Which Approach To Performance Feedback Is Generally Most Effective

Introduction and context.

It started with a simple conversation.

“How are you doing,” I asked the Human Business Partner (HRBP).

You are viewing: Which Approach To Performance Feedback Is Generally Most Effective

“I’m dreading my next call,” she said.

“Why,” I asked.

She said, “Because I have to coach one of my managers on how to give performance feedback.”

“What seems to be the problem,” I asked.

“Because she is a new manager, and like most of our new managers, she doesn’t know how to give good feedback,” she said.

I asked what I could do to help.

She responded, “Can you help me teach my managers how to give good feedback?”

You can listen to this article on the Org. & Talent Academy podcast.

Sound familiar? Have you ever wondered why so many people leaders can’t or won’t provide feedback, especially to low performers? Or, why so many people who get performance feedback do nothing with it?

If you said yes to any of these questions, this article is for you!

I compiled and analyzed decades of performance feedback research to help this HRBP. This analysis was the most extensive review I’ve done in this area, and I was surprised by some of the findings.

For example, I was surprised that three major studies, in 1985, 1996, and 2001 all found feedback was effective at improving performance around 50% of the time. That is like flipping a coin!

I was also surprised to find some critical rules for evaluative situations that are the opposite in learning situations.

In this article, I will share some of the key findings with you and discuss the implications for people leaders and those who support them.

Read on, because you may be surprised too!

What is performance feedback?

You might think this is a rhetorical question, but it isn’t. My research review shows two persistently different answers to this question.

In an often-cited 1981 paper, Performance Feedback in Organizational Behavior Management: A Review, Prue and Fairbank said performance feedback provided information about the quantity and quality of someone’s past performance. (1)

In another often-cited 1985 study, A Critical, Objective Review of Performance Feedback, Balcazar and Hopkins call it providing information to employees about their past performance. (2)

And in another often-cited 1996 study, The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance, Kluger, and DeNisi defined feedback interventions (aka performance feedback) as actions taken by an external agent to provide information regarding some aspect of one’s task performance. (3)

However, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) says performance feedback is information, immediate, ongoing, and usually verbal. SHRM also contrasts performance feedback with performance appraisals and says appraisals are evaluative, retrospective, and written. (4)

Note, SHRM also says performance appraisals include performance feedback. (5)

Are you confused yet? If you are, I’m not surprised. The more research I read on this, the more confused I became.

Anyway, I will focus on the two dominant schools of thought. One believes performance feedback is evaluative, and the other thinks feedback is descriptive.

You might think I’m splitting hairs, but you will see that this difference matters.

At least there is agreement that performance feedback is a communication process. So, we’ve got that goin’ for us, which is nice.

Why give performance feedback?

No, I’m not being cheeky with this question either.

Is it to improve performance, facilitate behavior change, foster learning, justify a performance rating, advance self-interests, all the above, or something else?

Unfortunately, there is research evidence for all of these reasons.

But early studies on performance feedback focused on its ability to improve performance and suggested it was very effective at doing so. (1) (6) (7)

However, multiple studies have since shown performance feedback has mixed or no effect on performance a significant amount of the time, sometimes as often as it has a positive effect. (2) (3) (8) (9) (10) (11)

These studies identified several factors, like who delivers the feedback, the content included in the feedback, how the recipient views the content, and more that can cause feedback to be more or less effective.

The good news is that the research body strongly supports that feedback can positively affect performance and learning.

The bad news is that the research body also suggests a complex web of factors that, if not controlled for, make the chances feedback has the intended (positive) effect about the same as flipping a coin.

Let us start by discussing who should deliver performance feedback.

Who should give performance feedback?

This is all about the feedback provider or the source of the feedback.

Multiple studies suggest supervisors/managers are the most likely to deliver effective feedback consistently—at least the credible ones.

The 1985 study by Balcazar, a meta-analysis of 69 different performance feedback research studies, showed feedback from a supervisor/manager had the most consistently positive effects on recipients’ performance. However, their feedback had a consistent impact in just 50% of cases reviewed and was mixed or had no effect in the other 50%.

Interestingly, this study also found that self-generated feedback, like reviewing your own performance, produced the lowest percentage of consistent effects on performance (21%). And combining self-generated feedback with supervisor/manager feedback wasn’t much better (31%).

