Feedback is easy, right?
Why you just can’t seem to solve your performance issues and the tools you need to change that.
What we know about feedback
Feedback is simple: it is information about a performance that allows you to improve (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). Feedback is likely the most used performance intervention, and for good reason. It is free, can be as simple as a conversation, and we have a surplus of research that not only shows feedback works, but describes exactly what makes it so effective (e.g., Sleiman et al., 2020).
Two of the most important features of effective feedback are accuracy and consistency (Sleiman, et al., 2020). Both of these features are relatively intuitive:
- Accurate feedback means giving feedback that matches the performance and outcome (i.e., telling people what they did, and how to change it to get the desired outcome). Imagine a blindfolded person shooting a foul shot. If they miss left and you tell them to aim more left, will they make the next one? Probably not. Feedback accuracy is as simple as this—provide feedback that will guide a performer toward the desired outcome.
- Consistency means frequent, reliable feedback (i.e., providing feedback multiple times, reliably after performance). How likely is it the person will make the second shot? Not very. They may overcompensate and miss far right this time. If you say nothing else, they may never make the shot. Consistent provision of feedback after each shot will ensure approximations until the person finally makes the shot.
Given natural contingencies present in most workplaces, I will confidently claim that accurate, consistent feedback is all you need to see improved performance. Easy, right?
If feedback is so effective, why isn’t it working?!
But you’ve tried this in your organization and haven’t seen the results you want. I’ll double down and say it again: accurate, consistent feedback is all you need to see improved performance. What if your frustrations aren’t due to feedback not working, but because the feedback you assume is being provided is not accurate or consistent?
Recent research (e.g., Matey et al., 2019; Matey et al., 2020) tells us that providing accurate, consistent feedback is not as easy as we think. This is a major issue because all of the stellar research we have that demonstrates the effectiveness of feedback can’t help us unless we understand how to provide it.
The feedback your team receives isn’t accurate.
In 2019, a University of Florida research team identified that people collected accurate performance data until they were asked to provide feedback. Participants were set up to observe others’ performance and record their data on a checklist. When only asked to observe and collect data, participants were 97 percent accurate! But, the same participants were also asked to complete more observations of the same behavior and then provide feedback to the performer on what they recorded. When the same participants were asked to observe and then provide feedback, they dropped to 82 percent accuracy, a 15 percent difference!
Does 15 percent really matter? Turns out, the participants were able to avoid constructive feedback and provide positive feedback instead. They were observing safety data of an actor who was always 30 percent safe. The instructions were to provide constructive feedback if they recorded anything less than 50 percent safe (should happen every time), and positive if they recorded 50 percent or higher (should never happen). That 15 percent number makes a lot more sense now understanding that that’s right around the level where the participant could avoid providing corrective feedback.
It’s likely people will provide inaccurate feedback to avoid tough conversations.
Or your team might just not be receiving feedback at all!
Ok, so what if the feedback interaction is aversive? Of course, we would expect people to react differently to corrective feedback than positive feedback—perhaps people are avoiding a “negative” interaction. In 2020, the same team of researchers dug deeper and found that negative reactions affect both accuracy and the consistency of feedback. This time, they did the same thing; however, they looked at what would happen if the person receiving the feedback reacted positively versus negatively. Turns out that when people reacted positively to feedback the participants maintained their accuracy (100 percent), and when people reacted negatively accuracy dropped (85 percent). Further, the researchers found that 40 percent of participants experiencing negative reactions skipped providing feedback when they were explicitly instructed to do so.
It’s likely that negative reactions result in less feedback given and, when it is provided, the feedback is inaccurate.
Why might this happen?
This research suggests that providing corrective feedback is aversive and that providing inaccurate feedback, or no feedback at all is a symptom of that aversiveness. This isn’t hard to believe. I’m sure you can think of a time where a tough conversation sparked anxiety, or you sugar-coated feedback in the hopes it would land easier … I know I can.
Can we just teach people to respond positively? Maybe, but it’s reasonable to expect someone to react “negatively” to corrective feedback; work is their livelihood, and no one wants to do a poor job. “Negative” reactions will always be present in a workplace environment.
Providing feedback is harder than we think. The issue is that without addressing this your team isn’t receiving the feedback they need, or they may not be receiving feedback at all. Either way, you won’t see the improvements you hope to.
How to solve the issue
To ensure accurate, consistent feedback we need to establish systems and processes that influence effective feedback, specifically:
- Comprehensive Training
- Integrity Systems
First, making people aware of this effect might help avoid some of the issues discussed. In the studies above, participants reported collecting accurate data, even when they did not. A comprehensive training that teaches people about the effect of looming corrective feedback and how to deal with it is the first step toward ensuring effective feedback processes.
Second, the establishment of integrity systems can help bolster accuracy and consistency. Some examples include multiple observers and defining scenarios to provide immediate feedback and when not to skip feedback and provide it later.
For more information or to discuss options for improving the effectiveness of feedback in your organization, please contact: nmatey@abatechnologies.com.
References:
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives organizational effectiveness. Aubrey Daniels International, Inc.
Matey, N., Gravina, N., Rajagopal, S., & Betz, A. (2019). Effects of feedback delivery requirements on accuracy of observations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39(3–4), 247–256. https://www.
Matey, N., Sleiman, A., Nastasi, J., Richard, E., & Gravina, N. (2021). Varying reactions to feedback and their effects on observer accuracy and feedback omission. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 1188–1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.
Sleiman, A., Sigurjonsdottir, S., Kieland, A., Gage, N., & Gravina, N. (2020). A quantitative review of performance feedback in organizational settings (1998-2018). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40(1-2), 303-332. https://www.