Psychologist Ron Friedman and his colleagues identified a group of high-performing "superteams" that consistently outperform others through the use of frequent feedback [1].

This finding suggests that the difference between average and elite performance is not just talent, but the intentionality of communication and the timing of critiques within a team structure.

Friedman's research involved thousands of workers surveyed across multiple organizations in the U.S. [1]. The data indicates that these superteams receive significantly more feedback than average teams [1]. This culture of constant communication allows members to refine their work before it reaches higher-level reviewers, which keeps the stakes low during the revision process [1, 2].

"Superteams are much more intentional with their time," Friedman said [2].

According to the research, the role of leadership is critical in sustaining this environment. Friedman said leaders in these organizations give feedback more often and frame it in ways that motivate employees [1]. By shifting the focus from policing mistakes to driving improvement, these leaders foster a psychological environment where feedback is viewed as a tool for growth, rather than a reprimand [1, 2].

However, the distribution of helpful feedback is not always equitable across all demographics. A related study analyzed more than 23,000 performance reviews across 250 companies [3]. The analysis found that high-performing women are more likely to receive unhelpful feedback compared to their peers [3]. This disparity suggests that while feedback is a catalyst for success, systemic biases can hinder the effectiveness of that feedback for certain high achievers [3].

Friedman's findings emphasize that the most successful teams do not avoid conflict or critique. Instead, they integrate it into their daily operations, ensuring that a project is vetted by colleagues early and often to ensure the final output is polished [1, 2].

“"Superteams are much more intentional with their time."”

The research indicates that organizational success is tied to 'feedback loops' that are both frequent and psychologically safe. While the presence of a feedback-rich culture correlates with higher performance, the data on gender disparities suggests that the quality of feedback is not uniform. For organizations to truly scale into 'superteams,' they must not only increase the volume of critiques but also standardize the quality and fairness of that input to avoid marginalizing high-performing women.