The Interaction Effects of Frequency and Specificity of Feedback on Work Performance

Park et al. (2019) ran a lab test with adult workers. They asked: does feedback work better when you give it often, or when you make it very detailed?

Each worker got one of four styles: frequent and specific, frequent and general, rare and specific, or rare and general. Then the team scored how well the adults did on a data-entry task.

Frequent feedback beat rare feedback every time. Specific feedback only helped when feedback was rare.

In plain words: if you talk to staff often, you can keep your comments short. Save the long, detailed notes for when you meet less.

Thibodeaux et al. (2025) extends this idea. They showed that as workers get better, they actually want less feedback. Park tells you how often to give it; Thibodeaux tells you to taper as skill grows.

Brand et al. (2020) looks similar but flips the focus. They found accuracy matters more than timing. Park says frequency beats specificity; Brand says accuracy beats timing. Together they hint: first be right, then be regular, then be detailed.

Aznar et al. (2005) tested real teachers every two weeks and still saw gains. Their field result backs Park’s lab finding that even moderate frequency can work if the message is clear.

You can lighten your coaching load. Give quick, global praise each time you see staff. Save the long, itemized notes for weekly or monthly reviews. This keeps performance high without burning you out on paperwork.