Leaders Should Reevaluate Their Feedback Preferences

When it comes to enhancing performance, the age-old debate often revolves around whether it is more effective to employ positive feedback to acknowledge achievements or to provide constructive criticism to steer individuals back on track. New research suggests that this might not be an either-or situation; the answer, intuitively, is that both approaches have value. However, leaders underestimate the effects of their feedback preference.  

Zenger Folkman studied data from 9,580 leaders, delving into their preferences for delivering positive or redirecting feedback. (We will define redirecting as pointing out something that did not get done, was not done well, or that should not have been done at all.) Intriguingly, 63% preferred giving redirecting feedback, while only 44% favored giving positive feedback. (The assessment also allowed leaders to express a preference for both positive and redirecting feedback.)

Why this preference for negativity? Do two-thirds of leaders enjoy pointing out other’s mistakes? Do they think it is their duty? Conversely, do 37% of leaders who refrain from offering positive feedback believe praise will lull their colleagues into complacency?  

Feedback Preference Impacts Direct Report’s Ratings of Leaders 

We also gathered feedback from leaders on their effectiveness in providing honest, straightforward feedback to their teams. This feedback was generated using a 360-degree assessment with ratings from on average 13 managers, peers, direct reports, and others which provided an evaluation of each leader’s effectiveness. Those who leaned towards giving redirecting feedback and avoided positive feedback were rated at a meager 36th percentile, significantly lower than their counterparts who gave positive feedback and avoided redirecting feedback. They were rated higher at the 53rd percentile.  

Leaders who preferred a balanced approach of offering both positive and redirecting feedback were also rated higher, at the 52nd percentile. This suggests that many leaders feel obligated to give redirecting feedback. They replicate the management style they experienced themselves, which is often characterized by frequent negative feedback.  

Regrettably, this approach not only hampers leaders’ feedback-giving abilities but also affects their capacity to develop others, in addition to their perceived overall leadership effectiveness. 

Other Studies on Feedback Preferences

Interestingly, a meta-analysis led by Kluger and DeNisi highlighted that in 38% of cases studied, some feedback approaches had a detrimental impact on the recipients. Despite its potency in capturing attention, safeguarding against complacency and groupthink, and addressing serious weaknesses, redirecting feedback comes at a cost. Even well-intentioned criticism can strain relationships, undermine self-confidence, and stifle initiative. It may induce temporary behavioral change but seldom encourages individuals to put forth their best efforts. 

Positive feedback is a potent motivator, inspiring individuals to persist in their efforts with heightened determination and creativity. It activates the brain’s reward circuit, spurring it to replicate tasks that yield the delightful dopamine rush. This intrinsic reward system encourages us to tackle arduous or demanding tasks more willingly, fueled by the recognition and encouragement bestowed by positive feedback. 

When the NeuroLeadership Institute analyzed constructive feedback (i.e., “Here’s what you did wrong”) they found individuals responded positively only one out of 13 times. This skewed ratio stems from the brain’s inherent disposition to devote more resources to threat response. Indeed, five times more energy is used in responding to negative feedback. Any feedback laden with blame triggers this defensive reaction, diverting cognitive resources towards self-defense rather than self-improvement.  

The Power of Positive Feedback 

Interactions between leaders and colleagues can yield predictable outcomes. However, most managers’ interactions with their direct reports should be geared toward encouraging greater action, activity, and value creation. This emphasizes the need for a higher utilization of praise and recognition in the workplace. But understanding this connection requires a keen sense of emotional intelligence.

Redirecting feedback, on the other hand, often fixates on what went wrong or what was done poorly. It tends to dwell on past mistakes, which, in turn, can stifle progress. Frequent exposure to negative feedback can foster a culture of diminishing productivity. Why does this happen? When the likelihood of being criticized for an error is higher than the likelihood of receiving praise and rewards for exceptional work, it is only natural for individuals to become more risk-averse and do less. This scenario is all too common among corporate staff groups. 

The Elements of Meaningful Positive Reinforcement 

What sets positive reinforcement apart from superficial compliments? It is a combination of key ingredients: 

Specificity: Recognizing and acknowledging specific actions is far more meaningful than offering general observations. 

Impact: When a manager can illustrate the long-term consequences of an individual’s behavior, it elevates the significance of that behavior in the recipient’s eyes. 

Personal Appreciation: Genuine praise and recognition should convey appreciation for the individual’s unique contributions. 

Positive feedback strengthens the relationship between those involved and significantly boosts the likelihood of the desired positive behaviors being repeated. When this positive reinforcement is woven into the fabric of an organization and becomes a collective practice, it shapes and defines the culture, fostering an environment where individuals feel motivated, valued, and eager to contribute their best. 

Is All Feedback, Just Feedback? 

In both professional and personal realms, some may argue that all feedback is just feedback. Why classify it as positive, corrective, reinforcing, or redirecting? However, research shows there is a rightful place for both redirecting and positive feedback. When inappropriate behavior must be addressed or when someone is falling short of expectations, redirecting feedback serves a vital purpose. Similarly, contrarian viewpoints can be invaluable during leadership team discussions, particularly when one side of an argument dominates the discourse. However, the key lies in maintaining a rational, objective, and composed approach, refraining from personal attacks, even under the guise of being “constructive.”  

We urge leaders to reflect on their feedback preferences and heed the compelling research demonstrating the increased effectiveness of those who incorporate more positive feedback in their interactions. It is crucial to remember that most individuals perform their tasks correctly most of the time. Consequently, feedback should be positive if it genuinely mirrors an individual’s performance. When correction outweighs acknowledgment, how will your team perceive their performance? What impact will this have on their perception of their work and self-worth? We all stand to gain from greater kindness and recognition of everyone’s unique strengths, which contribute to the organization’s success. 

Balancing the two sides of the feedback coin remains the key to nurturing growth, encouraging progress, and fostering harmonious relationships in the workplace and beyond. 

—Joe Folkman and Jack Zenger

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (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