6 Tips to Give Better Feedback as a Manager
Most managers know they should give feedback. Few do it well. Here's what actually works, and why timing matters more than most people think.
4 min read
One of our clients, a 60-person company, spent two years running culture workshops, rewriting their values, and investing in manager training.
Their engagement score barely moved.
Then they made a decision their leadership team thought was minor: they stopped using Slack for internal announcements, retired their intranet, and moved all company communications into Arheev.
Within 90 days, two-thirds of employees said that change did more to transform how they worked than anything leadership had tried in the previous two years.
Not the new PTO policy. Not the hybrid mandate. Not the feedback training.
Consolidating where communications lived.
Before the switch, internal communication at that company worked like this: HR posted policy updates on the intranet. Managers shared team news on Slack. Leadership sent company announcements by email. Nobody agreed on where to look for what, so people checked all three, found contradictions, and eventually stopped trusting any of them.
We hear this from almost every company we work with. The tooling sprawl isn't intentional, it accumulates. Intranet for official stuff. Slack for whatever's happening right now. Email for anything that feels too important to lose in a chat thread. Three systems, none of them complete.
The result: employees who are over-pinged and still somehow out of the loop.
Most intranets become graveyards within 18 months of launch.
The pattern is predictable. IT or HR builds it, populates it with policies and org charts, announces it at an all-hands. For the first few weeks, people check it. Then updates slow down, content goes stale, and nobody remembers to look. By year two, it exists mainly so someone can say "that's on the intranet" when an employee asks a question.
We saw this with that client. Their old intranet had hundreds of pages of documentation, policy manuals, company history. When we asked how often employees actually visited it, the answer was uncomfortable: once a month, on average, usually to find one specific thing and leave.
It wasn't a communication tool. It was a filing cabinet that happened to be online.
Slack's problem is the opposite. People don't ignore it, they can't.
The typical knowledge worker gets interrupted dozens of times a day across chat, notifications, and direct messages. Research puts the focus recovery cost at around 23 minutes per interruption, which compounds fast.
But the subtler damage is to information quality. In a real-time chat tool, everything looks equally urgent. A policy change and a question about lunch have the same visual weight. Important updates scroll off the screen within hours. Context gets lost in threads that branch and die.
We saw this in check-in data for that team. Employees kept saying they felt "out of the loop" on company direction, not because leadership wasn't communicating, but because the communications were scattered and fleeting. People had learned to filter aggressively, and the important stuff was getting caught in that filter along with the noise.
Slack is good at a lot of things. Being the authoritative record of what your company decided and why isn't one of them.
The shift wasn't about features. It was about having one place that was actually built for HR and company communications together.
Arheev's feed became the single source for company announcements, HR updates, policy changes, and team news. Because it lives in the same platform where employees already manage leave, check their goals, and handle HR requests, they're in it regularly anyway. Communications reach people in context rather than competing for attention in a separate app.
A few things changed right away.
Employees stopped asking "where do I find that." When there's one place, the question answers itself. Leave policies, holiday schedules, benefit updates, all in the same feed they check for their approval status.
Managers started writing better updates. When posts persist and everyone sees them, people write more carefully than they do in a Slack channel where the message scrolls away in four hours. The permanence changed how people communicated, not because anyone asked them to.
Reach became something you could actually measure. With Slack, you never really knew who saw a message. In Arheev we can see read rates on announcements. HR teams that can see what people engage with write differently than HR teams that are just broadcasting into a void.
The check-in shift was the one that surprised us most. People didn't just feel less interrupted. They felt more connected to what was actually happening at the company. Those are different things, and both moved.
Worth saying clearly: the old intranet wasn't badly built. The problem was that it required employees to go somewhere specifically to get information, and they rarely had an independent reason to be there.
Arheev works differently because employees are already in the platform for other reasons. Submitting leave, checking their balance, completing goals. Communications reach them there rather than requiring a separate visit. The engagement happens in context, not as a dedicated trip to a tool they'd otherwise ignore.
We see this consistently across clients. HR teams that move announcements into Arheev get higher read rates than anything they were getting from standalone intranets. The content doesn't change. The delivery mechanism does.
This company's leadership wasn't bad at communication. They were communicating constantly. The problem was fragmentation: the same message going out three ways, slightly differently each time, with no clear source of record.
Employees couldn't tell which version was current. So they stopped trusting any of them.
In Arheev, we track engagement against communication patterns. The companies with the highest engagement scores aren't the ones sending the most messages. They're the ones sending consistent ones, same channel, regular cadence, clear enough that people don't have to cross-reference three tools to figure out what's actually happening.
That consistency is hard to maintain when you're managing Slack, an intranet, and email simultaneously. With one place, it stops being hard.
If you're evaluating whether your current setup is working, a few things to look at:
Announcement reach. What percentage of employees actually see a given update within 48 hours? If you can't answer that, you don't know whether you're communicating at all.
Self-reported information confidence. A single check-in question, "do you feel informed about what's happening at the company?", is one of the strongest leading indicators of engagement we track. It moves before the headline engagement score does.
After-hours message volume. High after-hours volume usually means the daytime signal is noisy enough that people are managing it after work instead of during it.
Leave and sick day patterns by team. Teams that feel out of the loop take more fragmented leave. The correlation is consistent enough that we flag it.
They didn't rip everything out at once. They started by routing HR communications through Arheev: policy updates, leave reminders, benefit changes. That alone cut the "I didn't know about that" complaints noticeably.
Once that worked, they moved team announcements. Then leadership updates. The intranet got archived. Slack became something people could use if they wanted to, but stopped being the place where important things happened.
The full consolidation took about three months. Each phase was small enough to reverse if something went wrong. Nothing did.
Most companies treat internal communication like a content problem. Write better updates. Run more all-hands. Create a dedicated channel for announcements.
The issue is usually structural. When communication is fragmented, employees learn to ignore most of it because they can't tell what matters. They build filtering habits that catch the signal along with the noise.
Moving to a single platform fixes that, but only if it's one where employees already have a reason to be. An intranet asks people to change their behavior. Reaching people inside Arheev, where they're already managing their day-to-day work, doesn't ask them to change anything.
The companies doing this well aren't the ones with the best-written updates. They're the ones whose employees actually see them.
That's a distribution problem, and distribution problems are solved by being where people already are.
Most managers know they should give feedback. Few do it well. Here's what actually works, and why timing matters more than most people think.
We built an Android app for Arheev because managers kept asking to approve leave requests from their phones. Took us six months. Here's what works, what doesn't, and why iOS isn't ready yet.
84% of employers with dog-friendly offices report better return-to-office rates. Turns out, letting people bring their dogs to work isn't just nice, it might be the only reason some people show up at all.
Take the first step toward better human resource management