Leaders, Consider Pausing Before Acting on Employee Feedback
•February 20, 2026
0
Why It Matters
Authenticity drives employee trust and ongoing feedback, directly influencing engagement and performance. Misreading the pace of change can erode credibility and stall continuous improvement initiatives.
Key Takeaways
- •Rapid changes perceived as less authentic
- •Gradual improvements boost trust and commitment
- •Easy, quick fixes maintain perceived responsiveness
- •Explain fast changes to preserve credibility
- •Transparent rationale encourages future employee feedback
Pulse Analysis
The latest field study of 205 doctoral students and a large‑scale executive program reveal a consistent bias: leaders who overhaul their behavior overnight are labeled disingenuous, even when the change aligns with employee wishes. This authenticity penalty stems from a subconscious cue that sudden shifts may be performative rather than reflective of true intent. By contrast, incremental adjustments signal thoughtful self‑assessment, reinforcing the leader’s credibility and fostering a climate where staff feel heard.
Nuance emerges when the nature of the change is considered. Participants judged rapid, low‑effort actions—such as distributing meeting agendas early—as responsive and acceptable, whereas swift, high‑effort behaviors like becoming a better listener were viewed skeptically. The perceived insincerity dampens future willingness to provide feedback, creating a feedback loop that can stall organizational learning. Practical recommendations include adopting a methodical rollout, explaining the urgency behind fast fixes, and sharing detailed rationales to align expectations.
For companies prioritizing agile cultures, these insights underscore the importance of transparent change management. Tools like pulse surveys, real‑time feedback platforms, and structured 360‑degree reviews can help leaders calibrate the pace of improvement while documenting intent. When leaders articulate the ‘why’ behind both quick wins and longer‑term initiatives, they preserve authenticity, sustain employee engagement, and reinforce a continuous‑improvement mindset that drives performance across the enterprise.
Leaders, Consider Pausing Before Acting on Employee Feedback
Acting on employee feedback is a key means for leaders to grow and improve. Yet knowing what to do with this feedback can be complicated: Should you implement changes right away so that employees feel heard? Should you acknowledge these changes, or will that make you seem weak?
In a recent research article published in the Academy of Management Journal, we examine how employees evaluate changes made by their leaders in response to feedback. We find that not all changes are warmly received. Instead, some are interpreted as a sign that the leader lacks authenticity—that their efforts to improve are half‑hearted and insincere.
Perceptions of authenticity are central to effective leadership, as authentic leaders enable trust, elicit commitment, and foster collaboration. Our work identifies a critical factor that accounts for these judgments: the speed at which change occurs. This finding has significant implications for leaders who aim to address employee feedback: how they choose to respond may determine whether others appreciate the sincerity of their efforts. After all, who wants to put in the hard work of improving themselves if people don’t believe it’s real?
Study 1 – Field Study with Doctoral Students
To test the potential link between the rate of a leader’s improvement in response to feedback and their perceived authenticity, we first conducted a field study with a sample of doctoral students. In the study, 205 students from a range of U.S. research universities identified a specific way their advisor could improve as a leader. They reported a broad range of advisory behaviors, including mentorship, communication, and lab management.
Students were then asked to describe how they would respond if their advisor modified their behavior. One group considered a rapid improvement and the other a gradual improvement. Those who imagined a rapid change were more likely to describe these changes as inauthentic, using phrases such as “disingenuous and coerced,” “duplicitous,” and “questionable,” despite the fact that the change they described was precisely what they desired. In contrast, gradual changes were more likely to be described in authentic terms, as reflected in phrases such as “the result of a thoughtful, genuine desire to improve,” “true to their person,” and indicative of “personal growth.” These stark differences in language used to describe their leaders indicated that the rate of behavior change shaped how students saw their advisors: rapid improvement feels disingenuous.
Study 2 – Executive Leadership Program Data
Our second study reinforced the findings from the first. Using real data from an executive leadership program (where program participants drew from 360‑feedback evaluations to identify areas where they could improve and develop a corresponding action plan), we identified eight common leadership action plans. We then conducted an experiment with 2,000 participants who reviewed one of the plans in relation to a fictional leader and were told that the leader had changed in accordance with that plan, either rapidly or gradually. Across this wide‑ranging set of changes in leader behavior, participants described rapid changes as less sincere than gradual changes.
