Tough feedback doesn't have to be sugarcoated, but there's more to it than what you say
Feedback is supposed to help employees get better at their jobs. But even when a manager has good intentions, constructive criticism can be difficult to hear, and the way it’s delivered may matter as much as what’s being said.
Managers may need to pay particular attention to that dynamic with Gen Z employees, says Megan Gerhardt, a professor and Robert D. Johnson director of the Isaac and Oxley Center for Business Leadership at Miami University’s Farmer School of Business in Oxford, Ohio, who studies how generations work together. Her research has found that younger people weigh connection more heavily than older people do when deciding whether a source of criticism is credible.
“We're seeing a lot of evidence that maybe our traditional approaches to feedback are not landing the way that they used to,” Gerhardt said.
Managers are the primary way employees experience their organization, Gallup has found. Gallup's midyear 2026 data also show younger workers have had some of the sharpest declines in U.S. employee engagement since 2020.
What younger workers expect from feedback
Gerhardt is careful not to stereotype an entire generation, but she calls the idea that younger workers can’t take criticism a “huge stereotype.” She points to shifts in parenting and early education that have put greater emphasis on building self-esteem, meaning some people may enter the workforce with limited experience receiving harsh feedback or constructive criticism before their first performance review.
She also pointed to a mismatch in the purpose of feedback and in what its tone means.
“When it comes to what younger people might be expecting, they join an organization hearing that they really care about their development,” Gerhardt said. “They might think that means I'm going to have a mentor, I'm going to have frequent check-ins, I have somebody to go to with my questions.”
For managers, that means being clear that professional development can involve constructive criticism, not just support and encouragement.
Gerhardt’s research into how people judge the credibility of criticism points to another important distinction: younger workers placed greater importance on their connection with the person delivering feedback than older workers did. She said younger employees are more likely to hear criticism as helpful or developmental if the manager has made an effort to connect with them and build trust ahead of time.
That's a change from how it used to work, she said.
“In the past, the fact that you were my boss and it was your job to tell me what to do was enough. I didn't have to trust you or think that you cared about me as a person,” Gerhardt said.
Her advice is to start setting expectations during onboarding, a practice she calls “scaffolding.” Gerhardt said she asks new employees how much feedback they've received, then tells them that on days when things move fast, it may come on the fly and won't always be subtle or sugarcoated.
“Every time I give it to you, it's because I want to help you get better,” she said.
Building connection before the feedback
Gerhardt said managers can start building that connection before any criticism is delivered. Younger workers are hoping for something closer to a coach who gives a little feedback all the time, she said, and any form can work as long as managers are clear about how it will happen and why.
The annual review has been losing ground for everyone, she added, not just younger employees. She said getting feedback on something that happened months earlier leaves employees with little they can do about it.
"I don't know what I'm supposed to do about the fact that six months ago I didn't handle that client project. It does feel unfair and it feels not very constructive because it's very backward-looking," she said.
HR leaders have described a similar change, telling HRD America that performance management is shifting toward frequent feedback, with the annual review serving as a checkpoint rather than the main event.
Gerhardt said younger workers grew up with unlimited access to explanations.
"If I want to know why something is the way it is, I can ask Siri, or now I can ask AI, or I can Google it. So this sort of mystery of why we do feedback every six months and what does it mean and how do you interpret it is no longer going to work," she said.
A manager who can't explain why they give feedback daily, weekly or monthly probably hasn't thought the practice through, she said.
Another way to establish that connection before there is any feedback to give, Gerhardt said, is to ask each employee how they like to receive it.
"Some people, it will drive them nuts until they can just sit down and have the conversation and ask follow-up questions and talk about it in the moment. And other people, they need a little time to process," she said.
The risk of outsourcing feedback to AI
Not every manager has time to tailor feedback to each employee, especially those with many direct reports. Gerhardt said she suspects some of them are turning to AI for help, and the results could go either way.
"I could see it being useful to making something more personalized and more accurate, but I also think the risk is huge that it reads like AI slop," she said.
For younger employees, who weigh personal connection and authenticity heavily, she said feedback that reads as AI-generated can cost a manager credibility. Gerhardt added that Gen Z is the most skeptical about AI. A Gallup survey from April 2026 found 48% of employed Gen Zers say AI's risks at work outweigh its benefits, up 11 points from a year earlier. HRD America has reported that strong managers can ease AI-related job fears, and that employee guidance on AI is still catching up as companies scale adoption.
Gerhardt said AI can help when it's a thoughtful tool that strengthens those connections, but handing feedback over to it entirely will make both the impact and the reaction worse.
Her advice for employers is to look at why younger workers might not be responding to feedback before drawing conclusions about them.
"If the goal of feedback is to develop people, maybe now that development needs to start in a different place. Rather than going right to judgment or shaming or stereotyping that, oh, I'll just conclude from this that they need thicker skin and they're fragile. That's not helpful, it's not accurate, and it's fairly patronizing," Gerhardt said.
