Reflection Essay #5
Industrial and Commercial Training IS YOUR FEEDBACK ACHIEVING CHANGE? David Cleeton
Article information: To cite this document: David Cleeton, (1992),"IS YOUR FEEDBACK ACHIEVING CHANGE?", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 24 Iss 9 pp. Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197859210020222
Downloaded on: 07 December 2016, At: 13:59 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 327 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (1992),"GOOD MANAGER: GOOD COACH? WHAT IS NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE COACHING?", Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 24 Iss 9 pp. - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00197859210020213 (2013),"Perceptions of quality of feedback in organizations: Characteristics, determinants, outcomes of feedback, and possibilities for improvement: introduction to a special issue", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 4-23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090591311293266
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:486520 []
For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
ov a
S ou
th ea
st er
n U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 13
:5 9
07 D
ec em
be r
20 16
( P
T )
VOLUME 24 NUMBER 9 1992
Is Your Feedback Achieving Change?
David Cleeton
Honest Criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.
These equivocal words from Franklin P. Jones, describe what this article is about. Working in training and management development, I am all too conscious of the deficiencies I see in the way feedback is imparted to luckless recipients. Other people working with groups, and dealing with social and inter-personal interactions, may share my concerns.
In attempting to capture my own thoughts about what happens in a typical interaction, I hope I can stimulate reactions from others working in the same area, and so start a dialogue which will lead to greater understanding of what feedback is, what it does, and how to make it more effective in a range of different situations.
In my own work, I am concerned with feedback during training programmes, primarily aimed at improving work performance in a range of managerial skills. In some circumstances, this may also involve the transfer of feedback skills to the workplace.
WHAT IS FEEDBACK ? If you work as a trainer, group leader, or facilitator there is every chance you are involved in some way with providing or eliciting of feedback. Even in our daily life, especially in the workplace, the term is in common use. But what is it?
In its simplest sense, we might view feedback as any information an individual receives which allows them to evaluate whether their behaviour at any time is appropriate, in other words:
Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol 24 No 9, 1992. pp 9-13 © MCB University Press. 0019-7858
• Meeting their own needs and goals. • Meeting the needs and goals of others. • Socially acceptable. In a given situation, these three criteria for evaluating our behaviour can operate so that there is acute internal conflict. For example, in a training situation there will be emphasis on meeting an organization's needs (to improve performance) and meeting group needs (for regularity and socialization). At the same time there are individual needs associated with self presentation. If there is internal conflict about these, as a result of perceived performance, how does the individual process the information received from the trainer and the group? More importantly, what can the trainer or facilitator do to make feedback more effective?
DIFFERENT FORMS OF FEEDBACK In his excellent book, Don Binsted[l] distinguishes between six different types of feedback, and relates them to the relevant learning theory. His classification is shown in Table I.
Type of feedback
Reinforcement Group norms Data Conceptual Feelings Behavioural
Learning theory
Conditioning Social influence Cybernetic Cognitive Experiential Experiential
Note: Definitions are included at the end of the article in the Appendix.
Source: [1]
TABLE I.
9
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
ov a
S ou
th ea
st er
n U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 13
:5 9
07 D
ec em
be r
20 16
( P
T )
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
He goes on to describe how the facilitator can use this model as a design mechanism for deciding an appropriate strategy for the learner group.
This approach works extremely well from an organization's viewpoint, when designing training events, where we see feedback as a mechanism for improving performance.
It helps enormously also at a group level, because we need to decide the process by which interactions will be observed, and how we will deliver or elicit feedback.
□ MUCH IS MADE OF THE NEED FOR A BALANCE BETWEEN POSITIVE AND
NEGATIVE COMMENTS □
Does it say enough about the individual learners and the context in which feedback is received? I think the answer is no and, to do this, I believe we need to extend the classification along two dimensions.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FEEDBACK First, we need to distinguish between positive and negative feedback. These terms are very familiar, and much is made of the need for a balance between positive and negative comments. My own experience suggests that, in practice, positive comments can often be significantly fewer in training sessions when using participants as observers.
The sociologist George Homans first observed that a person who is rewarded in some way for their behaviour is likely to repeat it. This is the principle underlying reinforcement. Most positive feedback in training works at this level — with the group and/or facilitator saying in effect "do it again".
For most learners this means that positive feedback is relatively easy to deal with because it suggests behaviour is OK — a "no change" situation. This applies, even where the learner might have behaved in a way which is different significantly for them. For the learner, it is of little consequence which learning theory is operating — and in this sense, the distinction between feelings and re- inforcement might be an artificial one. We can certainly argue that all feedback, including positive comment, is received at the
level of feelings, and so could be defined as experiential.
We can also contend that positive comment aids self-presentation, even if it generates internal discomfort. If so, then the context or situation in which the comment is received is unlikely to pose a threat. Even if the positive feedback is perceived as insincere or undeserved, it is unlikely to cause the learner any serious discomfort or problems of self presentation.
