With a sharp focus on the intersection of marketing technology and human experience, Aisha Amaira has carved out a unique space as an expert in building responsive, action-oriented cultures. Drawing from her deep experience with CRM marketing and customer data platforms, she champions the idea that innovation is meaningless unless it translates into tangible improvements for both customers and employees. In our conversation, Aisha breaks down why so many organizations fall into the trap of “feedback theater,” where listening is performative rather than productive. We explore the critical need for clear ownership of feedback, the power of communicating decisions—even when the answer is no—and how to empower middle managers to become agents of change rather than just messengers. This interview unpacks the disciplined framework required to turn feedback from an ignored data point into a powerful leadership signal that builds trust and drives results.
Many companies collect employee and customer feedback, but the same issues often persist. How does this cycle of listening without acting specifically erode trust, and what are the first signs leaders should look for that show participation is declining as a result?
It’s a slow, painful erosion of trust that happens when people feel like they’re screaming into a void. Initially, you ask for feedback, and people are hopeful. They invest time and emotional energy to tell you the truth. When they see the same problems—the same broken process, the same frustrating policy—quarter after quarter, that hope turns into cynicism. They learn that their voice is simply not a priority, that speaking up is pointless. The first sign leaders will see is a drop in the quality of feedback. The comments get safer, more generic. People stop telling the full truth because they’ve learned it’s risky and yields no results. Then, participation rates on surveys start to drop, and in town halls, you get silence instead of challenging questions. This isn’t apathy; it’s a learned behavior taught by the organization’s inaction.
You mention that “feedback belongs to the company” often means it belongs to no one. Could you explain the three levels of ownership—enterprise, functional, and local—and provide a concrete example of how this structure helps an organization respond to feedback much more quickly?
Absolutely. Vague ownership is where action goes to die. The three-tiered structure—enterprise, functional, and local—is designed to prevent that by matching the problem to the right owner. Imagine a customer support team keeps getting feedback that the return process is confusing. A local owner, like a team manager, can immediately act on what they control. They might retrain their team on the current policy or create a new job aid, fixing the immediate experience. But if the feedback reveals the policy itself is flawed, that’s a functional issue. The manager escalates it to the functional owner—say, the Head of Operations—who has the authority to change the process. And if feedback suggests the entire company’s philosophy on returns is out of sync with its brand promise, that becomes an enterprise-level issue for senior leadership to tackle. This structure prevents a frontline manager from being stuck with a problem they can’t solve, and it stops a small, fixable issue from getting bogged down in an enterprise-level committee. It creates clarity and speed.
A core principle is that not all feedback leads to change, but all feedback must lead to clarity. How can leaders effectively communicate a “No, and here’s why” or “Not now” decision without discouraging future input? What are the key elements of that response?
This is where true leadership shows up. It’s about respect. People don’t actually expect every idea to be implemented, but they do expect their input to be seriously considered and to receive an honest answer. The key is to close the loop with transparency. An effective “no” response has three parts. First, acknowledge what you heard, using their language to show you truly listened. Second, explain the “why” behind the decision—it could be a budget constraint, a conflicting strategic priority, or a technological limitation. This context is crucial because it respects their intelligence. Third, if it’s a “not now,” explain what would need to change for the decision to be revisited. This turns a dead end into a pathway and shows their feedback is still valued, just not immediately actionable. It’s this visibility that builds trust far more than a silent, uncommunicated “yes” ever could.
Middle managers often see issues clearly but feel powerless to act. What specific tools, authority, or cultural permissions do they need to stop being translators of bad news and become effective drivers of local action? Please walk us through an example.
