Most leaders have heard of the feedback sandwich. It’s supposed to soften negative feedback. The idea is that you first share a positive observation, then you give the corrective feedback to help someone improve, then you follow it with more positive feedback. It often looks something like:
“Good job today. It would have been good to see more data to support your proposal, but overall it was a great presentation.”
But when you use the feedback sandwich too often with those who report to you, you condition them to ignore all positive feedback. Instead they see it only as an obligatory wrapper for the negative feedback that you really wanted to share.
In most cases, feedback should be:
✅ Frequent: At least once per week if you can, but even more often if possible
✅ Specific: Say specifically what the person did, and what made it effective or ineffective. (“Good job” and “great presentation” don’t accomplish this.)
✅ Singular: Share insights on only one action at a time.
✅ Mostly Affirming: Share observations about what went well far more often than you share what should be changed.
Are there cases for the feedback sandwich? Sure. Here’s when it makes sense:
1️⃣ You have only a single opportunity to give feedback to a person. For example, you’re a judge in a competition or the guest professor for a master class.
2️⃣ You’re giving event-based feedback. For example, a team member just gave a presentation and you’re sharing a wide range of specific observations for them to continue doing and to do differently.
But as a general rule, the feedback sandwich has turned stale and rotten in most other scenarios. If you frequently give one-shot feedback on specific behaviors that are mostly positive, then you’ll establish the trust needed for people to accept the corrective feedback when you must give it.
Leave a Reply