Blog

Most managers know the drill. You have difficult feedback to deliver, so you reach for the classic management tool: the “sh*t sandwich.”

Thanks for all the effort you put into your work.
However, the project is wrong for the following 15 reasons…
But thank you for listening, I know you’re always open to feedback.

The problem with this example is that the positive feedback is not specific and the ratio of praise to criticism is only correlated to medium-performing teams.

You need more bread.

The Data on Performance

Researchers Emily Heaphy and Marcial Losada conducted an extensive analysis of 60 strategic-business-unit leadership teams at a large information-processing company. They measured “effectiveness” through outcome metrics: financial performance, customer satisfaction, and 360-degree feedback ratings.

They recorded the verbal interactions among these teams, specifically coding comments as positive (supportive, encouraging, appreciative) or negative (disapproving, sarcastic, cynical). The differences between the tiers were stark.

• Low-performing teams: They averaged 0.36 positive comments for every negative one. Negativity dominated the conversation three-to-one.
• Medium-performing teams: They managed a 1.9 to 1 ratio. This is essentially the “sh*t sandwich” ratio. They were functioning, but not excelling.
• High-performing teams: The best teams maintained a ratio of 5.6 positive comments for every negative one.

To get the highest performance, you don’t need two slices of bread. You need nearly six.

Why this Ratio Works

This 5.6:1 ratio isn’t about coddling people. It works based on these principles:

1. The Negativity Bias

Our brains are hardwired to process negative information more intensely than positive data. A critique lands heavier and sticks longer than a compliment. It takes multiple positive interactions to “neutralize” the emotional weight of a single criticism. If you provide a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio, the net emotional impact on the employee is negative, triggering defensiveness rather than improvement.

2. Psychological Safety and the “Trust Bank”

Think of praise as a deposit and criticism as a withdrawal. High-performing teams build a massive “trust bank.” When a leader has a history of specific, genuine validation, the employee feels secure. When the leader eventually makes a withdrawal like “You missed the mark on this report”, the account doesn’t go into overdraft. The employee stays receptive because they know their value is recognized.

3. Specificity

The research notes that empty flattery doesn’t count. The high-performing teams didn’t just get cheerleaded; they used specific “inquiry” and “advocacy.” They said, “I agree with that idea because it solves X,” rather than a vague “Good job.”

A Universal Constant

This ratio shows up in other places, and is more of a universal constant. Researcher John Gottman found a nearly identical ratio when analyzing marriage stability. Couples who stayed together maintained a 5:1 positive-to-negative ratio during conflicts. Those who divorced averaged 0.77:1.

If you want a high-performing team, stop feeding them standard sandwiches. You need to look at your interactions over the long term (weeks to months) and ensure that for every slice of feedback you serve, you’re providing five or six slices of praise.

I was inspired to write this article by the HBR article, “The Ideal Praise-to-Criticism Ratio.”

You can read Marcial Losada and Emily Heaphy’s full research paper here.

---

Implementing the 5.6:1 ratio is essential for retaining top talent, but it’s useless if your hiring process filters out the A-Players before they even start. I can help you identify exactly where you are losing your best candidates.

“People who are treated as followers have the expectations of followers and act like followers. As followers, they have limited decision-making authority and little incentive to give the utmost of their intellect, energy, and passion. Those who take orders usually run at half speed, underutilizing their imagination and initiative.”
— L. David Marquet, Turn the Ship Around!

Years ago, I was speaking with a frustrated entrepreneur:

“I keep hiring supposed senior developers, but nobody can take over what I do.”

He was trapped in a cycle that many leaders face. To break out of it, you have to ask yourself a fundamental question: How do you know if you’ve unlocked the full intellectual capacity of your organization?

Most managers answer with one of the following:

1. I only hire A-players and A-players give their 100%.
2. I ask them (Surveys, one-on-ones).
3. I measure the rate of innovation and improvement.
4. I let people own decisions and outcomes.

While A, B, and C are important components of a healthy business, I would argue that D is the only answer that matters.

The “Fixes”

When a leader feels their team is “running at half speed,” their first instinct is often to blame the talent pool (Option A). The entrepreneur I mentioned believed he had a hiring problem. He thought if he just found better senior developers, they would magically take charge. But he was hiring competent people and placing them in a system designed for compliance, not creativity. You can hire a genius, but if you treat them like a pair of hands, you will get a pair of hands.

Others try to solve the problem by asking for feedback (Option B). While engagement surveys are useful, happiness does not equal capacity. An employee can be perfectly content, paid well, and have a great work-life balance, while still leaving 40% of their intellect at the door because they aren’t challenged to solve difficult problems.

Many leaders turn to metrics (Option C). They try to measure innovation or output. You should be doing this anyway, but these are lagging indicators. By the time your innovation rate drops, the culture of “following orders” is already calcifying.

The Root Cause: The Permission Bottleneck

The reason that entrepreneur’s senior developers couldn’t “take over” wasn’t a lack of skill; it was a lack of ownership.

In a traditional management structure, the data lives at the bottom, but the ‘yes/no’ lives at the top. The senior developer spots a problem, reports it to the manager/CTO/founder, waits for a decision, and then executes.

In this environment, even an A-player learns that their job is to wait. They wait for validation. The bottleneck isn’t their talent; it’s your control.

The Cure: Decentralize Decision-Making

This brings us to Option D: Letting people own decisions and outcomes.

To unlock full intellectual capacity, you must stop delegating tasks and start delegating authority. True capacity is unleashed when you move the decision-making power to where the information lives, in the trenches.

When you allow a team member to own the decision, the dynamic shifts instantly. They are no longer executing your plan; they are executing their plan. The psychological/emotional weight of the outcome sits on their shoulders, not yours. This triggers the “intellect, energy, and passion” that Marquet speaks of.

If you are a leader wondering where your team’s brainpower is hiding, stop looking at your hiring pipeline or your survey results. Look at your decision-making structure.