Middle managers are the pivot point where a culture of action either thrives or dies. To empower them, you have to give them three things: control, clarity, and cover. Control means giving them a discretionary budget, however small, and the authority to change local processes without needing five levels of approval. Clarity means defining what is in their power to fix versus what they must escalate. And cover means creating a culture where taking a small, calculated risk to improve a team or customer experience is rewarded, not punished if it isn’t perfect. For example, a retail store manager keeps hearing from employees that the scheduling software is a nightmare. Instead of just passing that “bad news” up, an empowered manager could use their local budget to pilot a different scheduling app for their store for one month. They’re not trying to solve it for the entire enterprise; they’re acting on what they can control. This local action provides immediate relief, builds morale, and can even serve as a powerful case study for a larger, enterprise-wide change.
Let’s discuss the idea of a “response SLA.” What are the typical timeframes for acknowledging feedback, making a decision, and communicating it back? How does enforcing this discipline help build trust faster than waiting for a perfect, fully-implemented solution?
A response Service Level Agreement, or SLA, is about creating a predictable rhythm of communication that people can count on. The specific timeframes can vary, but a good starting point might be: acknowledge receipt of feedback within 48 hours, make an initial decision on what to do within two weeks, and communicate that decision back within three weeks. The key is that a “decision” isn’t the same as a “resolution.” The decision might be, “Yes, we agree this is a problem, and we’ve assigned it to a project team that will provide an update in 60 days.” This simple discipline is a trust accelerator. People see momentum. They know their feedback hasn’t vanished into a black hole. Waiting months for a perfectly polished, fully implemented solution in silence is a trust killer. Progress matters more than perfection, and a response SLA ensures that progress is always visible, even when the final fix is still a long way off.
The concept of “feedback theater”—where surveys and town halls exist mainly to prove listening is happening—is a common pitfall. What practical steps can an organization take to shift from this performative listening to a culture where feedback is treated as a leadership signal requiring action?
Moving away from “feedback theater” requires a fundamental shift in mindset, from treating feedback as a research project to treating it as an operational signal. The first practical step is to attach an owner to every single listening channel and, ideally, every question in a survey. That person is now obligated to respond. The second step is for leaders to change what they ask for. Instead of asking, “What did the survey scores say?” they need to start asking, “Based on this feedback, what are the top three decisions we made this quarter?” This reframes the entire conversation around outcomes, not just data. Finally, create a visible, public discipline of “You Said, We Did.” Whether it’s a simple slide in a town hall or a section on the intranet, consistently show people: here’s what we heard, here’s the decision we made, and here’s the action we took. That visibility is the antidote to performance; it’s proof of real commitment.
For an organization wanting to start small, what is the best type of listening channel to begin with? Could you outline the four essential steps—assigning an owner, making a decision, communicating, and acting—using a real-world scenario to illustrate the process?
The best place to start is with a listening channel that is narrow and specific, where you have a high degree of control. A great example would be the feedback collected during the employee onboarding process. It’s a defined experience with a clear audience. First, assign an owner—let’s say it’s the Head of HR. Their job is to review the feedback from every new hire cohort. Second, make a decision within a set window. The feedback shows that new hires feel lost for the first week because their equipment isn’t ready. The HR owner decides this is an unacceptable experience. Third, communicate the decision. The owner sends a note to all recent and incoming hires saying, “We heard you. The equipment delay is a problem, and we’re committed to fixing it.” Fourth, act. The HR owner works with IT to implement a new process ensuring all equipment is provisioned five days before a new hire’s start date. By doing this with one small, visible channel, you create a powerful proof point that feedback here leads to real change.
What is your forecast for the future of Voice of the Employee and Voice of the Customer programs?
My forecast is that the line between VoC and VoE will continue to blur, and successful programs will become less about massive annual surveys and more about continuous, real-time signals. The future isn’t in collecting more data; it’s in getting better at acting on the data we already have—including the “breadcrumbs” left behind in transactions and digital interactions, not just formal feedback. Organizations that win will treat listening not as a separate HR or CX initiative but as a core leadership competency. The focus will shift from dashboards to decisions, from analysis to action, and from performative listening to building a deeply ingrained discipline of response. Ultimately, these programs will stop being “programs” at all and will simply become the way business is done: a constant, connected loop of listening with intent, deciding with discipline, and responding with visibility.