In Sion, does more specific feedback improve work?
Feedback features prominently in recommendations for team managers, yet its purpose is not always made explicit. For the “Management de proximité” programme offered by SHR — Swiss Human Resources, the useful question is specific: does feedback focused on a task and its next correction help more than a general appraisal of the employee?
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 theoretical framework highlights the role of attention: feedback that shifts attention away from the task towards self-evaluation can become counterproductive. Providing feedback is therefore not, in itself, an effective intervention.
The mechanism: making correction possible
John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish between feedback about the task, processes, self-regulation and the person. Their review, which addresses learning in educational settings, encourages clarification of the intended outcome, the observed gap and the next steps. For a manager, this suggests replacing “be more thorough” with a documented discrepancy and a feasible action, without treating this application as evidence established in the workplace.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that making every piece of feedback more detailed is enough to improve work. Yet specific feedback remains of little use if the employee lacks the time, resources or opportunity to act on it. The aim is not to provide more commentary, but to make a relevant change understandable and achievable. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
The meta-analysis brings together heterogeneous tasks and interventions; it does not provide a validated recipe for every occupation. Nor does the educational review establish that the same format would produce identical effects in a hydropower plant, a healthcare unit or a winery. Finally, observing better execution after feedback is not enough to attribute the change to it: experience, workload and working conditions may also play a part.
A practical check in Sion
As part of the “Management de proximité” programme, a team in Sion could test structured feedback on a recurring task: an intervention report in hydropower, a handover in healthcare, a batch record in viticulture or a shift handover in Alpine tourism. Over a period defined in advance, the manager would record the observable discrepancy, the agreed correction and the compliance criterion, without replacing professional or safety procedures. The measure would be the proportion of comparable tasks meeting that criterion on the next execution, calculated across all tracked tasks and compared with an initial period observed using the same rule. This monitoring would document a local change, not establish causality, while keeping unnecessary personal or clinical information out of the record. 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