I find this surprising when you consider self-generated plus supervisor/manager feedback is still what some organizations do!

A 2001 study by Alvero et al., another meta-analysis that reviewed 43 different performance feedback research studies, also found supervisor/manager feedback was the most consistently effective. But this was in just 59% of cases, and the other 41% were mixed or had no effect.

But when combining a supervisor/manager with a researcher, consistent effects jumped to 86%. Now that is good, exceptionally good!

I will discuss politics a little later, and I think this could explain why adding a researcher improves consistency.

However, this isn’t very encouraging when you think about it. It is good to know that those who provide feedback most often also appear to be the most consistently effective at delivering it. But why are supervisors/managers only effective about half of the time?

Could it be a skill deficiency? I didn’t find many studies that tested the skills of supervisors/managers to provide performance feedback. But there is a feedback provider characteristic that does look like it matters.

A 1995 study by Albright and Levy on multisource feedback found that the more credible the feedback provider, the more recipients accepted their ratings. (12)

A 2006 study by McCarthy and Garavan found that the more recipients perceived the feedback as accurate, the greater the level of post feedback behavioral change. (13)

Even a 2018 study on workplace coaching by Bozer and Jones, an analysis of 117 research studies, found coachees’ rating of trust [in their coach] was a significant predictor of coachees’ ratings of the usefulness of the coaching program. (14)

And, multiple studies have shown that most employees do not believe performance appraisals are accurate. (15) (16) For example, in a 2016 survey, Accenture Strategy found that 65% of employees didn’t believe performance ratings accurately and objectively reflected their performance.

And maybe that isn’t a surprise, as it appears many leaders let politics drive their performance ratings, which could explain employees’ distrust. For example, in a 1987 study, where researchers interviewed executives who had performance appraisal experience from 197 different organizations, executives admitted that political considerations nearly always were part of their evaluation process. (17) Though it appeared politics more often skewed evaluations positively than negatively.

So, the research suggests a supervisor/manager is the most likely to give effective performance feedback. But the research also suggests their odds of getting the desired result from providing feedback is about the same as flipping a coin.

You’ll see several reasons for this, other than the feedback provider themselves, which leads me to believe this probably isn’t a story about deficient feedback provider skills.

However, there is one feedback provider characteristic that appears to matter. That is whether the feedback provider is credible or trustworthy in the feedback recipient’s eyes.

Who should receive performance feedback?

This is all about the feedback recipient.

This question may seem trivial because most people believe everyone deserves feedback. But substantial research has gone into this topic, and when you look at the data, I think there is an argument for not providing feedback to everyone.

Both Balcazar’s and Alvero’s meta-analyses, covering more than 100 feedback research studies, found feedback was more consistently effective when the recipient was a group versus an individual.

Read more : Which Institution Most Likely Employs A Forensic Anthropologist For Research

So, there may be an argument for providing feedback to groups rather than individuals. Later I’ll discuss public vs. private feedback, which may shed some light on this finding.

But there is also an interesting body of research that suggests how the recipient perceives feedback, the recipient’s feedback orientation, has a significant influence on its effectiveness.

Studies have shown that recipients who are more focused on learning (e.g., growth mindset), as opposed to proving themselves or avoiding failure, and recipients who believe in their ability to change (e.g., self-efficacy) are most likely to improve performance. (18) (19)

McCarthy’s 2006 study found that recipients who perceived their organization as supportive of their development were more likely to act after feedback. And recipients who were cynical about organizational support or their ability to change were unlikely to act post feedback.

And a 2015 study by Wang et al. found that worker perceptions were significantly related to post feedback behavior. (20) Though younger workers were more likely to focus on feedback usefulness, and older workers focused more on how feedback made them look.

So, I think feedback providers should consider giving feedback to groups, where possible, versus individuals.

But more importantly, feedback providers should be aware of a persons’ feedback orientation before providing feedback.

Feedback providers should have a good idea if a person is focused on learning, believes in their ability to change, and sees their organization as supportive. Because if the person doesn’t, feedback is less likely to be effective.

How to provide performance feedback?

How refers to the method or channel of communication, and whether the communication is private, public, or private and public.

Channel of Communication

Balcazar’s 1985 study found that verbal and graphical communication and just graphic communication were the most consistently effective (55% and 54%, respectively).

