Giving and Receiving Feedback Without the Guesswork
Feedback helps performance on average, but not reliably: in a meta-analysis of 607 effects, more than a third of feedback interventions made performance worse, and feedback worked less well the more it pulled attention to the person rather than the task. Effective feedback names the goal, the gap and the next step, and is about the work rather than the worker. Receiving it well starts with asking for a specific example before you defend or accept the verdict.
Editorially checked
Explore your emotions and relationships with the free EQTiger assessment.
By EQTiger Editorial. Published .
Reviewed by: pending qualified review
The finding most feedback advice skips
In 1996, Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi pooled 607 effect sizes from feedback studies. Feedback improved performance on average (d = .41), but over one third of feedback interventions decreased performance, and that could not be explained away by chance or by whether the feedback was positive or negative. Their analysis suggested feedback works less well the more it shifts attention away from the task and toward the self (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996).
That last point is the practical core. “This report needs the Q3 numbers in the summary” keeps attention on the work. “You’re not detail-oriented” moves it to the person, who now spends their energy on defending or doubting themselves rather than fixing the report.
Four levels of feedback, from most to least useful
John Hattie and Helen Timperley’s review of classroom research describes four levels at which feedback can be aimed, and argues that feedback about the self, including generic praise, is the least effective because it carries little information about the task (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). The model comes from education, but the levels translate well to work.
| Level | What it addresses | Example at work |
|---|---|---|
| Task | Is the output right? | “The forecast uses last year’s exchange rate; update it to this quarter’s.” |
| Process | How the work was done | “Before sending a forecast, run it past finance’s checklist. It would have caught this.” |
| Self-regulation | How the person checks their own work | “What’s your own way of checking the assumptions before you send?” |
| Self (personal) | The person, not the work | “You’re a star.” / “You’re careless.” Little to act on either way. |
Three questions every message should answer
The same review frames effective feedback as answering three questions: where am I going, how am I going, and where to next (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). In a workplace message that becomes a goal, a gap and a step:
- Goal: “The client deck needs to let their CFO approve the budget in one read.”
- Gap: “Right now the cost breakdown is on slide 14, after the timeline.”
- Next: “Move it to slide 3 and cut the timeline to one slide. Can you send it by Thursday noon?”
If you cannot fill in the goal, you may have an impression rather than feedback. Find out more before you speak.
Trust changes how criticism lands
The same comment means different things depending on whether the listener thinks you are on their side. In randomized field experiments, seventh graders received critical comments on an essay along with a note stating the teacher’s high standards and belief that the student could meet them. That “wise feedback” raised the rate of revising the essay and the quality of final drafts, most strongly among African American students who mistrusted school (Yeager and colleagues, 2014).
The studies involved adolescents and teachers, so treat the workplace version as an adaptation, not a tested script. Still, the structure is easy to borrow: “I’m giving you detailed comments because this report goes to the board and I think you can get it to that standard.” Say it only if it is true. A formula used insincerely does more damage than none.
Praise that carries information
Praise is not the problem; empty praise is. Hattie and Timperley distinguish praise aimed at the person, which carries little information, from praise directed at effort, self-regulation or the process used, which they argue can build confidence that feeds back into the task (Hattie and Timperley, 2007). “Great job” tells someone you are pleased. “Checking the totals against the source file before sending caught the error the client would have found” tells them what to repeat. Give the second kind at least as often as you give criticism, and people will believe your criticism is about the work too.
One message, rewritten
Before: “Hey, the presentation was a bit messy. Can you tighten it up? Otherwise great job!”
After: “The data in your presentation was solid, and the market sizing slide was the clearest version I’ve seen. Two changes before Friday: open with the recommendation, since the VP will decide in the first five minutes, and cut slides 8 to 11, which repeat slide 7. I’m being picky because this one goes to the leadership team.”
The rewrite has a specific strength, a goal, two concrete steps, a deadline and a reason for the high standard. It contains no verdict on the presenter.
Receiving feedback when your self-view says otherwise
The hardest feedback is the kind that conflicts with how you see yourself. In studies of professional students, the lowest scorers on an emotional intelligence test overestimated their performance and then disparaged either the accuracy or the relevance of concrete feedback, while top scorers were more eager to improve (Sheldon, Dunning, and Ames, 2014). The urge to explain why the feedback is wrong is strongest exactly when it is least helpful.
Three moves that buy time without shutting the conversation down:
- Ask for an example: “Can you point me to one place where that showed up?”
- Ask what better looks like: “If the next one were right, what would be different?”
- Defer the verdict: “Thanks. I want to think about this and come back to you tomorrow.”
Then actually come back, even if your conclusion is that you disagree. “I looked at it again. I agree about the summary, and I think the length is right for this client. Here’s why.” is a strong reply. If criticism turns into personal attacks, threats or harassment, it is no longer feedback; take it to HR or another formal channel.
