Feedback Can Make Performance Worse When It Becomes a Verdict

Feedback can leave an employee clearer about how to improve, or preoccupied with defending their competence. The difference often lies in what the conversation asks them to examine. A specific piece of work can be changed; a broad verdict about their character offers less useful direction.

DeNisi and Kluger's review of feedback effectiveness cautions that feedback does not invariably improve performance and can have harmful effects. That finding challenges the assumption that giving more feedback is automatically beneficial. Leaders need to consider its content, focus and practical use.

The workplace guidance that follows is an application of that concern. It is not a claim that one conversation format guarantees improvement in every role or situation.

Start with work both people can examine

Describe the relevant event or behaviour, the expected standard and the consequence. A manager saying that a colleague lacks commitment may be interpreting several events without making the evidence available. Explaining that a required handover was incomplete gives the colleague something specific to address.

Ask for their account before settling on the cause. They may have misunderstood the requirement, lacked information or made a poor choice. The same visible outcome can arise from different conditions, so the intervention should follow the diagnosis.

In an illustrative store, a supervisor might discuss an appointment handover that omitted a customer's request. The conversation can establish what information was available and how it should be recorded next time. A judgement that the employee is careless would add little unless the underlying behaviour is made clear.

Keep the next action within the person's control

Useful feedback identifies a change the employee can attempt and the support required. If the issue depends on a system permission or another department, acknowledge that dependency and assign the relevant action elsewhere.

For a skill gap, demonstrate or practise the task where appropriate. For an unclear expectation, agree the standard. For a repeated failure to meet a reasonable requirement, use the organisation's fair performance process. Feedback is part of management, rather than a replacement for every other responsibility.

Avoid overwhelming the discussion with a long collection of historical complaints. Choose the material issue and examine it properly. Other matters can be addressed through a planned process if they remain relevant.

Check whether the conversation changed the work

Agree when to review progress and what evidence will be useful. The employee should understand how an improvement will be recognised. A manager who gives criticism and never returns to the subject leaves the colleague uncertain about whether their effort had any effect.

At review, examine the outcome and the conditions around it. If the attempted change did not work, ask why before repeating the original instruction. The response may need refinement, more practice or a correction to the surrounding process.

Senior leaders need feedback on their own feedback too. Do colleagues leave with a clear next step? Can they raise a disagreement about the evidence? Does the manager distinguish an explanation from an excuse carefully enough to learn something new?

The connection to developing managers beyond operational expertise is important. Knowing how to perform a task does not automatically mean knowing how to help another person improve it. The quality of feedback is demonstrated through better understanding and better work, rather than the force with which the judgement is delivered.