Note, Balcazar’s study also found verbal-only communications were consistently effective in just 28% of cases, and Kluger’s 1996 study found verbal feedback had a negative effect.

Alvero’s 2001 study found written plus graphic and verbal plus graphic were the most consistently effective (86% and 75%, respectively).

Even recent research on multisource feedback (e.g., 360s) in leadership development programs found participants reacted significantly less favorably to text feedback vs. numeric feedback. (21)

I think there is an argument to favor numeric and graphical feedback over written and verbal feedback in both evaluative and developmental situations. And if your organization provides written or oral feedback, I think there is a strong argument for including numeric or graphical information along with it.

Public vs. Private

Balcazar’s 1985 study did not find significant differences between public and private feedback. But Alvero’s 2001 study found a combination of public and private was significantly superior to both public only and private only (80%, 50%, and 56%, respectively).

Interestingly, you can see a trend toward providing feedback privately in these two studies’ data. Public feedback was more common in Balcazar’s 1985 study, but private feedback was more common in Alvero’s 2001 study.

And Rasheed’s 2015 study found that a sense of social awareness (e.g., how one is perceived in public) positively impacts performance.

Additionally, a 2017 study in Management Science found that the public disclosure of relative performance feedback improved worker productivity. (22) The researchers say it was because public feedback allowed workers to identify their top-performing coworkers and thus identify and adopt best practices.

Combine the success of public feedback with the fact that group feedback was more consistently effective than individual feedback, and I think there is an argument to be made for public feedback.

Which performance feedback is [generally] most effective?

This is about the content or type of information communicated to the recipient. And this is where it gets complex, so pay attention!

Researchers have explored many dimensions of feedback content, including:

• If the feedback includes a comparison, like to another individual, a group, or a standard of performance
• Whether it contains a positive, negative, or neutral sign
• Whether the subject of the feedback is the individual, the task, or task details
• How specific the feedback is; like if it identifies correct vs. incorrect actions, includes best practices
• If the feedback is about the past or the future (e.g., time)
• Whether feedback is provided in combination with something else or as a standalone intervention (e.g., goal setting, rewards)

Recipients and Comparisons

Both Alvero’s and Balcazar’s studies found the most consistent effects among cases that compared an individual’s or a group’s performance to a standard of performance.

And both studies found that including a comparison, whether a standard, a group, an individual, or even the recipient’s prior performance, was better than no comparison at all!

Interestingly, A 2017 study by Casal et al. found that providing recipients with information on the best-performers did not affect study participants’ performance. (23) However, in this study, participants could not talk to best-performers to learn from what they did. And Information on suboptimal peers negatively impacted participant performance.

It seems like including a comparison is a must, and comparing to a standard of performance is probably best.

Comparing to others’ performance may or may not be helpful. However, when you combine the results here with those related to public feedback, I think comparing recipients to others can be beneficial ‘if’ recipients can identify and learn from the best performers.

Sign and Subject

A 1996 study by Kluger and DeNisi, a meta-analysis of 131 different feedback research studies, found performance feedback that was discouraging, threatening to recipients’ self-esteem, or praised recipients had no or a negative effect.

And Balcazar’s 1985 study had a similar finding related to praise.

A recent 2020 study by Gnepp et al. found that recipients of negative and mixed feedback doubted the accuracy of the feedback and the providers’ qualifications to give feedback. They also found that disagreement regarding past performance was more significant following the feedback discussion than before because of the recipients’ self-protective and self-enhancing attributions. (8)

However, Kluger’s study found that performance feedback that directed the recipient’s attention to the task (either task motivation or task learning) and away from the recipient and included the correct solution had a positive effect on performance.

Okay. So should feedback providers avoid giving negative feedback? Not necessarily, as I’ll explain shortly.

But feedback providers should recognize the risks associated with negative feedback and make sure other conditions, which I’m about to explain, are met. Otherwise, negative feedback is likely to make things worse.

Specificity and Time

I’ve already mentioned that Kluger’s meta-analysis found performance feedback that included the correct solution (e.g., precise) had a positive effect on performance.

