Why is it that when things go wrong, we get detailed feedback – but when things go right, it’s reduced to a hollow “good job”?
Managers are usually precise about what needs to be improved: increase productivity from X to Y, increase conversion rate to Z. But when it comes to recognizing good work, “good job” seems to be the verbal equivalent of a pat on the back. Almost like a parent absentmindedly complimenting a child, as if it’s an automatic response.
It reminds me that, in literature, even great heroes need specific praise to know what made them great. Achilles didn’t hear “well done” for his skills on the battlefield. They praised him for his courage, strategy, and leadership. It’s the details that make the praise meaningful, something to live up to. Good feedback isn’t about lavish praise; it’s about being clear about what we did well.
It’s easy to think, “They get paid for this,” and skip detailed praise. But is a salary enough recognition? If we’re going to be precise about correcting mistakes, we should be equally clear about what went right. It’s not about coddling people or boosting their egos. It’s about reflecting to them the reality of their actions with the same sharpness we use to point out where they fell short.
Vague praise is a missed opportunity. Clarity isn’t reserved for improvement; it’s how we acknowledge and sustain progress.
==