Try it: draft your next piece of feedback
The workplace feedback planner prints this as a one-page worksheet.
- Write the goal in one sentence: what the work needs to achieve, and for whom.
- Write the gap using one concrete example, not an adjective about the person.
- Write one next step with a time attached.
- Read it back and delete any sentence about the person’s character, including generic praise.
- If the standard is high, add one honest sentence saying why you are holding it high.
Keep going
Feedback is one of the moments where emotional regulation is tested most directly. For the in-the-moment side, read emotional regulation at work; for criticism you did not ask for, see how to handle criticism; and for the leader’s side of the same exchange, see emotionally intelligent leadership.
Use the free EQTiger assessment to choose a starting point for reflection. Read what the assessment includes and the limitations before interpreting your result.
Research notes
Kluger and DeNisi, 1996: Across 607 effect sizes, feedback improved performance on average (d = .41), but over one third of feedback interventions decreased performance, and feedback worked less well the more it drew attention to the self rather than the task.
Avraham N. Kluger, Angelo DeNisi (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Hattie and Timperley, 2007: This review of classroom research proposed that useful feedback answers where am I going, how am I going and where to next, and argued that feedback about the task, the process and self-regulation helps more than personal praise.
John Hattie, Helen Timperley (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Yeager and colleagues, 2014: In randomized field experiments with seventh graders, critical feedback that stated the teacher’s high standards and belief the student could meet them raised essay revision rates and draft quality, most strongly for African American students who mistrusted school.
David S. Yeager, Valerie Purdie-Vaughns, Julio Garcia, Nancy Apfel, Patti Brzustoski, Allison Master, William T. Hessert, Matthew E. Williams, Geoffrey L. Cohen (2014). Breaking the cycle of mistrust: Wise interventions to provide critical feedback across the racial divide. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 804-824. doi.org/10.1037/a0033906
Sheldon, Dunning, and Ames, 2014: Across three studies of professional students, the lowest scorers on an EI test overestimated their performance, dismissed the accuracy or relevance of concrete feedback, and were less interested than top scorers in ways to improve.
Oliver J. Sheldon, David Dunning, Daniel R. Ames (2014). Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(1), 125-137. doi.org/10.1037/a0034138
3 questions
Questions
Does feedback always improve performance?
No. Kluger and DeNisi’s meta-analysis found an average improvement (d = .41), but more than one third of feedback interventions decreased performance, especially when the feedback drew attention to the self rather than the task.
Is the feedback sandwich a good idea?
It often hides the message. Praise that is generic and about the person carries little information, so the useful middle gets lost. Specific comments about what worked and what to change next are clearer.
How should I respond to unfair criticism at work?
Ask for a specific example and what a better result would look like, say you will think about it, and respond later once you have checked the facts. If criticism becomes harassment or threats, take it to HR or another formal channel.
Related
- No. 01Emotionally Intelligent Leadership in Daily DecisionsEmotional intelligence is often called the core of leadership, but the evidence is weaker than the claim: in a meta-analysis, EI and transformational leadership correlated .59 when one person rated both but only .12 when different people rated them. What holds up better is narrower: a leader’s mood spreads to the team, and how a leader reacts to bad news shapes whether people speak up. Emotionally intelligent leadership is mostly a set of observable habits in those moments.
- No. 02Emotional Regulation at Work: Managing Feelings You Cannot Always ShowAt work, faking a feeling you do not have (surface acting) is consistently linked with exhaustion and lower job satisfaction, while trying to actually see the situation differently (deep acting) has weak links to strain and better links to customer satisfaction. Combine deep acting during the shift with real breaks and mentally switching off afterward. When the emotional load comes from understaffing or abusive customers, that is a job design problem to raise, not a personal regulation failure.
- No. 03Communication Under Pressure: Make the Next Step ClearUnder pressure, use a fixed structure so you do not have to invent one: Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR), a format hospitals adopted for urgent handoffs. Close the loop by having the other person repeat the key instruction and confirming it. Name your stress in one plain sentence rather than hiding it, since suppressing emotion in conversation disrupted communication in experiments, and make it easy for people to report blockers early.
- No. 04Emotional Intelligence at Work: Where It Actually HelpsEmotional intelligence is modestly related to job performance, with corrected correlations of about .24 to .30 in a large meta-analysis, and the link is clearest in jobs with heavy emotional labor such as service and care work. How you handle required emotions matters: faking feelings (surface acting) is linked to strain, while genuinely reframing the situation (deep acting) is linked to better service. EI scores, including EQTiger’s, should not be used to hire or promote people.
Your next 9 minutes
Understand your emotions.
36 questions about everyday moments. A fresh starting point for reflection.
Free to take. Full report $6.95. One-time payment. No subscription.