PSYCH 647 Week 4 Giving and Receiving Feedback Example

Feedback That Sometimes Makes Things Worse: Designing Feedback Conversations for Water Utility Crews

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSYCH/647: Human Performance, Assessment, and Feedback

Week 4 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The water utility, its supervisors and technicians are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.

Feedback is often treated as the cure for performance problems, but research shows that its effects vary widely and can be negative. This paper applies feedback research to the conversations supervisors will hold with field technicians at a water utility.

The Pilot

The utility tested the new system last spring in its North Valley and Westside districts. Supervisors met with each technician to discuss ratings on the six new dimensions. Many meetings went well, but two technicians filed grievances. In one meeting, a supervisor read a list of eleven problems from the past year; in another, the supervisor told a technician he "didn't seem to care about safety." Both technicians said they left angry and less motivated. A survey of pilot participants found that most technicians valued the clearer dimensions but were uneasy about the meetings.

Feedback Can Backfire

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) combined results from more than six hundred comparisons in which some people received feedback and others did not. The average effect was positive, yet in a large minority of studies the people who got feedback ended up doing worse than those who got none. They proposed feedback intervention theory, in which feedback directs attention among three levels: the task itself, the motivation and learning processes needed for the task and the self. Comments aimed at who someone is, whether flattering or harsh, tend to blunt the benefit; comments aimed at what was done and how to do it better tend to deliver it. Feedback that threatens self-esteem can divert attention from the task to protecting one's self-image.

The pilot's problem meetings fit this pattern. "You don't seem to care about safety" directs attention to the technician's character, inviting defense. A list of eleven problems overwhelms and signals a judgment of the person.

How Feedback Is Received

Ilgen et al. (1979) proposed a model of the consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Feedback is perceived, accepted or rejected and then acted on depending on characteristics of the source, the message and the recipient. Source credibility, based on expertise and trustworthiness, and the source's power to reward strongly influenced acceptance. Timely, specific feedback was more likely to be perceived accurately. Recipients were more likely to accept feedback consistent with their own self-assessment and to reject feedback that was inconsistent and negative.

At the utility, technicians often see supervisors as less expert in field work than lead technicians, and supervisors are rarely present during repairs. Feedback from supervisors who did not see the work may lack credibility, which supports including lead technicians in feedback.

Employees Seek Feedback Too

Ashford and Cummings (1983) argued that individuals are not passive recipients of feedback but actively seek it, through monitoring the environment and directly asking. They proposed that people seek feedback when its value, for reducing uncertainty or achieving goals, outweighs its costs, such as effort, embarrassment or appearing incompetent. Feedback seeking is a personal resource that organizations can encourage.

Technicians, especially newer ones, may hesitate to ask supervisors about their work for fear of seeming unsure. Lowering those costs, for example through routine short debriefs after jobs, would make feedback a normal part of work rather than an annual event.

A technician who asks "how did I do on that valve?" in the truck learns more than one who waits for October.

Multisource Feedback

Smither et al. (2005) meta-analyzed longitudinal studies of multisource feedback, in which people receive ratings from supervisors, peers and subordinates. Performance improved modestly over time, with small average effect sizes. Improvement was more likely when recipients had a positive feedback orientation, perceived a need to change, believed change was possible, set goals and took action, for example by discussing feedback with raters or working with a coach.

The utility's plan includes ratings from supervisors and lead technicians. The research suggests that combining these with goal setting and follow-up matters more than the number of sources.

The Feedback Design

The annual conversation will follow a guide. It begins with the technician's own self-assessment on the six dimensions, giving the supervisor a sense of where views differ. Feedback focuses on specific behaviors from documented incidents, such as "During the Juan Tabo main break, you set the trench shoring before anyone entered; that is exactly the standard," or "On two jobs in June, traffic cones were set too close to the work zone; let's look at the setup chart together." Conversations address no more than two or three areas for development, chosen for their importance, and end with one or two specific goals and a plan for support. Ratings are explained with reference to the behavioral anchors.

The Trouble With the Feedback Sandwich

Many supervisors were taught to sandwich criticism between two compliments. The technique aims to soften negative feedback, but it can backfire. Technicians soon spot the pattern and brace for the bad news whenever praise opens a meeting; the actual point gets buried in the middle; and vague warmth like "you're a great guy" pulls attention to the person, which is exactly what the research warns against. Feedback intervention theory suggests a different approach: describe what went well and what to improve in specific, task-focused terms, without packaging one to make the other easier to hear. Praise remains valuable, but it works best when it names a specific behavior worth repeating.

Feedback for Experienced Technicians

Experienced technicians present a particular challenge. Several have more field experience than their supervisors, and feedback from someone perceived as less expert is easily dismissed. For these technicians, conversations will lean on lead technicians' observations and on the technicians' own reflections, and supervisors will ask for the technician's view before offering their own. Inviting experienced technicians to give feedback to newer colleagues also signals respect for their expertise.

Training Supervisors

Supervisors and lead technicians will complete a training session that includes the research on feedback effects, practice with role-plays based on the pilot's problem meetings and feedback from trainers. They will learn to describe behavior and its impact rather than character, to listen to the technician's account and to separate developmental conversations from pay decisions, which will be discussed at a different meeting.

Feedback Year-Round

To make feedback routine, crews will hold five-minute debriefs after complex repairs, asking what went well and what to do differently. Supervisors will hold brief check-ins quarterly. Technicians will be encouraged to ask lead technicians and supervisors for feedback, and supervisors will be recognized for responding constructively.

The two technicians who filed grievances during the pilot will be invited to help test the conversation guide, since they know firsthand what went wrong.

Measuring Results

We will survey technicians after each conversation about perceived fairness, usefulness and motivation, track how many development goals are completed and compare the number of grievances with the pilot.

Conclusion

Feedback can help or harm. Research on feedback intervention effects, source credibility, feedback seeking and multisource feedback points to conversations focused on specific tasks and goals, credible sources, trained givers and routine feedback throughout the year.

References

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32(3), 370-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3

Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x