Feedback: should everything be corrected in the same conversation?
Within SHR — Swiss Human Resources' programme « L'art du feedback », one question deserves separate consideration: when a piece of work has several shortcomings, should they all be addressed in the same conversation? The issue is not how to make criticism more comfortable, but what the employee will actually be able to use.
What the literature establishes
John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish, among other things, feedback about the task, the processes used and self-regulation. Their review shows that these levels serve different functions: identifying an incorrect answer is not the same as explaining how to revise an approach. It therefore provides no basis for treating every observation as an equivalent correction to add to a list.
The cost of processing information
In her review of formative feedback, Valerie J. Shute (2008, Review of Educational Research) highlights the importance of specific, clear information whose complexity remains appropriate for the learner. An additional comment is useful only if its recipient can understand it and integrate it into the work at hand. The relevant mechanism is therefore not simply receiving a message, but processing it with limited attentional resources.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that every conversation should be limited to a single correction; these studies do not establish such a universal rule. Related shortcomings may require a shared explanation, while a safety-related omission cannot be deferred merely to simplify the discussion. The useful distinction is between making shortcomings visible and requiring them all to be corrected simultaneously. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot specify
Both reviews primarily concern learning; they are not a comparative trial of managerial feedback conversations in Valais businesses. They provide neither an optimal number of comments nor a guarantee that shorter feedback will be better. In practice, counting the points discussed without checking implementation confuses coverage of the issues with learning.
A practical check in Sion
In Sion and the regional hydropower, healthcare, winegrowing and Alpine tourism sectors, an exercise in the « L'art du feedback » programme could focus on recurring tasks with no immediate safety implications. During a four-week pilot, record all observed shortcomings, agree with the employee on one priority correction and specify the observable criterion expected on the next comparable task. Then measure the proportion of priority corrections actually implemented, reporting the number of cases observed and monitoring whether other shortcomings recur. This check tests the usability of feedback without, on its own, demonstrating that less densely packed feedback is superior. To go further: explore the The Art of Feedback training in Sion in the canton of Valais, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: The Art of Feedback in Sion
- the art of feedback
- Sion
- research
- training sion