In Sion, does corrective feedback actually improve work?

Within SHR — Swiss Human Resources' “Management de proximité” programme for frontline managers, corrective feedback deserves a more precise question than how often it occurs. When a manager identifies a discrepancy, does the intervention help someone perform the next task better, or shift attention towards how they are being judged as a person?

What the literature establishes

Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi (1996, Psychological Bulletin) show in a meta-analysis that feedback interventions improve performance on average, but can also impair it. Their theory proposes, among other things, that effectiveness decreases when feedback draws attention away from the task towards self-related concerns. The mere presence of feedback is therefore not an indicator of managerial quality.

The mechanism: making the correction usable

John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish between feedback directed at the task, processes, self-regulation and the person. Their review, focused on learning in educational settings, highlights the value of information that clarifies the intended outcome, the current discrepancy and what to do next. For a manager, this suggests describing a feasible correction rather than making a general assessment of the employee.

The premature conclusion

One might conclude that specific feedback necessarily improves work; the evidence does not warrant that guarantee. An instruction can be clear without being actionable, particularly when a discrepancy stems from equipment, conflicting procedures or insufficient resources. Managers must therefore distinguish what the person can correct from what requires an organisational decision. (our executive and employee training programmes)

What the evidence cannot promise

The meta-analysis brings together heterogeneous interventions and tasks; it does not validate a universal feedback formula for teams in Sion. Nor does the educational review provide direct evidence for hydropower, healthcare, viticulture or Alpine tourism. Finally, measuring satisfaction after a conversation does not establish that subsequent work is performed better.

A practical check in Sion

To put these findings to work within the “Management de proximité” programme, a team in Sion could test feedback structured around the observed fact, the expected standard and the agreed correction for two weeks. Depending on the activity, the standard could concern a hydropower maintenance handover, a clinical handover, a vineyard traceability record or a visitor reception instruction, without replacing mandatory procedures. The indicator would be the proportion of agreed corrections actually observed at the next comparable opportunity, among those verifiable during the period, supported by a dated record without sensitive personal data. Comparing this result with an initial period of the same length, while recording changes in workload and resources, would provide a local reference point rather than causal proof. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.

In pictures: Frontline Management in Sion

• frontline management
• Sion
• research
• training sion