When Should We Give Feedback?

"When should I give feedback?" It's a common question from new managers, and the response from experienced managers is almost universally (and predictably) the same: "Constantly." Most don't have a hard time figuring out that "more feedback is better than less or none at all." After all, most of us have learned to develop software emphasizing techniques that maximize feedback, and we generally find it superior to older, more waterfall-ish ways. But a second question looms: "How often? And what should it look like?" At times, a manager can feel like a cheerleader on the sidelines, and it doesn't always feel like you're doing anything when you're waving your managerial pom-poms.

Different circumstances call for different kinds of feedback, and different personalities (both yours and your directs') will mean you need to tune the means and message differently for best results—but the short answer is that "Managers should always be looking for ways to provide a constant, concrete, and consistent stream of feedback to their directs."

Formal reviews

The annual (or quarterly) performance review meeting is an obvious place in which to provide guidance on and review an employee's work and results. Generally, the atmosphere in this meeting is more formal and more "final," meaning that the review at this point is to ascertain promotions, raises, bonuses, and so on. As such, it often serves as a "markpoint" in the employee's performance history, meaning that the next formal review will only consider the employee's performance from this point forward.

However, formal reviews lack several elements that contribute to effective feedback:

• Timeliness. By being so far chronologically removed from any event that can serve as an example to provide the concrete feedback, it is hard for an employee to feel the nuance that would let them incorporate the feedback most effectively. Being told to "give presentations with the same kind of energy and enthusiasm" is easier to understand when that advice given within a week of the talk, as opposed to three, six, or even twelve months later.

• Concrete. When we reach so far into the past to provide the feedback, it is often difficult, if not outright impossible, to remember the details of that event, period. "That meeting with the Product team went very well because of your attention to detail" makes much more sense when it is delivered within a week rather than a year later—after such a long time, it can be almost impossible to remember exactly what level of detail was the level of detail we used for that meeting. When delivered in three- or twelve-month "bursts," too, it becomes very easy to offer up generalized feedback, rather than concrete examples that the employee can learn from and repeat.

We'll talk more about formal performance reviews in the "Performance Reviews" chapter.

One-on-ones

One of the easiest and most consistent ways to provide the "3C's" of feedback is to hold a consistent one-on-one meeting with your direct. Assuming your 1:1s with your directs are on a regular and frequent cadence (my preference is weekly), this gives you opportunities to provide feedback without the stigma of a "special meeting" for the purpose. Not all 1:1s will cover performance—at least, they shouldn't, unless something is seriously awry—but it's a convenient and expected place to do so.