Protocol

Move feedback close enough to the event to keep the evidence

Delay converts examples into impressions.

When it fits

Feedback arrives months later as a vague performance-memory summary.

When to avoid it

Timing should still allow emotional de-escalation and fact checking; 'immediate' is not always 'better.'

Why it matters

When stakes and context allow, capture feedback soon enough that the event, decision and alternatives are still reconstructable. Keep formal cycles for aggregation if needed, but do not make the annual review the first time a correctable behavior is mentioned.

Steps

Event is still reconstructable.
Example is concrete.
Recipient has a future chance to apply the change.
Urgent safety or conduct concerns are not deferred.
Formal documentation requirements are still followed.

An example

A review comment on a handoff arrives after the next comparable handoff, not six months later.

Check your result

The recipient can connect the feedback to a specific recent event and reuse it soon.

Keep this limit in mind

Timing should still allow emotional de-escalation and fact checking; 'immediate' is not always 'better.'

Connected ideas

Evidence and sources

Supports

Workplace health-profession trials found face-to-face feedback may improve task performance on average, but prediction intervals and prior syntheses show substantial variation including possible harm.

Evidence quality was low and context-specific; do not generalize the effect size to ordinary office work.

Effect of face-to-face verbal feedback on workplace task performance of health professionals · Results and discussion

All sources (1)

Effect of face-to-face verbal feedback on workplace task performance of health professionals