Effects of Feedback Quality on Performance

Most leaders don’t struggle to give feedback because they lack good intentions, they struggle because they lack the right frameworks. We say things like: 🗣 “This wasn’t good enough.” 🗣 “You need to speak up more.” 🗣 “That project could’ve been tighter.” But vague feedback isn’t helpful, it’s confusing. And often, it demoralizes more than it motivates. That’s why I love this visual from Rachel Turner (VC Talent Lab). It lays out four highly actionable, research-backed frameworks for giving better feedback: → The 3 Ps Model: Praise → Problem → Potential. Start by recognizing what worked. Then gently raise what didn’t. End with a suggestion for how things could improve. → The SBI Model: Situation → Behavior → Impact. This strips out judgment and makes feedback objective. Instead of “You’re too aggressive in meetings,” it becomes: “In yesterday’s meeting (Situation), you spoke over colleagues multiple times (Behavior), which made some feel unable to share (Impact).” → Harvard’s HEAR Framework: A powerful structure for disagreement. Hedge claims. Emphasize agreement. Acknowledge their point. Reframe to solutions. → General Feedback Tips: – Be timely. – Be specific. – Focus on behavior, not identity. – Reinforce the positive (and remember the 5:1 rule). Here’s what I tell senior FMCG leaders all the time: Good feedback builds performance. Great feedback builds culture. The best feedback builds trust, and that’s what retains your best people. So next time you hesitate before giving hard feedback? Remember this: → You’re not there to criticize. → You’re there to build capacity. Save this as your cheat sheet. Share it with your teams. Let’s make feedback a tool for growth, not fear. #Leadership #FMCG #TalentDevelopment #PerformanceCulture #FeedbackMatters #ExecutiveDevelop

How does feedback affect performance? There is a solid body of research to show that feedback can be among the most powerful influences on performance (see references in the attachment and link in the comments). However, it is also apparent that feedback is not always a gift, and it can often harm performance. An evidence-based approach can help establish a feedback culture that effectively drives performance. Below you can find recommendations adapted from CIPD’s evidence review and my consulting practice: 1- Remember that feedback is not always useful. Instead of encouraging managers to give as much feedback as possible, emphasize quality feedback. Prompt managers to invest time in better preparing and delivering feedback. 2- Train managers to recognize and work with reactions to feedback. Managers can ask how the person feels about the feedback, and whether it is actionable or fair. 3- Consider assessing employees’ reactions to feedback more systematically. For example, ask short questions to quickly survey employees after a feedback meeting to evaluate how useful the feedback was for them and how positive/negative they feel following the feedback. This can inform further line management conversations or target training to develop managers’ capability in feedback. 4- Managers and colleagues giving feedback should be encouraged and trained to do the following: • Deliver specific feedback. Provide them with a guide on what specific, detailed, and elaborated feedback means, including what points they should cover. • Before giving feedback, assess what type of tasks the feedback will cover. For most tasks, and especially creative ones, avoid giving negative feedback where possible and focus on positive episodes and on how to recreate them in the future. For precision, risk, and prevention tasks, negative feedback is more appropriate. • Ensure feedback is fair and seen to be fair.  Explain to employees how the information was gathered, highlighting why it is consistent, accurate, and unbiased. • Encourage managers to ask people what feedback they would find most helpful, both to involve them in the process and help make it specific in relevant ways. • Don’t push for very frequent or immediate feedback across the board. Encourage teams and managers to find the frequency and timing that works for them –monthly might be better than weekly, and immediate feedback might not always be the most helpful. • Managers should involve employees in a two-way conversation, rather than making feedback one-way, top-down communication. • Provide training on how to minimise biases and accurately use observations to inform feedback. 5- Ensure feedback enables behavioral change that is both strategic and impactful. You can find more recommendations and references in the doc attached. What best practices would you add to enable a feedback culture? ♻️ Repost to spread value. 🔔 or follow to read similar content.

𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞. But if that’s the goal… it’s not going well. We analyzed performance data from employees across 3 years: 👉 83% of employees never received a high-performance rating across 6 review cycles. 👉 5% received a high-performance rating twice. 👉 But only 2% sustained it across two consecutive cycles. That drop-off is telling. Performance isn’t a personality trait. It’s not something you either have or don’t. 🔄 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥—𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. So what does work? The data points to three key levers: 🆕 Onboarding: Companies with a larger proportion of high-performing employees have higher onboarding scores, and employees who feel early alignment with their role are 48% more likely to become high-performing. 🎯 Goal-setting: Before even being rated high performing, those employees are 21% more likely to create goals, and 26% more likely to align them to company objectives. 💬 Feedback: High-performing employees are much more likely to say their manager gives them useful feedback on their performance. We found in 1 company that an employee's response to the question about 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. Showing that feedback is a leading indicator of performance and creates the environment for high performance. Bottom line: If you’re not seeing high performance, don’t assume it’s a talent issue. It’s likely a design issue. You don’t need mythical talent. You need to do the basics - equip people, get clear goals, and provide feedback along the way.

Your brain can't process praise and criticism simultaneously. That's why traditional feedback methods are harmful. But there's ONE discovery that creates growth, not resistance: Direct. Then Connect. Neuroscience shows our brains process praise and criticism through completely different neural pathways. That's why the "feedback sandwich" fails so spectacularly. When we buffer criticism with praise... The brain cannot process these mixed signals effectively. People see through it anyway. Studies show 74% of professionals detect sandwich feedback within seconds. Having directly managed 300+ people and coached over 100 founders on leadership and culture, I’ve seen the real impact of feedback. Here’s what works... Two simple steps: 1. DIRECT: First, get permission and deliver unfiltered feedback. "May I share some observations about your presentation?" Then state exactly what needs improvement. This activates voluntary participation, and increases receptivity greatly. 2. CONNECT: Then, separately reaffirm their value "Your contributions remain vital to our success." The key? Complete separation between these steps. Direct feedback gives a clean signal about what needs to change. Connection maintains psychological safety. They know their status isn't threatened. Getting permission isn’t a minor detail - it’s crucial. It fosters respect and trust before you give tough feedback. Setting the stage for it to land well. The neuroscience behind this is clear: A Gallup study shows regular feedback mechanisms result in 14.9% increase in employee engagement and a 21% increase in profitability. Companies implementing this see remarkable results: • Cisco saw 54% faster resolution of team conflicts • Adobe reported 30% reduction in employee turnover • Pixar found 22% higher willingness to challenge assumptions • Microsoft under Nadella accelerated deployment cycles by 31% The traditional sandwich approach can feel safer, but it creates distrust. Direct Then Connect can feel scarier, but it builds psychological safety. Humans are wired to prioritize belonging above almost everything. When feedback threatens our status, our brains go into protection mode. When feedback becomes clear and non-threatening, learning accelerates. Implementing this approach requires courage. You have to trust your relationship is strong enough to handle direct feedback. But that's the paradox: By being more direct, you actually build stronger relationships. Try it with your team this week. You might feel uncomfortable at first, but watch what happens to your culture. When feedback becomes clear and non-threatening, learning accelerates. And companies that learn faster win. - If you liked this post? Follow us for more insights on conscious leadership and building companies from the inside out. Proud to coach with Inside-Out Leadership: executive coaching by trained coaches who have founded, funded, scaled, & sold their own companies.