Just suppose, however, that the positive feedback is genuinely accepted. Does this mean we have generated a lasting change? Perhaps, but several things can act against the learner:
• An absence of situations in which the new way of doing things can be repeated;
• No reinforcement for repeating the new behaviours;
• A self-handicapping mental set in the learner (e.g. low self esteem).
In the training room, the roles of group, facilitator and learner interact to reinforce the goals of the training programme. It is somewhat peripheral to this article, but back in the workplace, this will not be the case, unless an active process exists for reinforcing the transfer of learning.
Negative feedback is sometimes referred to as constructive criticism. It is seen as a way to improve people's performance. There is a certain logic in this view, but it is a feedback giver's perception. Whatever label it is given, seen from a learner's point of view, such comment will mean either "change what you are doing" or "I/We don't like what you are doing".
For most of us, this is far more difficult to handle than positive comment, since it implies some kind of failure. To find such feedback acceptable, and be prepared to change, we are likely to need:
• A context in which we can preserve our feelings of self worth;
• A belief in the credibility and motives of the person offering the feedback;
• An acceptance of the way in which feedback is delivered;
• An acceptance that feedback is sometimes justified;
• A reason to believe the change is worthwhile.
10
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
ov a
S ou
th ea
st er
n U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 13
:5 9
07 D
ec em
be r
20 16
( P
T )
VOLUME 24 NUMBER 9 1992
A learner's perceptions about each of these will influence a largely unconscious decision about the way we react. For example, it is sometimes argued that feedback from peers is more acceptable than from a facilitator or trainer. Is this a valid contention — or is it more accurate to ask how the learner sees the relative worth of comment from different people? Some members of the group will be viewed as worthy commentators, others less so, for a variety of reasons.
We can easily recognize situations in which the context and delivery can influence our reaction to feedback — being criticized freely by the boss in public is a good example. In the training room, such extremes are less likely, but we need to be conscious of the degree of exposure which an individual learner feels.
But even if all the feedback is "constructive" and well delivered, future rewards can look too far away, when learners are struggling to come to grips with a new process of interaction, model of behaviour, or conceptual approach which is unfamiliar. Even more so, if they perceive themselves as "reasonably proficient" beforehand, using their own tried and tested methods.
We have a remarkable capacity for inaction, when it comes to new behaviours, unless we also shift our attitudes. Without wishing to stray into discussing cognitive dissonance and our processes of attribution, let us accept that if our attitudes suggest that we reject the feedback, for whatever reason, we might bow to peer or trainer pressure in the short-term, but later revert to our old ways.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT FEEDBACK This distinction is less obvious. By direct feedback I mean the information which a learner derives directly from an interaction, or from others who are or have been directly involved as part of the interaction (for example, role players). In other words, it transmits directly how a learner is affecting the other. A commonly used effective form is: "When y o u . . . I f e e l . . . and the result is . . . etc!' with the possible addition of "Next time, will y o u . . . , etc.''.
Unfortunately, I find that participants struggle with this assertive structure, unless there is a large measure of facilitator support. More often the comment slips into evaluative comment, along the lines: "I didn't l i k e . . . I thought you should h a v e . . . . etc!'.
Contrast: "When you interrupted me, I felt frustrated, and as a result I didn't want to agree with you. Next time, will you let me finish before you speak?" with: "I didn't like you interrupting me, I think you were rude and unhelpful. You should have waited until I finished.''
Both are direct feedback, but the first gives information only and allows the learner to judge value ("good" feedback), whilst the second contains ego-deflating evaluation ("bad" feedback). In practice, learners are likely to receive direct feedback, which is a mix of "good" and "bad" from a range of sources — some at an unconscious level.
Consider how effective direct comment might be in front of a group, and what should happen to help the learner accept it? Is it appropriate that this form of feedback is delivered publicly at the end of a role play, or should it be the subject of a discrete dyad? If it is the latter, how should this be managed for best results?
I see indirect feedback as the information which a learner receives about an interaction other than from the interaction itself and the participants in it. In a training situation this will mean fellow participants acting as observers, the trainer, or the facilitator.
In its best form it provides evidence or information about what occurred, and asks the learner to consider what they might have done instead, to improve their performance. To be effective, such indirect comment needs to be delivered against some form of explicit criteria — the categories of behaviour analysis, a sales process, or a conceptual model like transactional analysis, are examples. It might also focus on specifics identified by the learner, and often involves an element of modelling.
In training events which include skills practice in groups or one-on-one, the emphasis is often on the use of this kind of indirect feedback, via participant observers and the trainer. Problems can arise in a number of ways: • Because the recording instruments used
encourage the identification of what was done wrongly, badly or omitted.
