Does “Feedback” Really Matter?

Have you ever fretted the night before getting a performance review? Have you ever got anxious when initiating a performance talk? Have you ever tried to delay or put (indefinitely) the conversation on hold for as long as you could? The good news is that almost all of us have all been in that situation, but the bad news is that these fears or discomforts would cause us to miss important personal growth in life.

“People tend to avoid feedback because they hate being criticized, plain, and simple.”

Feedback Can Be Taken Personally It is bluntly said that people tend to avoid feedback because they hate being criticized, plain, and simple (Jackman & Strober, 2003). According to the self-worth theory of motivation, there is a natural tendency of an individual to protect their sense of self-worth as a motive to avoid failures and approach success. This tendency resorts to a survival instinct that can consciously or unconsciously detect potential threats to self-esteem, and in turn to self-adapt or self-protect. The formation of this self-motivational system can date back to as early as infanthood, while work organization is argued to be an extension of this motivational mechanism in a specific institutional setting (Dubin, 1961). Dubin stressed that there is a real continuity between childhood experiences in society and adult experiences at work—it just takes on a new form that is more appropriate to the work performed, and yet the same response pattern repeats itself. Giving Feedback, Especially Negative Ones, Can Be Stressful For managers who need to give feedback as part of their job, it is equally painstaking. Jackman & Strober (2013) pointed out several possible negative behavioral consequences from the counterparts, including “procrastination”, “denial”, “brooding”, “jealousy”, as well as “self-sabotage”. A new study from Burk & Wiese (2021) piles on with elements of “fear of retaliation” and “increased stress responses”, which can load the feedback process with discomforts and stress, and not always lead to a constructive improvement as intended. No wonder companies increasingly tend to avoid giving feedback sessions, especially in an immediate team environment. However, without feedback, either from oneself or others, one cannot learn. The struggle has been overwhelmingly on one’s ego involvement which is also considered as fundamental to one’s job involvement (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965), while in fact, the critical function of learning seems to be missing. The question here, therefore is not whether or not we should continue with the feedback process, but whether we can do it constructively and sustainably. Feedback Is Fundamental For Learning, Motivation, And Commitment Feedback is about learning and growth. Mory (2004) ventured to say that no learning would occur unless some type of feedback mechanism exists at work, simply because feedback provides the learning paradigm which makes knowledge acquisition, transfer, and growth possible. Hattie & Timperley (2007) in their “The power of feedback” delineates that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but its impact can be either positive or negative. So what is feedback and is there is a correct way of doing it? It’s argued that too many attempts have been made to define what feedback is. I tend to agree with the definition that feedback is the “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). In my opinion, it embodies 3 key players—the provider (agent), the receiver (aspect), and the information (catalyst). I typically view this as a chemical process, where feedback doesn’t only lead to a desired learned behavior but the learning ability itself, or the self-regulatory ability. It is therefore important to emphasize several aspects of feedback in this dynamic relationship. Feedback is directional The feedback cannot stand itself unless it’s built upon an existing ground. This means between the provider and receiver, there has to be an informative and mutual agreement on where s/he is now, what is expected, and how to get there. Therefore, just the information about the gap by itself is not feedback–it can be called feedback only when the information is used to close that gap (Ramaprasad, 1983). Feedback is contextual Feedback is meant to be understood, absorbed, and transformed into improved actions. One needs to provide the learning context for the “understanding” to take place. Therefore, the clarity and the relatedness of the content are important for feedback to be effective. Feedback is relational The perceived “interpersonal justice”, which is the belief that one is treated with respect and fairness, sets the tone of the feedback process. The perceived lack of fairness can block the “learning”, or simply “listening”. Therefore, this process requires dual diligence, mutual trust, and real-time interactions from both the agent and the aspect. Feedback is a skill Giving or receiving feedback is a skill and can be learned. In the 2021 study of “How to alleviate the agony of providing negative feedback”, it is observed that participants’ stress levels can be considerably reduced when given prior instructions on how to regulate emotions during the feedback process. The Multifaceted Character of Feedback: Technical vs. Emotional Hattie & Timperley (1983) in their “The power of feedback” summarized how to give effective feedback. They contended that any effective feedback needs to answer 3 questions and can be given on 4 levels. The 3 must-ask questions are Where am I going? (What are the goals?), How am I going? (What progress is being made toward the goal?), and Where to next? (What activities need to be undertaken to make better progress?). The quality of answering those questions determines the quality of the feedback. Giving feedback can be on 4 levels, which are task-, process-, self-regulation-, and self-level. It’s observed that feedback can be the most effective when given on the task and process level, and least effective on the self-level. Task-level This is to provide corrective information to get things done according to the instructions. It is seen more powerful when it is about faulty interpretations and not lack of information; also it is preferred to be provided in a real-time manner instead of being delayed. Process-level This is to provide information on the strategies for error detection, which facilitates self-feedback. This level of feedback seems to be more effective than at the task level for enhancing deeper learning (e.g., Balzer et al., 1989). Self-regulation-level This refers to the ability and efforts exhibited by the learner and usually involves an interplay between commitment, control, and confidence. Giving feedback on this level works the best with more effective learners, who actively seek feedback in ways that can enhance future learning abilities. Self-level It is pointed out that giving praise doesn’t seem to improve the effectiveness in learning, simply because it doesn’t provide the information about how to improve the aforementioned 3 aspects–task or process or self-regulation strategies. Instead, it could deflect the attention from the relevant information and lead to self-handicapping, learned hopelessness, or social comparison. As much as we would like to treat feedback as a rational process, it is usually not. Emotions are naturally part of the play and avoiding them can be counterproductive. Burk & Wiese (2021) recognized feedback as emotional labor which is part of the managers’ job. What was considered as “effective” strategies, i.e., surface acting or deep acting, to deflect uncomfortable inner experiences proved to be otherwise. From a stress reduction standpoint, they found out simply staying task-oriented, well prepared (cognitive reappraisal) at the same time taking the perspectives of the others, and active listening (affect utilization) could tremendously decrease the stress responses especially for the feedback giver. The inner sense of authenticity can be enacted by verbalizing the emotional contents from both sides, when confronted with negative emotions, although to what degree this could happen needs further investigation. In sum, the role of feedback cannot be absent if the intention is to grow. The key lies in the “how’s”, which is a learning journey itself and seems still a long way to go. References: Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science 28(1):4 – 13. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830280103 Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (p. 745–783). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research March 2007, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81–112 DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487. Burk, C.L. & Wiese, B.S. (2021). How to alleviate the agony of providing negative feedback: Emotion regulation strategies affect hormonal stress responses to a managerial task. Hormones and Behavior. Volume 127, January 2021, 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2020.104868 Jackman, J.M. & Strober, M.H. (2003). Fear of Feedback. Harvard Business Review, April, 2013. Dubin, R. (1961).Human relations in administration. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pretence-Hall. Balzer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R., Jr. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410–433.