Researchers also found this positive effect in a recent 2011 study in the Business and Economics Research Journal. Researchers tested different content types of performance feedback. They found that only feedback that decreased ambiguity about expected performance (e.g., precise, comparison to a standard of performance) had a positive effect on employee’s motivation to perform better. (24)

And in a 2015 study in Human Resource Development Quarterly, researchers found feedback perceived as high in utility had the most substantial relationship to satisfaction with feedback and in-role performance improvement. (19)

Interestingly, there is a body of research around the impact of feedback on learning. This research suggests that the more specific the feedback (e.g., identifies correct vs. incorrect actions, includes errors, provides correct solutions), the less a recipient learns. (25) (26) (27) (28)

For example, in a 2011 study by Goodman et al., participants in a team management situation were more likely to engage in learning (e.g., critical thinking, mental model formation) when tasks were unfavorable, and feedback was less specific. (29) Researchers argued that less information and direction caused participants to seek more information and consider more options.

We know Gnepp’s 2020 study showed that negative feedback was most likely to be rejected. This study also showed that recipients’ feedback acceptance and intention to change were more significant with feedback focused on the future (e.g., generated ideas for next steps, discussed future behaviors). This future focus even made negative feedback more likely to be accepted.

I believe the research on specificity and time provides a couple of essential rules for feedback providers.

First, I think there is a difference between evaluative and learning situations, particularly because negative feedback has significant consequences.

Suppose negative feedback is provided in evaluative situations. In this case, it should include a comparison, preferably to a standard of performance. It should focus on the task and identify the differences between the recipient’s performance and the comparison. And it should provide corrective solutions.

If negative feedback is provided in learning situations, it should also include a comparison. But in learning situations, multiple comparisons or a best-performer the learner can interact with is probably best.

In both cases, any discussion about differences from the comparison should focus on ideas for future behaviors and actions.

Second, feedback providers shouldn’t combine evaluative and learning situations because the most effective feedback in one case doesn’t seem to work well in the other.

Feedback in Combinations

Balcazar’s 1985 study found feedback combined with behavior consequences (e.g., rewards, punishments) and feedback combined with goal setting similarly effective (52% and 53%, respectively).

This study also found that feedback alone was the least effective.

However, Kluger’s study did not find feedback combined with goal setting, rewards, or punishments to be more effective.

Yet Alvero’s 2001 study found feedback combined with antecedents, such as training or direction (but excluding goals), was consistently effective in 100% of cases. Also, feedback combined with antecedents and behavioral consequences (e.g., money, time off) and feedback combined with goal setting and behavioral consequences were both consistently effective in 65% of cases.

Alvero also found feedback alone and feedback combined with goal setting to be the least effective.

In short, feedback combined with antecedents and or behavior consequences is more effective than feedback alone.

However, many of these studies use antecedents and behavioral consequences within days or weeks of feedback. Therefore, I would not assume the typical organizations’ goal-setting procedures positively impact feedback. Nor would I believe the annual review or bonus positively impacts feedback or performance.

Read more : Which Of The Following Sentences Is A Compound Sentence

The research suggests antecedents and behavioral consequences close to feedback enhance feedback’s effectiveness.

If feedback providers want to improve performance feedback effectiveness, they should include antecedents and behavioral consequences close to the feedback.

In other words, the research suggests monthly (or quarterly) goal setting and spot rewards are most likely to impact feedback and thus improve performance.

When to give performance feedback?

Research in this area focuses on the time between the performance event and feedback delivery (e.g., immediacy) and feedback frequency.

Immediacy

Most people believe the more immediate the feedback, the better. And a 2017 field study published in Human Resource Management found precisely this. (30) This study found that constructive supervisor feedback was only effective if the feedback was immediate and frequent.

And researchers found a similar result in a study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 2011. (31)

Frequency

Most research around feedback frequency seems to compare daily, weekly, or monthly, though some studies include semi-annual and annual.

I find this a bit humorous as most organizations work on a semi-annual or annual frequency with employee performance. And because most organizations work on a weekly or monthly basis for operational and financial performance.

Balcazar’s 1985 meta-analysis found daily and weekly feedback to be about the same, though both were consistently effective less than 50% of the time. Monthly was the worst.

Alvero’s 2001 meta-analysis found daily, monthly, and a combination of daily and weekly to have the most consistent effects.

And Kluger’s 1996 meta-analysis found that frequent feedback had a positive effect on performance.

So, it needs to be immediate for performance feedback to be effective. And feedback needs to be frequent. Maybe not daily, but weekly or monthly, to positively impact performance.

