Feedback is rarely interpreted narrowly. People tend to apply praise and criticism more broadly than the leader intended. That’s why leaders sometimes are hesitant to compliment or correct team members.
Leaders know positive and negative reinforcement will strongly influence future behavior. They want to offer compliments or suggestions to team members, but they sometimes don’t want people to make too much of it.
Overcorrection occurs when a colleague receives praise or criticism and then responds by applying it too broadly, too intensely, or too rigidly.
For instance, a leader who praises an executive assistant for editing one email runs the risk that the assistant will start editing every email the leader sends, even when that level of editing is not wanted.
People optimize for what gets noticed, praised, criticized, and reinforced. Overcorrection after feedback is quite common and can cause a lot of consternation for leaders.
Consider a few examples:
- A leader who praises more concise communication in meetings finds a colleague who now gives one-sentence responses.
- A manager who compliments a team member for being responsive later finds the colleague responding to messages at all hours, even on weekends.
- A leader who notes that a team member interrupts too often finds the colleague is now excessively quiet.
- A leader who recognizes a team member for catching a risk soon finds the colleague flagging every issue and problem, overwhelming the team.
Giving feedback can be a delicate balance: do this, or don’t do this — but not to the extreme. Too many leaders won’t risk being misinterpreted, so they deny people the praise or criticism they deserve and need.
The solution is not to withhold feedback but to make clear when and where it applies. When leaders fear overcorrection, they must specify the conditions that go with the message.
Consider the leader who says to their EA: “I don’t need this level of editing on routine emails, but when I ask, it can be extremely valuable. Thank you for improving my message.” That kind of specificity likely avoids overcorrection.
Overcorrection can be avoided when leaders define the scope, intensity, duration, and conditions under which the feedback applies.
A leader who says, “A little more structure in client meetings would help, but I still want the conversations to feel natural” is doing exactly that. Without specificity, the team member could hear only, “Structure is always better.”
Leaders need to remember that team members don’t just hear feedback. They infer expectations for the future. Vague feedback can sometimes scale behavior. More precise feedback calibrates it.
Do members of your team sometimes overcorrect on the feedback they receive? Give them the context and calibration they need to act on the feedback without applying it too broadly.
Overcorrection is what happens when feedback is taken too literally. Not every suggestion deserves to become a new direction.
