Forget perfection. Why good enough is enough - for you and others.

I’ve often wondered why some people are so averse to giving feedback, especially tough feedback. Yes, it can be difficult. It can get complicated, even messy. Then again, the same people who tell you it's too hard will routinely do hard things, whether that’s accepting a stretch assignment at work, learning a new skill, or fixing the flat tire on their kid’s two-wheeler. (I don't know about you, but that's hard for me.)

So what’s really behind the feedback hesitancy? I think it comes down to this:

The reason people avoid giving tough feedback isn’t because their tolerance for failure is too low. It’s because their standard for success is too high.

Too many people hold themselves to a standard of giving feedback that’s so lofty that it becomes almost unreachable. This is especially true for high-performers, who are accustomed to setting and reaching ambitious goals. But feedback is a lot more nuanced and a lot harder to master. It doesn’t come naturally to most people, even successful people. After a few feedback fails, they may even think to themselves, "I can't do this!"

Before long, can't turns to don't. We turn into feedback naysayers:

• "Don't address the issue directly - others may not like it!"
• "Don't be candid - others may not like me!"

We run from feedback as a mode of self-preservation. We create status-saving guardrails, like sugar-coating and 'sandwiching.' I've seen this time and again: We put distance between the thing that happened and the conversation that should have happened – all because we let our own sense of perfection stand in the way of someone else's progress.

When "good enough" is enough

I’m not suggesting that we let our standards slip or that we shouldn’t strive for better feedback practices. I’m all for a feedback fix. But somewhere between aspiration and acceptance, we can land on the right spot – and it's enough to deliver the results we need.

Turns out, the key to successful feedback experiences isn’t how they’re shared, but how often. That’s what Cisco learned when it started analyzing talent development interactions among its 15,000 teams. The maker of networking hardware and software discovered that when leaders showed a high frequency of attention, team effectiveness spiked. The more often team leaders held routine check-ins with employees, provided just-in-time feedback, and intentionally built development and career advice into performance conversations, the better their teams performed.

But the most surprising discovery? These gains emerged regardless of how well these interactions actually went. Team leaders who consistently adopted weekly check-ins boosted team engagement scores and increased retention rates – even though those conversations may have lacked finesse. They weren’t perfect, but they were consistent. And that steady cadence of feedback made all the difference.

Sometimes, good enough is enough.

If you like this topic, you might enjoy some of the shorter-than-usual podcast episodes I'm airing this month on I Wish They Knew: Why I crave candor and why the gold standard of feedback is actually silver.