When managing high-performers, I’ve generally seen a bimodal distribution in the type of critical feedback that I give.

One the one hand, high-performers, almost definitionally, are sticking their necks out, pushing the organization forward, and challenging where the team and they themselves are at.

People who stick their necks out are most likely to receive a haircut when things go wrong. It’s easy to give a high-performer feedback in those circumstances. They’re not perfect and it’s obvious what their flaws and mistakes are. We’re pushing the boundaries of what we as an organization and they as a professional have done before.

On the other hand, I’ve seen where a high-performer goes through long periods of projects that are important but not necessarily critical to the organization. The margin for error is wider and the likelihood of making mistakes, or at the least others being impacted by them, if much lower.

I can go months on end during these times where I feel like I have nothing material to discuss in a 1:1. The direct may even ask, “What feedback do you have for me?” (as high-performers are apt to do). This feels, and arguably is, a management failure.

Funnily enough, I was discussing this dilemna with a manager who was a direct report of mine after they asked the very question above. I explained my guilt and failure after saying, “Keep doing what you’re doing.” Their personal solution as a manager to this problem removed the proverbial scales from my eyes.

This manager talked about how they sometimes thought of critical feedback for high-performers not so much as what they were doing wrong but what more they could do. They referred to it as a build.

It’s not dissimilar to the Airbnb model I discuss here.

The feedback goes a bit like this.

Hey, that presentation you gave was good. You got your points across, drove a decision, and folks got clarity on what was needed. Here’s what you did well…It was a 7/10. Here’s how you could make it a 9/10…

or

Excellent delivery of leading the project. Next time, consider $X and $Y to perfect it.

The purpose of all feedback is for a direct report to know how they can improve.

• What should they continue doing?
• What should they stop doing?
• What should they do differently?

The first two are typically where positive and critical feedback hit. The build hits the last question. Not because what they’re doing right now is bad, but because it could be better. And that’s what you should want them to be.

In the periods of regular, predictable projects, this is the area to focus the most on growing your team.