The essentials in 30 seconds:
→ Positive feedback reliably improves performance. Negative feedback does not do so automatically.
→ Whether negative feedback helps or harms depends heavily on the relationship between the person giving it and the person receiving it (Heine, Stouten & Liden, 2026).
→ In tense organisational times, leadership often does the opposite of what's needed: it gets harder instead of strengthening the relationship.
→ Those who invest in the relationship first can later give uncomfortable feedback without it becoming demotivating.
→ The order matters: relationship first, then feedback. Not the other way round.
I saw this again recently in a mandate: an organisation under economic pressure, where leadership pulled the reins tighter. Sharper feedback, shorter deadlines, less patience. Performance didn't improve. In some teams, it got worse.
Why negative feedback is so unreliable
Heine, Stouten and Liden brought together the research on performance feedback in a systematic review in the Journal of Organizational Behavior in 2026. One central finding: positive feedback improves performance fairly reliably. Negative feedback does not do so to the same extent — sometimes it works, sometimes it makes performance worse.
The difference isn't the content of the feedback, but the relationship in which it's delivered. The same critical feedback can motivate or paralyse, depending on how much trust and safety were built beforehand.
When uncertainty leads to harsher leadership
This is exactly where things often go wrong in practice. In seemingly uncertain or tense times, leadership gets harder. The reins get pulled tighter. Even though part of this is understandable — sometimes a clear message is needed, sometimes patience simply runs out — it often makes the underlying situation worse.
If the relationship doesn't hold, critical feedback doesn't land as information — it lands as a threat. And people respond to threat with withdrawal or defensiveness, not better performance.
The order that makes the difference
This doesn't mean uncomfortable feedback is off the table. It means the order matters. Where the relationship has been invested in beforehand — through reliability, genuine interest, even a conversation that isn't immediately about performance — critical feedback carries much further later on. It gets heard as what it's meant to be: information, not devaluation.
Anyone who reverses this order, getting harder first in the hope of making up the relationship later, risks the feedback not landing at all — regardless of how correct it is in substance.
What this means for Swiss organizations
In smaller organizations, the relationship between leadership and the team is often more direct and personal anyway than in large structures — an advantage, but one that doesn't maintain itself. Precisely when things get economically tighter, the temptation is strong to cut exactly where it's least visible: time for the relationship.
What helps doesn't require a major initiative. It's enough to ask one question before every difficult conversation: is the relationship strong enough at this point for what I need to say? If not, the first task isn't the feedback — it's the relationship.
References
Heine, E. C. E., Stouten, J., & Liden, R. (2026). Performance feedback: A critical systematic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 47(2), 312–361.
How does your team handle difficult feedback?
30 minutes, no sales pitch. You tell me how feedback works where you are. I listen, then straight talk.