The Feedback Fallacy
The Right Way to Help Colleagues Excel

The Right Way to Help Colleagues Excel
In today’s fast-paced business environment, employee engagement is not only a buzzword but a key driver of organizational success. A recent case of an 18-year-old university student working two part-time jobs at a hotel reception highlights a fundamental truth about employee motivation: the attitude and behaviour of direct managers can make or break an employee’s job satisfaction, productivity, and long-term retention.
Same Job, Different Experience
In both hotel reception roles, the tasks and responsibilities are nearly identical. Greeting guests, handling inquiries, managing bookings—these duties remain constant. However, the student’s experience at each job is vastly different. In one hotel, the manager consistently checks in with a simple, yet powerful question: “How can I help? What do you need?” This approach not only signals support but also builds trust, giving the employee the confidence to perform their duties effectively.
At the second hotel, the experience is the polar opposite. The manager’s focus seems to be on finding faults. Every interaction feels like a critique session, leaving the employee feeling demotivated and unappreciated. Both jobs are similar in terms of workload and pay, yet the student looks forward to working at one hotel while dreading shifts at the other.
Why Managerial Attitude Matters
This case illustrates a larger trend observed in workplaces worldwide. Research consistently shows that employees don’t leave jobs—they leave managers. An empathetic, supportive leader can turn even the most monotonous roles into meaningful work, while a critical, unappreciative manager can make the best jobs unbearable.
According to a study by Gallup, managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores1. This stark statistic points to a critical conclusion: managerial behaviour is a determining factor in employee well-being and job satisfaction. The student in this case thrives under a manager who offers support and feedback, leading to higher job satisfaction and increased motivation. Meanwhile, the other manager’s focus on criticism has the opposite effect, leading to disengagement and frustration.
The Science of Managerial Support
Empirical research supports this anecdotal evidence. A study published in the Harvard Business Review found that employees whose managers communicate regularly and offer constructive feedback are 3.5 times more likely to be engaged at work2. Furthermore, employees who feel supported by their supervisors are 67% more likely to stay in their current roles3, avoiding costly turnover for the organization.
Managerial support, which includes offering assistance, showing empathy, and providing clear guidance, fosters a sense of belonging and purpose. This support translates into enhanced employee performance, creativity, and problem-solving abilities. Conversely, a culture of criticism erodes trust and stifles innovation.
Constructive Feedback vs. Criticism
The distinction between constructive feedback and criticism is key. Managers who genuinely want to help their employees improve focus on how to solve problems and offer tangible support. This is exactly what the university student experiences with the manager who asks, “How can I help?” Such managers prioritize solutions over blame, fostering a culture of continuous improvement rather than fear.
On the other hand, a manager who constantly seeks out faults without offering ways to improve creates a toxic environment. Employees who are continually criticized without constructive advice feel insecure, which in turn leads to reduced job performance. Over time, this dynamic can lead to higher turnover rates and a disengaged workforce, both of which are detrimental to a company’s success.
What Can Managers Learn from This?
The story of this student serves as a compelling reminder for leaders across industries: a supportive management style is not just a “nice-to-have” but a business imperative. Here are a few strategies managers can implement to boost employee morale and performance:
Conclusion
The contrast in this student’s experiences underscores a broader lesson for managers: how you lead has a profound impact on how your employees feel about their jobs. When managers prioritize support and empathy over criticism and fault-finding, they create a work environment where employees are not only more engaged but also more productive and loyal.
In the battle for talent and retention, the small actions of managers—like asking, “How can I help?”—can make a world of difference. Managers should not underestimate their influence in shaping employee attitudes, well-being, and ultimately, the success of the business.
References
Mental well-being is not just a personal issue; it’s a strategic business concern. It affects productivity, engagement, and the overall health of an organization. HR professionals are uniquely positioned to lead the charge in this area by:
Here are some practical steps HR departments can take to promote mental wellbeing:
To ensure the effectiveness of mental wellbeing initiatives, HR should:
While promoting mental well-being is essential, HR faces several challenges:
In conclusion, HR’s role in mental well-being is multifaceted and requires a strategic, empathetic, and proactive approach. By prioritizing mental health, HR can help create a more resilient, productive, and engaged workforce. Remember, the journey to mental well-being is ongoing, and HR’s role is to navigate this journey alongside employees, offering support every step of the way.
