HBR says better feedback helps Monday.com teams improve performance

At monday.com, where engineers, product managers, and sales teams depend on clean handoffs, feedback is not a personality exercise. It is an operating tool. HBR’s latest guidance points to a simple rule: feedback works when it names an observable action, connects that action to a work outcome, and ends with a clear next step the other person can use immediately.

That matters in a company built around collaboration across functions and geographies. Weak feedback loops create confusion fast, especially when teams are moving features, launches, customer requests, and internal priorities through the same system. Strong feedback loops do the opposite: they reduce rework, protect morale, and turn a hard conversation into a performance improvement plan that actually changes behavior.

What good feedback is really for

The biggest mistake managers make is treating feedback like a verdict. HBR’s framing is more useful for monday.com leaders because it treats feedback as a way to help someone find purpose, not just identify mistakes. If the goal is better execution, the conversation should stay anchored to what was seen, what it affected, and what should happen next.

That shift matters for engineers, PMs, and sales professionals alike. A vague critique can leave a developer guessing which part of the code review was the issue, a PM unclear about which decision point missed the mark, and a seller uncertain whether the problem was discovery, qualification, or follow-through. Feedback only improves performance when it is specific enough that the other person can act on it in the next sprint, the next pipeline review, or the next customer call.

A manager’s operating manual for the next 1:1

Before you speak, decide what result you want. HBR’s guidance suggests thinking through tone, timing, and desired outcome in advance, which is exactly how a manager should approach a 1:1 or postmortem. If the goal is to correct execution, focus on an observable behavior. If the goal is growth, connect the point to the person’s goals and the team’s priorities.

A useful pre-meeting check looks like this:

• What did I actually observe, not infer?
• What did that behavior do to the work outcome?
• What should be different next time?

That simple filter keeps managers from drifting into commentary about attitude or intent. It also makes the conversation easier to receive because the employee can hear the link between the action and the consequence. At monday.com, where feature launches and customer-facing work often depend on tight coordination, that kind of clarity saves time that would otherwise be lost to second-guessing.

What feedback sounds like when it triggers defensiveness

Defensiveness usually starts when the feedback is too broad to answer. A line like “you need to be more strategic” or “your communication needs work” puts the other person on the defensive because it gives them no evidence, no standard, and no path forward. The person hears a judgment, not a coaching prompt.

The same problem shows up in product work and sales work when managers talk in abstractions. Telling a PM that the launch was “messy” does not identify whether the issue was scope, timing, stakeholder alignment, or a late decision. Telling a salesperson that a call was “weak” does not say whether the miss was poor discovery, a missed objection, or failure to close the next step. Vague feedback creates a debate about meaning instead of a correction in behavior.

What feedback sounds like when it produces course correction

The most useful feedback is concrete enough to replay. For example, if an engineer skips documenting a decision that affects another team, the feedback should name the exact moment, explain the downstream impact, and ask for a specific change next time. If a PM changes priorities without flagging the tradeoff, the issue is not “communication” in the abstract. It is the missed handoff that left another team planning against the wrong assumption.

The same logic works in sales. If a rep loses momentum because the next step was never confirmed, the manager should point to the exact call or email where the gap happened and identify the new behavior needed on the next deal. That style of feedback is less emotionally loaded because it is tied to the work. It helps the employee see a pattern, not just hear criticism.

How to receive feedback without turning the meeting into a defense session

HBR’s advice is just as useful on the receiving side. Ask for examples, clarify the standard, and turn vague criticism into a concrete next step. That keeps the conversation from stalling on hurt feelings or generalities, which is especially useful in reviews, one-on-ones, and project postmortems where the pressure to perform can make people overreact.

A good response sequence is simple. First, ask what specific action the manager saw. Then ask what standard the work is being measured against. Finally, ask what should be different the next time the situation comes up. That approach lowers friction because it shifts the conversation from blame to repair, and it gives the employee something to do with the feedback instead of just carrying it around.

Why this matters in monday.com’s day-to-day work

In a company like monday.com, where cross-functional collaboration is part of the job rather than a special event, the cost of fuzzy feedback is multiplied. A PM who leaves a launch discussion unclear, an engineer who does not surface a dependency, or a seller who misses a customer signal can slow down several other people at once. Good feedback is one of the few tools managers have that can improve performance without flattening morale.

That is why the most effective feedback at monday.com should feel operational, not theatrical. It should identify the behavior, describe the impact on the work, and specify the next move. When managers do that consistently, they create a culture where people correct course faster, learn from mistakes sooner, and spend less time deciphering what their leaders actually meant.