- does it matter if they don’t improve fast enough in this dimension?

- they will improve by themselves over time. Encouragements are better than finding issues with someone.

Improving fast is better than improving slow. This question presumes that improving (or the feedback that leads to the improvement) is somehow bad.

> Encouragements are better than finding issues with someone.

This is a false dichotomy, you don't have to do either one or the other. Also, "finding issues" sounds like you're assuming I'm trying to make up issues where none exist.

What's wrong with telling people where they could improve?

See, I completely disagree with that statement. I think there is nothing wrong with being slow. Unless, again, it's fucking up with other people and you need to change your behavior.

> you don't have to do either one or the other

I would argue that yes you do. It's part of many company's manager training: you need to praise your employees. And it's also part of all the lists on burning out: not feeling valued.

> What's wrong with telling people where they could improve?

some people are not into self-improvement, or the never-ending quest of improving themselves. They just want to do their job, cash their paycheck, and go back to their loved ones.

Cynic warning. Why wouldn't they instead choose to work with something they enjoy doing? Is that just a euphemism for some people being so bad at what they do in general that no one would pay them for doing the things they enjoy, while they just pass the bar in some things (which they dislike), just enough for them to get paid? Because that would explain it.

And the original question wasn't even about that, it was about receiving tips/pointers about improving. It doesn't have to be a "never-ending quest" (although isn't life supposed to be just that?). If you're doing some work, and someone points out how you can do it better, he's either wrong, or you refuse to improve... why?

One "why" is simply because people don't actually like doing what they do. They've simply accept it as a worthy tradeoff for the money they get/need. But they're certainly not willing to do any more than the bare minimum.

Do you have other "why's" that I don't see?

I mean sure, if you like chopping wood with a small axe between your toes and someone tells you that holding it properly with your hands would yield a better result then you're fine telling him that you prefer it your way (because you enjoy it), but if you work in a company where you're expected to perform up to a certain level then you can't really use that argument. Feel free to start a competing foot-chopping company!

> since my default is to just keep doing what I'm doing anyway, I don't need to be specifically told that

I had reviews that were something along these lines in the past:

Q1 review: * "You need to work on your communication and keeping stakeholders in the loop."

[I move all design discussions from DMs to non-private Slack channels, post regular updates on Slack, and set up biweekly status update meetings on Zoom.]

Q2 review: * "Posting updates on Slack is nice, but not solving the issue." <-- Good to know, but less valuable information than: * "Using Slack channels + the biweekly Zoom updates have adequately addressed the issue."

TL;DR: If you've changed nothing, then positive feedback is useless. If you're experimenting with various solutions, positive feedback when one works is critical ['cause I'd drop Zoom meetings in a heartbeat if they proved useless].