Feedback Example: Good vs. Bad

This segment provides a powerful comparison between poor and effective feedback in engineering management, particularly around the challenge of slow code review cycles. It emphasizes how quality feedback should be empathetic, actionable, and grounded in broader principles to foster growth.

• Bad feedback is vague and unhelpful: Simply stating “your code isn’t merging fast enough—fix it” lacks empathy, specifics, and any guidance on how to actually improve the situation.
• Good feedback is empathetic and constructive: The improved example acknowledges the team’s perspective, suggesting the engineer break up large diffs to make reviews easier and faster, thus benefiting everyone.
• Actionable steps are clearly defined: Rather than just pointing out a problem, the feedback offers a tangible next step—submit smaller, more digestible diffs.
• Feedback includes operating principles: It reframes code reviews as a shared team activity, encouraging engineers to think like editors and consider the reviewer experience—empowering them to continuously improve without needing micro-managed lists.
• Nuance and context matter: Effective feedback often requires more thoughtful, detailed communication—brevity shouldn’t come at the cost of clarity or support.