By Dr. Tess Breen, Organizational Psychologist

Key takeaway: Most feedback fails because it makes people defensive instead of focused on the work. Decades of research show that more than a third of feedback interventions actually reduce performance. The leaders who get it right build trust and routine first, then keep the conversation pointed at the task and the next attempt, not the person’s character.

Here’s a finding that should give every well-meaning manager pause. When Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi reviewed 607 effect sizes across 23,663 observations for their landmark 1996 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin, they found that feedback improved performance on average, but more than a third of the interventions they studied made performance worse. Not neutral. Worse. The act of giving feedback, something nearly every leadership program treats as an unqualified good, carries real downside risk when it’s done poorly.

I see this pattern constantly in my work with executive teams. A leader sits down with good intentions, delivers what they believe is balanced, fair feedback, and then watches the relationship cool and the performance flatten. They conclude the employee “can’t take feedback.” Usually the problem sits closer to home.

Why so much feedback misfires

Kluger and DeNisi’s explanation still holds up. Feedback works when it directs attention to the task. It backfires when it directs attention to the self. The moment a comment lands as a verdict on someone’s worth, their cognitive energy shifts from solving the problem to defending their ego. “You’re not strategic enough” sends the brain looking for threats. “This proposal needs a clearer link between the budget and the three priorities we agreed on” sends it looking for solutions. Same underlying issue, completely different result.

Both the source and the content matter

A six-year longitudinal field experiment published in 2025 by Shankar Naskar and colleagues in Global Business and Organizational Excellence followed 331 managers through six waves of performance feedback, randomly varying who delivered the feedback and what it contained. Their work reinforces something practitioners often miss: the credibility of the source and the specificity of the content interact. Precise, task-focused content delivered by someone the recipient trusts moves the needle. The same content from a source seen as disengaged or biased does little, and can erode motivation over time. You can’t separate the message from the messenger.

Build the conditions before the conversation

This is where culture comes in. Feedback delivered into a low-trust environment is heard as criticism, no matter how carefully it’s worded. That’s why I encourage leaders to invest in psychological safety long before any difficult conversation. Amy Edmondson’s research at Harvard, going back to her 1999 paper in Administrative Science Quarterly, has shown that people only engage with hard truths when they believe candor won’t be punished. Practically, that means feedback should be frequent and low-stakes rather than rare and high-stakes. When the only time someone hears from you is the annual review, every comment carries enormous weight and triggers exactly the self-focus that derails performance. Small, regular, specific observations normalize the exchange and keep the stakes manageable.

It also matters that the leader’s own development is on the table. The 2026 SHRM research on the future of work found that leadership and manager development ranks as the top people priority for the second year running, with nearly half of CHROs naming it. Organizations are realizing that managers who’ve never been coached themselves rarely know how to coach others.

Point the conversation at the future

One of the most useful shifts a leader can make is moving from feedback that litigates the past to feedback that shapes the next attempt. Reviewing what went wrong has its place, but people change behavior when they can picture a concrete, better version of what they’re about to do. Instead of “your last presentation lost the room,” try “next time, open with the customer story before the data and watch how the room leans in.” Future-focused, specific, and task-oriented. That combination is what the research has pointed to for nearly thirty years.

Feedback isn’t a personality test you administer to your people. It’s a skill you practice, and like any skill, it improves with attention and the right conditions.

If you want to build a feedback culture that lifts performance instead of quietly eroding it, I work with leaders and teams to do exactly that. You can learn more at drtessbreen.com/work-with-me.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why does feedback sometimes make performance worse?

Because feedback that focuses on the person rather than the task triggers a defensive, self-protective response. Kluger and DeNisi’s 1996 meta-analysis found more than a third of feedback interventions reduced performance, largely when attention shifted to the self instead of the work.

How often should leaders give feedback?

Frequently and in small doses. Rare, high-stakes feedback raises the emotional charge of every comment. Regular, specific, low-stakes observations normalize the exchange and keep attention on the task rather than the ego.

What makes feedback effective?

Three things consistently: it’s specific and task-focused, it comes from a source the recipient trusts, and it points toward a better future action rather than only cataloguing past mistakes.

Does psychological safety really affect how feedback lands?

Yes. In low-trust environments, even carefully worded feedback is heard as criticism. Amy Edmondson’s research shows people engage with hard truths only when they believe candor won’t be punished.

What’s the biggest mistake leaders make with feedback?

Treating it as a verdict on the person. Phrases that evaluate character (“you’re not strategic”) provoke defensiveness, while comments that describe the work and the next step invite problem solving.

Sources

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.

Naskar, S., et al. (2025). Feedback and Managerial Performance: A Longitudinal Multilevel Field Experiment of Feedback Intervention Theory. Global Business and Organizational Excellence. Wiley Online Library.

SHRM (2026). What Will Work Look Like in 2026? New SHRM Research Reveals How Leadership, Culture and AI Are Shaping the Future.

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.