Correction: Giving Feedback Effectively
Corrected by Selen Ikbal Uslu · Content Quality Analyst and English Language Specialist
Selen Ikbal Uslu found something wrong, outdated, or unsupported on this page and proposed a fix. The publisher accepted the correction.
- Role
- Correction
- Publisher
- When Notes Fly
- Status
- Accepted
- Date
- 30 July 2026
The exact change
Article attributed a fabricated 'diminishing returns after twice a year' finding to Zenger and Folkman's real research (which actually argues the opposite - more frequent feedback is better), fabricated an attribution of GE vitality-curve criticism to psychologists Robert Cialdini and Barry Schwartz (no evidence either researched this specifically), overstated Bridgewater Associates' investment track record as 'consistently among the highest for 30 years' when the firm has had well-documented weak and negative return periods, fabricated a 2014 Psychological Science study by Gneezy and Epley on feedback framing (their real 2014 work is on an unrelated topic), misattributed a Deloitte statistic (the real 58% figure is about executives finding the review process an ineffective use of time, not employees rating feedback 'not helpful'), included an unverifiable '40% cost reduction' figure for Deloitte's system redesign, fabricated a quantitative '25 years of tracked correlation' study for Pixar's Braintrust (Catmull's actual account is anecdotal, not a formal study), and stated Valve's revenue per employee as 'over 00,000' when the real figure is closer to 8-50 million.
Replaced the fabricated Zenger/Folkman frequency claim with an accurate description of their actual research emphasis, removed the fabricated Cialdini/Schwartz attribution, softened the Bridgewater claim to acknowledge its real, documented mixed track record, replaced the fabricated Gneezy/Epley study citation with an accurately hedged description of the general research literature on feedback framing, corrected the Deloitte statistic to its real meaning and removed the unverifiable cost-reduction figure, corrected the Pixar Braintrust claim to reflect Catmull's actual anecdotal account rather than a fabricated formal study, and corrected Valve's revenue-per-employee figure to the right order of magnitude.
Suggested change
See before/after.
Why this is better
Verified against the original Zenger/Folkman HBR study, published reporting on GE's vitality curve critics, Bridgewater's actual documented fund performance across multiple years, Gneezy and Epley's actual 2014 publication record, Deloitte's original HBR case study by Buckingham and Goodall, Ed Catmull's Creativity Inc., and current public reporting on Valve's revenue and headcount.
How this record is verified
- The contribution is tied to a real, identified contributor, not an anonymous byline.
- It counts only because the publisher, When Notes Fly, accepted it. Self-claimed work earns nothing.
- It is recorded against a specific page and cannot be bought or edited after the fact.