According to the "Feedback Fallacy" research, focusing on weaknesses creates a stress response and yields flat results. In contrast, identifying what someone does well and encouraging more of it leads to a 17% performance improvement. It is more effective to analyze and replicate successes than to fix failures.
Related Insights
A three-step structure for feedback: state a neutral observation ("What"), explain its impact ("So What"), and suggest a collaborative next step ("Now What"). This focuses on the work, not the person, making the feedback more likely to be received well and acted upon.
Most managers are conditioned to spot errors. A more powerful strategy, inspired by Ken Blanchard, is to actively "catch people doing the right thing" and praise it. This builds an emotional bank account, reinforces desired behaviors, and improves culture far more effectively than constant correction.
Feedback often fails because its motivation is selfish (e.g., 'I want to be right,' 'I want to vent'). It only lands effectively when the giver's genuine intention is to help the other person become who *they* want to be. This caring mindset dictates the delivery and reception.
In a supportive culture, managing underperformance starts with co-authored goals upstream. When results falter, the conversation should be a diagnostic inquiry focused on removing roadblocks. This shifts the focus from the person's failure to the problem that's hindering their success, making tough conversations productive.
Don't view positive feedback as simply a way to make someone feel good. Its primary purpose is to make a person consciously aware of what they are doing well. This awareness increases the consistency and frequency of that desired behavior, making them a better performer.
Annual or quarterly performance reviews are high-pressure, judgmental events that create fear. A more effective approach is to reframe management as coaching. This means providing frequent, trust-based feedback focused on developing an employee's long-term potential, rather than simply rating their past performance.
When giving feedback, structure it in three parts. "What" is the specific observation. "So what" explains its impact on you or the situation. "Now what" provides a clear, forward-looking suggestion for change. This framework ensures feedback is understood and actionable.
People are more willing to accept and incorporate feedback about traits they see as secondary, like being "well-spoken" or "witty." Tying feedback to core identity traits, such as kindness or integrity, is more likely to be perceived as a threat and trigger a defensive response.
The phrase "Can I give you feedback?" triggers a threat response. Neuroleadership research shows that flipping the script—having leaders proactively *ask* for feedback—reduces the associated stress by 50% for both parties. This simple tweak fosters a culture of psychological safety and continuous improvement.
We often mistake skills for strengths. A more powerful definition of a strength is any activity that energizes and motivates you. To boost morale and performance, individuals and leaders should focus on aligning work with these energy-giving tasks, rather than just focusing on competency.
