Feedback: what performance indicators leave out in Basel

In Basel's pharmaceutical, life sciences, Rhine logistics and international R&D activities, results also depend on work that is difficult to count: communicating uncertainty, documenting an exception or helping another team. How can managers discuss measured results without implying that only measured work counts?

What the literature establishes

Steven Kerr (1975, Academy of Management Journal) examines contradictions between the behaviours organisations say they want and those they actually reward. Drawing on organisational examples rather than an experiment on feedback, his article shows why the criteria that receive recognition deserve as much attention as stated intentions. For feedback, it offers an analytical lens: commenting exclusively on throughput or deadlines risks leaving other necessary contributions out of view.

The mechanism: attention concentrated on the target

Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky and Max H. Bazerman (2009, Academy of Management Perspectives) examine potential adverse effects of excessive goal prescription, including a narrowing of attention at the expense of aspects outside the target. Their article is a critical analysis of the literature, not a trial directly measuring the effect of a feedback conversation. It nevertheless suggests a relevant mechanism: when managerial comments focus solely on the same indicators, they may reinforce a selective view of what deserves attention.

The premature conclusion

One might conclude that indicators should be abandoned, or that every dimension of work must be discussed in every conversation. These articles justify neither prescription: an indicator remains useful for examining a defined result without, on its own, providing a complete account of someone's contribution. The important distinction is between explicitly saying “this result has been achieved” and “the work as a whole is satisfactory”. (our executive and employee training programmes)

The limits of the evidence and of everyday feedback

These two articles do not allow us to quantify the effect of broader feedback on quality, safety or cooperation in a Basel organisation. Conversely, adding a general comment about “team spirit” does not solve the problem: without an observable fact, it replaces a partial view with a judgement that is difficult to verify. Contributions outside the indicators therefore need to be described through documented situations, without turning every instance of helping into a new numerical target.

A practical check in Basel

As part of SHR's “L'art du feedback” programme, a Basel team could test a template for four weeks that pairs each result discussed with a question: “What useful contribution does this indicator leave out?” Depending on the activity, the answer might concern a documented handover in pharmaceuticals or life sciences, an exception flagged in Rhine logistics, or uncertainty made explicit across international R&D sites. The measure would be the proportion of reviewed conversations containing at least one contribution outside the indicator supported by a verifiable work record, without copying sensitive data into the tracking document. This proportion would check whether the conversations had actually broadened in scope, not whether performance had improved, which would require a separate evaluation. To go further: explore the The Art of Feedback training in Basel in the canton of Basel-Stadt, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.

In pictures: The Art of Feedback in Basel

• the art of feedback
• Basel
• research
• training basel