This study changed my view on performance feedback in sales management trainings
For years, I was confident I was teaching feedback the right way in our sales leadership trainings.
Fifteen years in training and development, grounded in what I believed to be solid, up-to-date research. I moved away early from outdated models like the feedback sandwich. Instead, I focused on structured approaches such as STAR, describe the situation, outline the task, explain the action, and clarify the result. Clean, logical, easy to teach, easy to apply.
And wrong in a way that matters.
What changed my view was a recent synthesis of decades of research on feedback, summarized in an article by Timothy O’Brien and based on Heine et al. (2025), Journal of Organizational Behavior. It forced me to rethink not just how feedback should be delivered, but what actually makes it work.
What I got wrong on feedback in sales management trainings
I believed that structure was the key lever. If you followed the right sequence, feedback would land. There is some truth in that. Sequence does play a role. But it is not where the real impact comes from. One part of the research stood out immediately. The classic feedback sandwich doesn’t improve performance. That confirmed what many of us already suspected.
More importantly, it showed that even well-structured feedback models are not the deciding factor. You can get the structure right and still miss completely.
What actually matters
The biggest shift for me came from one idea: critical feedback depends heavily on relationship quality.
If the relationship between sales leader and employee is weak, critical feedback becomes unreliable. It might be ignored. It might be misunderstood. In some cases, it can even reduce performance.
If the relationship is strong, the same feedback is far more likely to be accepted and acted upon.
This changes the priority of performance feedback as a part of sales management: Before thinking about phrasing, models, or delivery techniques, the question becomes: What is the quality of the relationship I have with this person?
A high-quality relationship does not mean being agreeable or soft. It means being clear, consistent, respectful, and genuinely invested in the other person’s development. It includes the ability to challenge directly without creating defensiveness.
Where sequence still plays a role
Although the research shifts focus away from rigid models, it doesn’t make structure irrelevant. What works well in practice is a simple and direct sequence: First, describe the gap. Then define the expected behavior in concrete terms. Finally, explain the support you will provide.
Many managers believe they are being specific. In reality, the recipient often leaves the conversation unsure about what should change. The gap between intention and perception is larger than most supervisors expect.
What this changes in sales environments
In sales leadership, this has immediate consequences. Sales managers often spend a lot of time refining how they deliver feedback: how to phrase objections, how to soften critique, how to structure deal reviews.
The more important question is whether expectations are clear in the first place. If a sales rep does not know what “good” looks like, feedback becomes vague by default.
The second lever is relationship quality. Without it, even well-intended coaching on pipeline, negotiation, or objection handling has limited impact.
A strong relationship allows direct conversations about performance without unnecessary friction. It creates space for honesty on both sides.
The importance of positive feedback for sales leadership
Another point that stood out to me is how differently positive and negative sales performance feedback behave.
Positive feedback tends to work consistently. It reinforces behavior, builds confidence, and contributes to relationship quality. It does not require perfect timing or structure nor a high-quality relationship to be effective.
There is a practical implication here.
If you as a sales leader want critical feedback to land, there needs to be a foundation of positive, credible reinforcement. A useful rule of thumb is a ratio of roughly three to one. This means noticing what works and saying it out loud.
In some cultures, including parts of Germany, this does not come naturally. There is a tendency to treat the absence of criticism as sufficient recognition. That approach limits the impact of feedback more than most realize.
Positive feedback should stand on its own. It does not need to be followed by correction to be valuable.
What I will do differently in sales management trainings
This research changes how I design sales management trainings (and how I give feedback).
Less emphasis on complex feedback models. More emphasis on three elements:
clarity of expectations, quality of relationships, and frequency of positive reinforcement.
It also changes how I work with managers. Instead of asking how they phrase feedback, I focus more on how they build trust, how consistently they communicate standards, and how often they recognize what is working.
Final thought
For a long time, feedback training focused on technique. That made it teachable, but not always effective.
The research behind this shift, including Heine et al. (2025, Journal of Organizational Behavior), brings the focus back to what actually drives impact in real conversations.
Better feedback starts earlier than the moment you give it.