Conclusion

If you are a people leader, decades of research on performance feedback suggests you should consider the factors that impact feedback effectiveness. Otherwise, you may waste your time or make things worse when providing feedback.

To improve the odds that any feedback event has the desired effect, feedback providers can do four things. They are:

• On a more frequent basis, discuss performance standards or performance goals, like monthly or quarterly.
• Meet with feedback recipients regularly to provide performance feedback, ideally weekly but at least monthly.
• If possible, include graphic or numeric content with your feedback showing differences between observations and comparisons.
• If possible, meet with recipients as a group rather than as individuals.

When a feedback incident does occur, decide whether it is more important for the feedback recipient(s) to correct a deficiency or learn a task.

If it is more important to correct a deficiency, I recommend the following:

• Schedule time with the recipient(s) to provide the feedback, ideally within a day or two, but not more than a week, if you don’t already have time scheduled.
• Include a comparison, ideally to a standard of performance, and identify specific differences between your observation and the comparison (but avoid discussing the reasons for the differences).
• Provide potential solutions the recipient can implement in the future.
• Ensure all comments are about the task or task details, not about the recipient(s).
• Ask the recipient what solutions they believe they can do in the future and if they need any help.
• Pick a reasonable time frame for follow-up and offer some form of behavioral consequence (rewards for improvement are preferable).

If it is more important to learn a task, I recommend the following:

• Schedule time with the recipient to provide the feedback, ideally within a day or two, but not more than a week, if you don’t already have time scheduled.
• Include multiple comparisons or a best-performer in the discussion.
• Brainstorm possible future actions the recipient can perform to improve (but avoid giving specific solutions).
• Ensure all comments are about the task or task details, not about the recipient(s).
• Ask the recipient what solutions they believe they can implement in the future and if they need any help.
• Pick a reasonable time frame for follow-up and offer some form of behavioral consequence for effort (but avoid punishments).

If you support feedback providers, here are five things you can do to help them be successful. They are:

• Train feedback providers on the factors that impact performance feedback effectiveness (e.g., give them this article), and provide tools that help feedback providers [in the moment] to provide effective feedback.
• Make feedback providers aware of the antecedents (e.g., training, quick reference guides) and behavioral consequences (e.g., days off, spot bonuses) they can use in connection with feedback to help recipients improve performance.
• Gather information on recipients’ views of organizational support for learning, development, and change, and share it [confidentially] with feedback providers.
• Gather information on recipients’ view of feedback providers’ credibility, trustworthiness, and support for recipients’ development, and share it [confidentially] with feedback providers.
• Recognize the situations where performance feedback is less likely to be effective (e.g., untimely feedback, low credibility feedback provider) and help people leaders find alternative solutions.

So, were you surprised? Did you learn anything new? Will you do anything differently now? Do you still have questions?

If so, let me know in the comments section or email me.

And if you enjoyed this article, please mention it to a friend and share it on social media.

You can also sign up for my monthly newsletter.

Copywrite Notice

Copyright © 2021 by CorDell Larkin. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without prior written permission of CorDell Larkin except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, you can contact me.

Original Post

April 15, 2021, at https://www.cordelllarkin.com/blog/what-leaders-should-know-about-performance-feedback

References

1. Prue, D. M., and Fairbank, J. A. PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 1, 1981, Vol. 3.

2. Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L. and Suarez, Y. S. A Critical, Objective Review of Performance Feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 1985, Vol. 7, 3/4.

3. Kluger, A. N. and DeNisi, A. The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance: A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention Theory. Psychological Bulletin. 1996, Vol. 119, 2.

4. SHRM. Don’t Confuse Feedback with a Performance Appraisal. SHRM Web site. [Online] Society of Human Resource Management, Apr 23, 2020. [Cited: Mar 18, 2021.] https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/people-managers/pages/dont-confuse-feedback-with-performance-appraisal.aspx.

5. SHRM. Managing Employee Performance. SHRM website. [Online] Society of Human Resource Management, 2017. [Cited: Mar 18, 2021.] https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/toolkits/pages/managingemployeeperformance.aspx.

6. Kopelman, R. E. Improving Productivity Through Objective Feedback: A review of the evidence. National Productivity Review. 1982, Vol. 2.

7. Ammons, R. B. Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey and tentative theoretical formulation. Journal of General Psychology. 1956, Vol. 54.

