---
esco_uri: http://data.europa.eu/esco/skill/b9bb1f03-15e2-4079-943e-7e483b21725b
esco_label: "give constructive feedback"
relation: optional
onet_soc: 11-3121.00
source: stackexchange
confidence: high
qa_count: 5
generator: gemma3:27b (prompt-designed and spot-checked by Claude)
generated: 2026-07-10
---

# give constructive feedback — HR Manager

As an HR Manager, 'giving constructive feedback' isn’t just about annual performance reviews; it’s woven into *daily* interactions. Think coaching a hiring manager on biased language in a job description (highlighting the impact of wording), delivering feedback to a recruiter who consistently misses diversity targets (linking it to company goals and offering training resources), or even gently challenging a department head's unrealistic expectations during a compensation review. It means moving beyond 'good job!' or 'this isn’t working' to *specifically* what worked well, where improvements are needed, and – crucially – *how* to improve. Tools include 360 feedback platforms, performance management systems (Workday, SuccessFactors), but also simple one-on-ones focused on development.

## Praxiswissen (Stack Exchange, CC-BY-SA 4.0)

**A company is facing negative publicity on Glassdoor due to reviews criticizing its use of outdated technology and assigning new hires legacy code tasks, potentially impacting recruitment and client confidence.**

Instead of fighting the criticism, a more effective strategy is acceptance and transparency. Acknowledging (and addressing if possible) legitimate concerns about tech stacks can help filter out candidates who wouldn't thrive in that environment anyway. Honest job descriptions detailing the actual work—including legacy code—will attract applicants better suited to the company’s needs and reduce future dissatisfaction.

*Source: [How can a company recover after a Glassdoor debacle?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/122594) — answer by motosubatsu, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**A company is facing negative publicity on Glassdoor due to reviews criticizing its use of outdated technology and assigning new hires legacy code tasks, potentially impacting recruitment and client confidence.**

Instead of fighting the criticism, a more effective strategy is acceptance and transparency. Acknowledging (and addressing if possible) legitimate concerns about tech stacks can help filter out candidates who wouldn't thrive in that environment anyway. Honest job descriptions detailing the actual work—including legacy code—will attract applicants better suited to the company’s needs and reduce future dissatisfaction.

*Source: [How can a company recover after a Glassdoor debacle?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/122594) — answer by Ertai87, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker is facing pressure from a co-worker with informal authority to adopt software they believe is unsuitable, and needs advice on how to voice their concerns to management without risking their job or damaging team dynamics.**

When presenting dissenting opinions, focus solely on objective pros and cons of the proposed solution rather than personal preferences or questioning motives. Frame your feedback as an evaluation report, clearly outlining both benefits and drawbacks, and offer to explore alternatives if requested. This approach protects you by documenting concerns without directly challenging authority, while still allowing decision-makers to act on informed input.

*Source: [Co-worker team leader wants to inject his friend's awful software into our devel](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/131455) — answer by Sourav Ghosh, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner is concerned about a coworker who frequently watches videos on his phone during work hours, potentially impacting productivity and creating a negative impression. They are unsure whether to address this behavior as a team lead.**

Focus performance conversations on demonstrable outcomes rather than perceived behaviors. Unless the coworker's work quality or timeliness suffers, addressing personal habits is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. Before raising concerns, gather information to understand the situation fully – assumptions about idleness can easily damage trust.

*Source: [Coworker watches content on his phone all day](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/127233) — answer by DarkCygnus, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**An employee received a request from HR for their Windows username and password, raising concerns about privacy, HIPAA compliance, and potential misuse of access.**

This situation highlights a critical failure in understanding basic security principles. Requesting direct login credentials creates significant vulnerabilities – a single point of failure, risk of unauthorized access, and circumvention of proper IT procedures. The request likely stems from either technological incompetence within leadership or an attempt to bypass established security protocols, potentially indicating deeper issues with data handling practices.

*Source: [Can HR/Boss Require Your Username and Password?](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/q/46608) — answer by blankip, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

## Weitere Anreicherung

Stage-2 source for future practitioner grounding: CORE / DOAB (open-access HR & organisational research).