A colleague of mine who has been working in the Human Resources Department for the last 20 years, was arguing to me that recruitment and selection is the same thing. According to him/her (don’t want to embarrass him/her) selection is a part of recruitment. That is when I realised that many people mistakenly believe that recruitment and selection are identical, or that selection is merely a component of recruitment. In reality, these are two distinct processes. The following article provides a clear explanation of how they differ.
Recruitment and selection are two distinct phases in the process of hiring employees, each with its own steps and objectives.
Recruitment
Selection
Key Differences
Purpose: Recruitment is about attracting a large pool of candidates and ensuring there’s a wide selection to choose from. Selection is about narrowing down this pool to the most suitable candidate.
Scope: Recruitment is a proactive process focusing on creating interest and encouraging as many candidates as possible to apply. Selection is a reactive process where the focus is on evaluating and choosing among the applicants.
Activities: Recruitment involves advertising, communicating with potential candidates, and managing applications. Selection involves interviews, assessments, and making the final hiring decision.
Outcome: The outcome of recruitment is a pool of candidates who have applied for the job. The outcome of selection is the best candidate who is offered the position.
Both recruitment and selection are crucial for finding the right candidate for a job, but they focus on different stages of the hiring process.
Organizational research can be pivotal in navigating conflict in various ways. By applying systematic inquiry, gathering data, and analyzing patterns, research offers a structured approach to understanding the complex dynamics of conflict within organizations and guides the development of strategies to manage and resolve these conflicts effectively. Here’s how organizational research can help:
By employing these and other research-driven strategies, organizations can move from a reactive stance—where conflicts are addressed after they have become problematic—to a more proactive one, where potential conflicts are anticipated, understood, and managed before they escalate. This transition not only contributes to a more harmonious workplace but can also enhance productivity, creativity, and overall organizational effectiveness.
Human Resources (HR) departments are tasked with a wide range of responsibilities, from recruiting and hiring to managing employee benefits and resolving conflicts. However, many employees view HR with skepticism and distrust, often viewing them as the enemy rather than an ally. But why do employees hate HR, and what can HR do to change this negative perception?
One of the main reasons why employees may dislike HR is that they often perceive them as lacking empathy and understanding. HR staff members are responsible for enforcing company policies and regulations, which can sometimes feel impersonal and inhumane to employees who may be struggling with personal issues. In addition, HR staff may not fully understand the day-to-day realities of employees’ work lives, leading to a disconnect between employees and HR.
To combat this perception, HR can take steps to better understand the concerns and needs of employees. This can include conducting regular surveys or focus groups to gather feedback on company policies and procedures, as well as providing training to HR staff on how to better communicate and empathize with employees.
Another reason why employees may dislike HR is that they perceive them as lacking trustworthiness. In some cases, HR may be seen as having a hidden agenda, such as protecting the company’s interests over those of employees. Additionally, HR staff members may be viewed as gossips or lacking discretion, leading to concerns about confidentiality and privacy.
To address this perception, HR can focus on building trust with employees by being transparent and honest in their interactions. This can involve being upfront about company policies and procedures, as well as being open to employee feedback and concerns. HR staff can also take steps to ensure that employee information is kept confidential and that privacy is respected.
Employees may also view HR as ineffective or powerless in addressing their concerns. This can be due to a lack of follow-through or visible results, as well as a perception that HR is not taking employee concerns seriously. In some cases, employees may feel that HR is more focused on enforcing rules and regulations rather than addressing their needs.
To change this perception, HR can take steps to ensure that employees feel heard and that their concerns are addressed in a timely and effective manner. This can involve creating clear channels for employee feedback, such as a suggestion box or regular meetings with HR staff. HR can also work to ensure that employees are aware of the resources available to them, such as an employee assistance program or access to mental health services.
In conclusion, employees may have negative perceptions of HR due to a perceived lack of empathy, trustworthiness, and effectiveness. To change this perception, HR can take proactive steps to better understand employees’ concerns, build trust and transparency, and improve their effectiveness in addressing employee needs. By building a stronger relationship between HR and employees, organizations can create a more positive and productive workplace culture.