{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "id": "supervisory-feedback-characteristics-boundary-2026",
  "canonical_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/evidence/supervisory-feedback-characteristics-boundary-2026/",
  "json_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/evidence/supervisory-feedback-characteristics-boundary-2026/index.json",
  "decision": "watch",
  "decision_label": "Watch, do not prescribe",
  "reviewed_at": "2026-09-03",
  "reviewed_by": "Brali Evidence Reviewer",
  "source": {
    "title": "Examining the relationship between supervisory feedback characteristics and employee feedback processing: a systematic review and meta-analysis",
    "url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-026-09323-y",
    "type": "systematic-review-meta-analysis",
    "doi": "10.1007/s12144-026-09323-y",
    "citation_text": "Zyberaj J. Current Psychology. 2026;45:1221.",
    "study_design": "Systematic review and random-effects multilevel meta-analysis of 24 peer-reviewed empirical studies contributing 75 effect sizes across 26 supervisory-feedback characteristics. Correlations were synthesized separately for feedback perception, acceptance, desire to respond and intended response, while accounting for dependent effect sizes.",
    "population": "Employees represented across the 24 included workplace studies; the pooled participant count was 595,950, heavily influenced by at least one very large sample. Context, culture, channel and feedback-frequency information were not reported consistently enough for robust moderator analysis.",
    "intervention_or_exposure": "Observed characteristics of supervisory feedback and feedback sources, including credibility, feedback quality, valence, support and other source/message features. This was primarily an observational evidence base rather than a synthesis of randomized feedback interventions.",
    "outcomes": [
      "Perceived feedback",
      "Feedback acceptance",
      "Desire to respond",
      "Intended response"
    ]
  },
  "supported_claim": "Across the reviewed workplace literature, supervisor credibility and feedback quality were consistently positively associated with several stages of employee feedback processing. These are useful design hypotheses for Brali feedback protocols, but the synthesis does not establish that changing credibility, specificity or constructiveness will causally improve acceptance, behavior, performance or learning.",
  "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [
    "Training supervisors to appear more credible has been shown by this meta-analysis to cause better employee performance.",
    "Specific and constructive feedback is proven here to causally increase learning or behavior change.",
    "One delivery channel, feedback cadence or communication style is optimal.",
    "Positive-valence feedback is generally better than corrective or negative feedback.",
    "The pooled correlations can be interpreted as intervention effect sizes.",
    "The findings generalize uniformly across cultures, roles, remote work and digital feedback systems."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "Most included studies were correlational and relied heavily on self-report, limiting causal inference and raising common-method concerns.",
    "Between-study heterogeneity was very high (I²=95%).",
    "Nine studies had potential quality or risk-of-bias limitations under the review's appraisal.",
    "Only peer-reviewed studies were included, so unpublished and grey literature were excluded.",
    "Context variables such as delivery channel, feedback frequency and organizational climate were too inconsistently reported for robust meta-regression.",
    "Some characteristics and processing facets were represented by only a small number of studies, constraining fine-grained conclusions."
  ],
  "target_hack_ids": [],
  "target_protocol_ids": [],
  "risk_flags": [],
  "notes": "Keep this as a research boundary and design input for the existing work-feedback search lens. Before Brali publishes a causal feedback-delivery protocol, prioritize randomized or strong longitudinal studies that manipulate message quality/source behavior and measure downstream behavior or performance rather than only acceptance intentions."
}