• Because observers fail to prioritize the observed criteria, and deliver too much comment.
• Because there is embarrassment about expressing either negative or positive information.
11
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
ov a
S ou
th ea
st er
n U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 13
:5 9
07 D
ec em
be r
20 16
( P
T )
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
TRAINING
• Because observers make evaluative comments which leave the learner psychologically exposed.
• Because the desired outcome was achieved, without working to the criteria.
Implicitly, such sessions start from the premiss that "there is or must be a better way" and two further problems can arise. First, analysis below the level at which feedback is meaningful. Overconcentration on non-verbal cues, with little regard for effectiveness, is an obvious example. Second, failure to recognize two different kinds of situations:
• A poor choice of approach or skill, well- executed (a deficiency in judgement),
• A good choice of approach or skill, poorly executed (a deficiency in skill).
Quite clearly, this means a trainer must think carefully about the processes being used for feedback, before letting participant observers loose on unsuspecting learners.
A REVISED CLASSIFICATION By applying the positive-negative and direct- indirect dimensions to Don Binsted's original classification, we have attempted to see how feedback during a training event might be perceived from a learner's viewpoint. We might then look at the likely entry skill level of our group, and make a guestimate based on past experience of the feedback which is likely to be generated from their performance in the various sessions or activities. Using a simple, two dimensional representation, it might look as shown in Figure 1.
This kind of representation will help us to look again at the needs of our learners, this time looking at their perceptions of the feedback process. If we now add a third dimension — acceptability — we start to look at ways in which we can make the higher levels of negative feedback more palatable. For example, how can we try to generate additional positive indirect feedback, or else reduce the emphasis on indirect negatives?
□
SUCH A REVIEW MIGHT POINT TOWARDS GREATER USE OF SMALL
GROUPS LIKE DYADS OR TRIADS □
Such a review might point towards greater use of small groups like dyads or triads; one- on-one trainer-feedback-sessions; sessions designed specifically to elicit positive comment only; rigorous protocols and processes for feedback delivery; sessions to train observers in eliciting comment in response to indirect feedback; sessions to train participants in the provision of direct feedback; or facilitator intervention to compensate for the excesses of participants!
In making these decisions, we will be trying to account for: • the culture from which the learners are
drawn, • their experience related to the topics or
skills to be covered, • their likely perceptions of one another as
credible providers of feedback, • their likely feelings of vulnerability and
defensiveness, • the credibility of the trainer or facilitator
for providing or eliciting feedback, • the desired outcomes When we have done all this, we can start looking at the mechanisms by which we can assist transfer of the changes — which result from the learning we have nurtured so carefully — to the workplace!
□
Reference 1. Binsted, D., Developments in Interpersonal
Skills Training, Gower, Aldershot, 1986.
12
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
ov a
S ou
th ea
st er
n U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 13
:5 9
07 D
ec em
be r
20 16
( P
T )
VOLUME 24 NUMBER 9 1992
Appendix: Definitions Some definitions of terms used in this article.
Types of feedback:
Reinforcement Reward mechanism to support behaviour change (evaluative, right/wrong, good/bad).
Group norms Codes of behaviour or performance necessary for acceptance by a group (acceptable for group culture or role).
Data Information which assists in judging behaviour against defined or agreed criteria (ratings, instruments to evaluate behaviour).
Conceptual Information about the use of different cognitive models (application of theories, models).
Feelings Reactions from others about the effect of behaviour (reported emotional consequences).
Behavioural Experiencing someone else's behaviour (as in role reversal).
Learning theories: Conditioning Based on the theories of B.F.
Skinner, and the behaviourists. Our behaviour is driven by a stimulus/response model, and can be reinforced by rewarding outcomes.
Social In essence we infer from the influence reactions of others, and our
surroundings, what is acceptable behaviour.
Cybernetic Effectively, the idea that behaviour can be modelled to improve performance by using various forms of analysis to define key behavioural elements. A refinement of the behaviourist approach.
Cognitive We work things out for ourselves, using observation and experimentation, given rules and tools to work with and then generalize to different situations.
Experiential The idea that we learn also from our feelings and emotions, as consequences of our behaviour. The word is used in its narrow sense, of learning from behaviour as it happens.
Other terms: Attribution A term used to describe the way in
which we tend to seek or attribute meanings to events which are consistent with our past experiences, values, beliefs and attitudes.
Cognitive A term used to describe the dissonance feelings of discomfort we
experience, when we attempt to hold two beliefs or attitudes which are inconsistent. For example, the feelings we might have, if we were given disparaging information about someone we respected.
David Cleeton is Management Development and Training Consultant at Wimberry Management Development and Training, London, UK.
13
D ow
nl oa
de d
by N
ov a
S ou
th ea
st er
n U
ni ve
rs it
y A
t 13
:5 9
07 D
ec em
be r
20 16
( P
T )