8. Gnepp, J., et al. The future of feedback: Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback. PLOS ONE. [Online] Jun 19, 2020. [Cited: Mar 24, 2021.] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234444.

9. Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E. and Chen, Z. Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. ScienceDirect. [Online] Jul 2011. [Cited: Mar 25, 2021.] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597811000021.

10. Kinley, N. and Ben-Hur, S. The Missing Piece in Employee Development. MIT Sloan Management Review. [Online] May 25, 2017. [Cited: Mar 25, 2021.] https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-missing-piece-in-employee-development/.

11. Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R. and Austin, J. An Objective Review of the Effectiveness and Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback in Organizational Settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 2001, Vol. 21, 1.

12. Albright, M. D., and Levy, P. E. The Effects of Source Credibility and Performance Rating Discrepancy on Reactions to Multiple Raters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1995, Vol. 25, 7.

13. McCarthy, A. and Garavan, T. Postfeedback Development Perceptions: Applying the Theory to Planned Behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2006, Vol. 17, 3.

14. Bozer, G. and Jones, R. J. Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: a systematic literature review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2018, Vol. 27, 3.

15. Murphy, M. Performance Appraisal: New Data Reveals Why Employees And Managers Dislike Them. leadershipiq.com. [Online] Dec 16, 2019. [Cited: Apr 13, 2021.] https://www.leadershipiq.com/blogs/leadershipiq/performance-appraisal-new-data-reveals-why-employees-and-managers-dislike-them#:~:text=Only%2014%25%20of%20employees%20believe,appraisal%20should%20recognize%20employees’%20accomplishments..

16. Accenture Strategy. Personalized Performance Management is Essential to Meet the Needs of the Workforce of the Future. Accenture’s Newsroom Web Site. [Online] Apr 16, 2016. [Cited: Apr 8, 2021.] https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/personalized-performance-management-is-essential-to-meet-the-needs-of-the-workforce-of-the-future-finds-new-accenture-strategy-research.htm.

17. Longenecker, C. O., Sims Jr., H. P. and Gioia, D. A. Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal. The Academy of Management EXECUTIVE. 1987, Vol. 1, 3.

18. VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L. and Slocum, J. W. The Role of Goal Orientation Following Performance Feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001, Vol. 86, 4.

19. Rasheed, A., et al. The Impact of Feedback Orientation and the Effect of Satisfaction With Feedback on In-Role Job Performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 2015, Vol. 26, 1.

20. Wang, M., et al. Age Differences in Feedback Reactions: The Role of Employee Feedback Orientation on Social Awareness and Utility. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015, Vol. 100, 4.

21. Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F. and Charles, A. C. MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK: LESSONS LEARNED AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE. Human Resource Management. 2007, Vol. 46, 2.

22. Song, H., et al. Closing the Productivity Gap: Improving Worker Productivity Through Public Relative Performance Feedback and Validation of Best Practices. InformsPubsOnLine. [Online] Jun 27, 2017. [Cited: Apr 7, 2021.] https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2745.

23. Casal, S., et al. Feedback and efficient behavior. PLoS ONE. 2017, Vol. 12, 4.

24. Kaymaz, Kurtulus. Performance Feedback: Individual Based Reflections and the Effect on Motivation. Business and Economics Research Journal. 2011, Vol. 2, 4.

25. Goodman, J. S. The interactive effects of task and external feedback on practice performance and learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1998, Vol. 76.

26. Goodman, J. S., and Wood, R. E. Feedback specificity, learning opportunities, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004, Vol. 89.

27. Goodman, J. S., and Wood, R. E. Faded versus increasing feedback, task variability trajectories, and transfer of training. Human Performance. 2009, Vol. 22.

28. Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E. and Hendrickx, M. Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2004, Vol. 89.

29. Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E. and Chen, Z. Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2011, Vol. 115.

30. Kuvaas, B., Buch, R. and Dysvik, A. CONSTRUCTIVE SUPERVISOR FEEDBACK IS NOT SUFFICIENT: IMMEDIACY AND FREQUENCY IS ESSENTIAL. Human Resource Management. 2017, Vol. 56, 3.

31. Northcraft, G. B., Schmidt, A. M. and Ashford, S. J. Feedback and the Rationing of Time and Effort Among Competing Tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2011, Vol. 96, 5.

Source: https://t-tees.com
Category: WHICH