Corrective feedback: discussing the work rather than judging the person
In Zurich’s financial services, insurance, tech and European headquarters of international groups, managers regularly need to request corrections without undermining cooperation. The management question is specific: how can feedback help someone change their work rather than defend their competence?
What the literature establishes
Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi (1996, Psychological Bulletin) show in their meta-analysis that feedback interventions improve performance on average, but can also impair it. Their theory proposes, in particular, that effectiveness decreases when attention shifts away from the task and towards the self. More frequent or more forceful feedback is therefore no guarantee of improvement in itself.
The level at which the message operates
John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish feedback about the task, the process, self-regulation and the person. Their review, situated in educational learning, highlights the value of information that helps learners understand the gap to a goal and how to move forward. For a manager, this suggests distinguishing “this analysis does not document its assumptions” from “you lack rigour”: the two formulations offer different opportunities to act on the work.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that replacing personal judgements with factual observations is enough. That would overlook the fact that an accurate observation does not necessarily specify the expected standard or how to meet it. Focusing feedback on the work is not about softening every criticism, but about making the gap open to discussion and the correction feasible. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
The meta-analysis brings together varied tasks and interventions; the review of learning does not constitute direct validation in Zurich companies. These studies therefore do not establish that a standard wording would work across all hierarchical relationships or language environments. Nor do they justify treating polite acceptance of feedback as evidence that it has actually been used.
A practical check in Zurich
As part of SHR’s “Communication” programme, a Zurich team can test a feedback framework for four weeks on comparable deliverables: an observable gap, the expected standard and an agreed next action. For each instance of feedback, the team records the criterion and checks whether the corresponding correction appears in the next version, without retaining sensitive client data in the record. The indicator is the proportion of expected corrections actually completed, compared with an initial period of the same length. This tracks the use of feedback rather than merely its reception, without being sufficient to attribute any improvement to the framework. To go further: explore the Communication training in Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Communication in Zurich
- communication
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich