In Berne, does corrective feedback always improve work?
Line managers regularly need to address work that falls short of expectations without turning every correction into a personal judgement. The useful question is specific: does task-focused feedback reduce recurring errors more effectively than a general assessment 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 theory proposes an attentional mechanism: feedback becomes less beneficial when attention shifts away from the task and towards the self. Providing more feedback is therefore not, in itself, a policy for improving work.
Information that enables correction
John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish between feedback focused on the task, processes, self-regulation and the individual. Their review, situated in education, highlights the value of information that clarifies the intended outcome, the observed gap and the next steps. For a manager, this suggests describing what needs to change in a procedure rather than making a general judgement about an employee.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that every personal assessment simply needs to be replaced with a technical instruction. That would overlook the possibility that a discrepancy results from conflicting instructions, an unsuitable tool or insufficient resources rather than a flawed individual approach. Precise feedback is useful only if the requested correction is understandable and feasible. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of the evidence and of common practice
These publications do not constitute a comparative trial involving team managers in Berne: the meta-analysis brings together varied settings, while the second review concerns learning in education. They do not justify promising that a particular wording will have the same effect in federal administration, public health, telecommunications and precision manufacturing. In practice, counting feedback conversations or recording satisfaction afterwards is not enough to establish that work has improved.
A practical check in Berne
Within SHR's « Management de proximité » programme, one possible application in Berne is to test structured feedback on a single type of discrepancy: a missing document in an administrative file, an incomplete field in a public health record, an inadequately documented telecommunications ticket or an incomplete inspection sheet in precision manufacturing. Over a period defined in advance, the manager states the observable fact, the required standard and the agreed correction, without personal labels. The measure is the proportion of comparable work items showing the same discrepancy again, calculated before and during the trial by dividing the affected cases by the total number of items checked. Keeping the inspection rule unchanged, recording changes in workload or procedures and using aggregated data makes the local check easier to interpret, without turning a before-and-after comparison into causal proof. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Bern in the canton of Bern, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Bern
- frontline management
- Bern
- research
- training bern