Study 3 – Type of Change Matters
In a final study, we considered which kinds of changes—whether they were easy‑to‑change (like sending meeting agendas in advance) or hard (like becoming a better listener)—would elicit a greater authenticity penalty. We found that when the hypothetical leader in our study quickly made an easy change, participants were less likely to judge the leader as inauthentic. Rather, they saw the leader as responsive and reported that they would be similarly willing to offer future feedback. By contrast, when the leader quickly enacted a seemingly difficult change, participants regarded the leader as less authentic and less responsive. This drop in perceived authenticity (and responsiveness) ultimately resulted in participants’ reduced willingness to offer future feedback.
Practical Recommendations for Leaders
So how should leaders change their behavior in response to employee feedback? While our research suggests that it depends on context, several strategies can help leaders ensure their sincere efforts are appreciated, regardless of whether a problem requires a quick fix or a long, challenging change.
-
Adopt a methodical approach. Leaders tend to be action‑oriented. For many of them, adopting a more methodical approach will involve patience and discipline. This may be what is required to convey to employees that the leader is truly responding and not merely reacting.
-
Practice emotional awareness and regulation. Employees at Netflix are encouraged to share their concerns directly with leaders, and leaders, in turn, are encouraged to exhibit openness to feedback—not defensiveness. At Netflix, this means responding to feedback first from a position of mindfulness. Ask yourself: If the feedback holds key information about ways I’m falling short, how can I receive it without ego? How can I do justice to the courage shown in sharing this feedback? What blind spots does it unveil? How can these insights help me improve as a leader, and what would it take for me to convey this to my team? Although challenging, leaders who take the time to pause, reflect, and thoughtfully respond throughout the change process may be seen by their employees as more authentic.
-
Explain rapid changes. In some cases, leaders may not be able to change their behavior at the rate their employees would find most authentic. If you feel that feedback demands an immediate response, couple the change with a clear explanation of why it is taking place so quickly. Research shows that when supervisors explain why they chose not to endorse an employee suggestion, employees are more likely to speak up again—fostering a continuous cycle of feedback. Likewise, leaders may be able to adjust the perceived authenticity of their change efforts by explaining how the change may require less time than employees assume. Proactively sharing this information may help leaders enact these changes more quickly in ways that maximize both perceived responsiveness and sincerity.
-
Communicate openly and consistently. Providing an explanation for the rate of change can also help cultivate a culture of gathering constructive feedback. At Adobe, employees are encouraged to give and receive feedback in real‑time to improve responsiveness from both team members and leaders alike. Tools such as pulse surveys help systematize these processes, ensuring that leaders are given regular opportunities to respond to concerns with their explanations along with their accompanying changes.
-
Share detailed rationale. Some changes may be more or less visible than others. Leaders should share detailed information about why and how they are choosing to enact a new behavior—what they intend to do, why it is important, and how they plan to implement and maintain the changes over the long term. Given recent research that leaders tend to under‑communicate, letting employees know the rationale underlying the decision to change—or clearly articulating that the idea for a similar change has been “in the works”—may satisfy their belief that “true change takes time.”
Caveats
One caveat of our research findings is that they are grounded in employee perception. Leaders may believe that the changes they make in response to feedback are authentic (and this may indeed be the case!). However, the cues that leaders rely on to show their authenticity may not correspond to the signals followers rely on to judge a leader’s authenticity.
As part of our study, we also conducted a brief survey with a panel of executives. We asked the executives to draw on their own experiences as leaders and employees to describe authentic, or inauthentic, change. The executives suggested that changes appear more authentic when leaders pay close attention to both their verbal and nonverbal responses to employee concerns. For instance, leaders who ask follow‑up questions to clarify the feedback before they take action convey genuine interest. Seeking more information signals to employees that the leader plans to change their behavior because they “want to” and not because they “have to.” In addition, the executives highlighted that the tone and body language with which leaders respond to feedback are crucial. As one executive put it, feedback is a “gift.” Leaders should refrain from acting as though they wished to return the gift. Instead, taking the time to express gratitude can go a long way toward convincing their employees that the request for change will be acted on with earnestness.
Bottom Line
The goal is not to slow down the process of behavior change indefinitely, but to take the time to highlight one’s intent and clearly establish employee expectations. When leaders clarify and communicate that a change—whether rapid or gradual—has been thoughtfully considered and stems from sincere motivation, this signals that their new pattern of behavior is aligned with their core values and sense of character. This can reinforce a culture of continuous improvement, resulting in greater employee engagement and performance.
0
Comments
Want to join the conversation?
Loading comments...