Linq HR - HR, Employee Relations and HR Tech Insights #teams

Receiving Feedback at Work

Fri, 01 Sep 2023 14:14:25 +1000

In brief: Feedback at work arrives either by openly seeking it or by being given it, formally or informally. Regularly seeking feedback supports personal goals, improves self-awareness and is emotionally easier because comments are expected, whereas unsolicited feedback can prompt defensiveness. To be more receptive, listen before responding, understand the context, ask questions and request examples, and remain factual and professional, since how a person reacts can matter more than the feedback itself.

Two ways feedback arrives

There are generally two ways feedback is received at work – either you openly seek it or it is given to you, formally or informally.

Seeking feedback

Being open to receiving feedback means you can improve against personal goals. Receiving regular updates on how you are perceived can help improve your self-awareness and develop a feel for how others around you are thinking and give you a chance to adjust if you feel the need. It can be the easiest way emotionally as you have already developed a personal feedback mindset and are anticipating receiving other people's comments and observations.

When feedback is given to you

On the other hand, when feedback is given formally or informally it can be welcomed, or may put you straight on the defensive. So how can you become more receptive to receiving feedback? First, take time to listen to the feedback before responding, even if you disagree – not necessarily easy. Understand the context in which the feedback is being given. Seek clarification where you don’t understand. Be thankful for positive feedback and ask for thoughts or examples around ways you can improve if the feedback is more about areas for improvement.

To be successful at work almost everybody needs to receive constructive feedback, formally or informally. Seek constant feedback from people you trust and respect.

Your reaction matters

Remember the way you react to feedback can override the feedback messages themselves. So be self-aware about how you respond, keep the discussion factual and professional, particularly when you disagree or don’t respect or trust the person delivering the feedback. Enjoy the times of positive feedback.

Update (November 2026): The research backs this up. The largest meta-analysis of feedback interventions, covering 607 effect sizes and 23,663 observations, found that feedback ‘improved performance on average’ but that ‘over 1/3 of the FIs decreased performance’ – the delivery and the reaction decide which way it goes (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996). Gallup reports that ‘80% of employees who say they have received meaningful feedback in the past week are fully engaged’, and that employees receiving daily rather than annual feedback are ‘3.6 times more likely to strongly agree that they are motivated to do outstanding work’ (McLain and Nelson, 2024). In Australia only 21% of employees were engaged at work in 2025 (Gallup, 2026), so there is room for both giving and receiving feedback to improve.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Leading with empathy and why it matters in business and Subtle warning signs of leadership decline.

References

Gallup (2026) State of the Global Workplace: 2026 report – Australia. Washington, DC: Gallup. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/704474/state-global-workplace-australia-country-level-data.aspx (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996) ‘The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory’, Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), pp. 254–284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254.

McLain, D. and Nelson, B. (2024) How effective feedback fuels performance. Updated 19 January. Washington, DC: Gallup. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/357764/fast-feedback-fuels-performance.aspx (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Does a High Performance Culture Lead to Higher Performing Employees Or the Other Way Around?

Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:16:48 +1000

In brief: There is no one right approach: whether to build a high performance culture so employees perform better, or hire high performers who then create that culture, depends on the people already in the organisation, the timeline for improvement and cost. Changing culture takes longer than hiring, but hiring many high performers is expensive and does not guarantee better long-term performance, as the aftermath of McKinsey's 1998 'War for Talent' showed. Research on shared values suggests higher-performing teams can develop from within.

Most businesses feel they can perform better. But to do this is it as simple as creating a high-performance work culture, resulting in higher performing employees? Or conversely, is it an easier path just to hire high performing employees who are ready to tackle any project or challenge that ultimately creates your high-performance culture?

What is High Performance Culture?

High performance culture is related to a high performance workplace where the employees are motivated and productive. Many factors contribute towards this, such as support from the company, having the necessary resources, and feeling aligned with the values of the company. Ultimately, seeing the greater good or outcome of the work they are doing can contribute towards a high-performance culture.

So does a High Performance Culture Lead to Higher Performing Employees... Or the Other Way Around?

Companies without a high performance culture will likely start to wonder whether they should focus on their culture to engage higher performing employees or simply work on hiring high-performance employees and the culture will subsequently improve.

Update (November 2026): The question is as live as it was in 2021. Gallup’s 2026 report found only 21% of Australian employees were engaged at work in 2025 and 50% had experienced stress a lot of the previous day (Gallup, 2026a), while its meta-analysis of 112,312 work units found teams in the top quartile for engagement outperformed the bottom quartile by 18% on productivity and 23% on profitability (Gallup, 2026b). Culture, in other words, still pays, whichever way the causation runs.

There is no one right approach to this question. It’s highly dependent on the type of people already in your organisation, the timeline for needing to improve, and of course cost.

Changing culture can take a lot longer than hiring in a string of high performers. Hiring a string of high performers can be expensive and may not necessarily guarantee longer term overall higher performance.

The lesson of the ‘War for Talent’

In 1997 McKinsey researched 77 large US companies and concluded, in its 1998 article ‘The War for Talent’, that superior talent would be ‘tomorrow’s prime source of competitive advantage’ (Chambers et al., 1998). The approach did not always work out as planned: Enron, a showcase for the ‘talent mindset’, collapsed in 2001, and critics argued that over-valuing star individuals can damage an organisation’s health (Gladwell, 2002; Pfeffer, 2001).

Writing in Harvard Business Review, Satell and Windschitl (2021) argue that high-performing teams start with a culture of shared values, so there is some support for the theory that higher performance can be evolved from within the existing workplace.

Which path suits your workplace?

