say this because during my first year transitioning to the civilian workplace, I routinely misjudged the impact that my feedback style was having on some individuals. At the time, it was easy to blame the receivers, where their inability to handle direct and blunt feedback was seen as their issue. However, through self-reflection and reading numerous articles on effective feedback, I realised that the inability to deliver effective feedback was fundamentally rooted in my subconscious belief that feedback is always served in the military style – two decades of military service can do that. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for a direct style of feedback, but this being your default approach is likely to create a significant negative impact, both on the individual receiving it and the relationship between the receiver and provider.
If we pause to think about the two environments, we should be able to recognise that military feedback and civilian feedback will differ in several ways, primarily this is due to the contrasting cultures, structures, and expectations of each environment. To help shine a light on how different these two environments are, let’s break it down as follows:
1. Directness and Clarity
Military Feedback: In the military, feedback is often direct, blunt, and to the point. This is partly because of the high-stakes environment in which soldiers operate. Clear, unambiguous communication is crucial for ensuring that there is no room for misunderstanding, especially when it comes to tasks that might have serious consequences. Commanders and supervisors are often expected to give very clear instructions and evaluations with little concern for the emotional impact, as the priority is typically mission success and operational effectiveness.
Civilian Feedback: Civilian feedback, particularly in corporate or professional settings, tends to be more nuanced and often strives to be more tactful and considerate of the individual’s feelings. In many civilian workplaces, managers are trained to give feedback that is constructive, encouraging, and framed in a way that maintains morale. It’s not uncommon for feedback to include positive reinforcement alongside areas for improvement, which can soften the critique and make it easier for the individual to accept.
2. Purpose and Focus
Military Feedback: In the military, feedback is often task-oriented and focuses on specific performances related to military objectives. The primary aim is to ensure that military members can perform their duties effectively, follow orders, and contribute to the team’s mission. Feedback can also be corrective, focusing on performance shortcomings that could affect operational readiness. The focus is on improvement, and the feedback is often tied directly to the success or failure of a mission or task.
Civilian Feedback: Civilian feedback, while also focused on improvement, can be more holistic. It might consider an individual’s career development, skills growth, and personal well-being in addition to specific task completion. In civilian settings, feedback often takes into account not only how well someone did a job but also how their work contributes to the overall organizational culture or long-term goals. There is also a stronger emphasis on work-life balance and interpersonal dynamics.
3. Formality and Structure
Military Feedback: Military feedback is often highly structured and formal. In some instances, it follows specific protocols, such as the use of evaluations, performance reports, or reviews that are part of a soldier’s official record. These assessments tend to be regular, predictable, and sometimes even mandatory. The feedback often comes from someone in a higher rank, and there is an established chain of command that governs how feedback is delivered.
Civilian Feedback: In civilian workplaces, the formality and structure of feedback can vary widely. Some organizations may have formal review processes, but others may offer feedback more casually in the form of regular check-ins, team meetings, or one-on-one conversations. The hierarchy in civilian environments may also be less rigid, with feedback sometimes coming from peers or colleagues at similar levels, not just superiors.
4. Tone and Delivery
Military Feedback: The tone of military feedback is often straightforward, with less emphasis on making the feedback sound “nice” or cushioned. The military environment values efficiency, so feedback tends to be delivered in a manner that prioritizes clarity and speed over emotional sensitivity. This direct approach helps ensure that any mistakes or gaps in performance are quickly addressed and corrected.
Civilian Feedback: In civilian contexts, feedback is often delivered with more attention to tone, empathy, and encouragement. There is a greater emphasis on maintaining positive relationships, especially in settings where ongoing collaboration and long-term employment are key. Civilians may try to balance critical feedback with praise and positive reinforcement, focusing on the individual’s strengths and offering solutions for improvement in a way that doesn’t feel overly harsh.
5. Frequency and Timing
Military Feedback: Feedback in the military can be frequent, particularly during training or operations. It is often given in real-time or in response to immediate issues, such as a mistake during a mission or an error in following protocol. This allows soldiers to correct their actions quickly and adjust to the situation at hand. The feedback process is often reactive, focusing on real-time performance and readiness.
Civilian Feedback: In civilian environments, feedback is often provided during scheduled reviews or evaluations, which might occur on a quarterly, bi-annual, or annual basis. While more informal feedback can still happen throughout the year, the structured nature of civilian feedback means that employees often have time to reflect on their progress before receiving official feedback. This tends to make the feedback process less immediate and more reflective.
6. Emphasis on Hierarchy vs. Equality
Military Feedback: In the military, feedback typically follows a clear hierarchical structure. Superiors are responsible for providing feedback to subordinates, and it is usually expected that the feedback will be received with respect for rank and authority. The power dynamics in military feedback can sometimes make it less reciprocal – subordinates may not provide feedback to superiors, and any criticism of higher-ups is usually avoided.
Civilian Feedback: In civilian workplaces, especially in modern, egalitarian work environments, feedback is often more reciprocal. It’s not uncommon for employees to provide feedback to their managers or peers, and feedback can flow in multiple directions. The focus is more on collaboration and mutual growth, and in many civilian workplaces, employees are encouraged to speak openly about challenges they face, whether with their tasks or with management.
Conclusion
The differences between military and civilian feedback stem from the contrasting priorities and cultural norms in these environments. Military feedback is direct, task-focused, and highly structured, while civilian feedback tends to be more holistic, tactful, and collaborative. Understanding these differences can help ex-military personnel navigate the feedback process in civilian life and adapt their expectations accordingly. Whether in the military or civilian world, feedback is a powerful tool for growth and improvement, and learning to use it effectively is crucial for your success.
If you wish to discuss what effective feedback looks like in the civilian workplace please contact me here: Michael.Bowness@i3works.co.uk.
