Feedback: do the same words describe the same standard?
In a feedback conversation, “independent”, “solid” or “promising” appear to summarise an observation of someone's work. The more precise management question is: how can we check that these words refer to the same expectations when a manager assesses different people?
What the literature establishes
Monica Biernat and Melvin Manis (1994, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) show that judgements expressed on subjective scales can depend on standards associated with group stereotypes. An apparently identical appraisal therefore does not guarantee an equivalent assessment on a common measure. For feedback, this suggests a point of caution: the adjective alone does not reveal the level of work actually being recognised.
The criterion can also change after observation
Eric Luis Uhlmann and Geoffrey L. Cohen (2005, Psychological Science) demonstrate, in selection experiments, a redefinition of merit that favours a candidate on the basis of gender. Evaluators can adjust the importance of qualifications to suit the profile they wish to select; in their experiments, committing to criteria in advance prevented this bias. The mechanism concerns selection here, but raises a relevant question for feedback: was the expectation defined before this person's work was examined?
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that standardised vocabulary is enough to make feedback comparable. Yet the same terms can conceal different standards, while an assessment framework still leaves discretion in selecting and weighting observations. The aim is not to impose identical expectations across every occupation, but to maintain stable criteria for comparable responsibilities and situations. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings do not establish
These studies do not directly test a feedback training programme in Swiss businesses. They neither establish how frequent these biases are in Sion nor warrant a promise that an assessment framework will eliminate them from feedback conversations. A difference in appraisal may also reflect a genuine difference in responsibilities or working conditions: it should be documented rather than immediately interpreted as discrimination.
A practical check in Sion
As part of SHR — Swiss Human Resources' “L'art du feedback” programme, a team in Sion could choose a recurring situation: an operational handover in hydropower, a shift handover in healthcare, a cellar instruction in wine production or safety information in Alpine tourism. Before the next round of feedback, it would define the observable behaviours corresponding to an appraisal such as “independent”, at a given level of responsibility. The measure would be the proportion of feedback statements using this appraisal that cite an observable fact and explicitly connect it to the agreed criterion, with anonymised wording retained for internal verification. This ratio would measure the traceability of the judgement, not the absence of bias; discrepancies would provide material for a calibration exercise between managers. 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