So, how will you support your workplace toward becoming more productive? By planning and focussing on building a high performance culture or by focussing on hiring in high performing talent expecting overall business performance will subsequently improve.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:The role of vision, mission and values and The value of cultivating a positive employee experience.

References

Chambers, E.G., Foulon, M., Handfield-Jones, H., Hankin, S.M. and Michaels, E.G. (1998) ‘The war for talent’, McKinsey Quarterly, (3), pp. 44–57.

Gallup (2026a) State of the Global Workplace: 2026 report – Australia. Washington, DC: Gallup. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/704474/state-global-workplace-australia-country-level-data.aspx (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Gallup (2026b) The benefits of employee engagement. Washington, DC: Gallup. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236927/employee-engagement-drives-growth.aspx (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Gladwell, M. (2002) ‘The talent myth: are smart people overrated?’, The New Yorker, 22 July. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myth (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Pfeffer, J. (2001) ‘Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health’, Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), pp. 248–259. doi:10.1016/s0090-2616(01)00031-6.

Satell, G. and Windschitl, C. (2021) ‘High-performing teams start with a culture of shared values’, Harvard Business Review, 11 May. Available at: https://hbr.org/2021/05/high-performing-teams-start-with-a-culture-of-shared-values (Accessed: 6 November 2026).

Adapting to Remote Working During a Pandemic

Sun, 30 May 2021 16:03:03 +1000

In brief: Adapting to remote working during a pandemic means keeping employees connected so costly turnover does not rise. An April 2021 study of US hotel employees found those with high career adaptability and high work social support had lower turnover intentions, while those with high adaptability but low social support were more likely to leave. Supervisor and co-worker support matter most, so regular one-on-one meetings, online brainstorming and training, and informal virtual team activities help sustain engagement.

The morning alarm rings, you rush breakfast then head to work for your regular weekly 9 am team meeting. This is what many of us became accustomed to but expectations, relationships, and boundaries from this pre-pandemic world are now vastly different.

How the pandemic changed where we work

Covid-19 has posed significant changes in many areas of our lives including for many working remotely is the new normal that we have had to adapt to.

Change is never easy. Change of any kind is generally seen as a stressor, it brings a lack of control, order, and the comfort of predictability. Covid-19 has displaced our ‘normal’ lives completely, and with social distancing regulations, work lives have dramatically changed too (Akkermans, Richardson and Kraimer, 2020).

Working remotely may sound advantageous but is not always ideal when practiced and poses a unique set of challenges for HR professionals and business leaders to consider. While some prefer working remotely, such as from home, some are finding it difficult to adapt.

Here we briefly explore some potential ramifications if the right levels of remote working support isn't provided and offer some interventions to consider.

Factors Affecting Turnover Intentions

Increased employee turnover can cost organisations millions in lost time and resources and is certainly a factor to be avoided. High career adaptability allows employees to adjust to major career changes effectively, the key distinction being whether employees are choosing to adapt to their current work situation or a new job.

A study of US hotel employees published in April 2021 found that when employees showed high career adaptability paired with high work social support, they showed lower turnover intentions. However, when employees showed high career adaptability and low work social support, they demonstrated higher turnover intentions (Lee, Xu and Yang, 2021). The risk of low work social support can be heightened during extended remote working arrangements and doesn’t come with any natural solution.

Providing Social Support

Increasing social support is paramount to boosting employee motivation, productivity, and job satisfaction. Two of the most studied forms of work social support are supervisor support and co-worker support (Liaw, Chi and Chuang, 2010; Ng and Sorensen, 2008).

Support from supervisors includes offering assignments that help employees build new skills, offering their time to assist employees in developing career goals, and providing access to training and performance feedback. Support from co-workers includes career guidance and information, training that facilitates skill development, and workplace friendships.

Social Support Whilst Working Remotely

Working remotely has removed a lot of social contact from our lives but there are still ways to implement social support online. Adapting how social support is provided may reduce work-related stress (Viswesvaran, Sanchez and Fisher, 1999) and improve job satisfaction (Ng and Sorensen, 2008).

Practical ways to provide support online

Implementing regularly scheduled one-on-one meetings between employees and supervisors can allow a safe space for employees to share their concerns and be heard, giving a chance to maintain relationships and provide the required support and feedback. Understanding the needs of a team can influence key training and work allocation decisions. Team brainstorming sessions, individual and group training can all take place online.

Encouraging non-work-related team activities online can be a great bonding exercise too, such as Friday happy hours, a group workout session, or games.

Focusing on implementing social support initiatives may prove to be the way forward in engaging employees and allowing them to feel supported through these uncertain times.

Linq HR provides fractional employee relations support to Australian employers and operates Workforce Directory, Australia’s HR services marketplace. Ph 1300 234 566.

Further reading:Advantages and disadvantages of employees working from remote and Tips on managing a remote and geographically dispersed team.

References

Akkermans, J., Richardson, J. and Kraimer, M.L. (2020) ‘The Covid-19 crisis as a career shock: implications for careers and vocational behavior’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103434. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103434.

Lee, P.C., Xu, S. and Yang, W. (2021) ‘Is career adaptability a double-edged sword? The impact of work social support and career adaptability on turnover intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102875. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2021.102875.

Liaw, Y.-J., Chi, N.-W. and Chuang, A. (2010) ‘Examining the mechanisms linking transformational leadership, employee customer orientation, and service performance: the mediating roles of perceived supervisor and coworker support’, Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), pp. 477–492. doi:10.1007/s10869-009-9145-x.

Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. (2008) ‘Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis’, Group & Organization Management, 33(3), pp. 243–268. doi:10.1177/1059601107313307.

Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J.I. and Fisher, J. (1999) ‘The role of social support in the process of work stress: a meta-analysis’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(2), pp. 314–334. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1998.1661.