Managerial feedback: correcting the work without judging the person
Feedback is often presented as a manager's duty; its usefulness is less often checked. For the “Leadership d'excellence” programme at SHR — Swiss Human Resources, the question deserves greater precision: how can feedback help someone correct a task rather than defend their self-image?
What the literature establishes
In a meta-analysis, Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi (1996, Psychological Bulletin) show that feedback interventions improve performance on average, but can also impair it. Their theory proposes an explanatory mechanism: the effect depends partly on the level towards which feedback shifts attention, from the task to concerns about the self. Feedback frequency alone therefore cannot establish its value.
Useful information is not a general judgement
John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish feedback about the task, processes, self-regulation and the person. Their review, grounded in educational learning, highlights the value of information that clarifies the goal, the current gap and the next steps. For a manager, this distinction suggests replacing “be more thorough” with an indication of the unmet criterion and the check to perform.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that specific feedback is always effective, or that all personal encouragement should be eliminated. These studies justify neither universal rule: feedback must still be understandable, relevant and usable in the situation. Recognising a contribution and providing corrective information are different functions, which a friendly phrase does not automatically combine. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
The meta-analysis brings together varied tasks and interventions; it does not validate a single script for managerial conversations. Nor does the educational review demonstrate that a practice transferred to the workplace will produce the same effects. Counting exchanges or measuring immediate satisfaction therefore leaves the essential question unanswered: is the next piece of work actually done better?
A practical check in Lausanne
In Lausanne, an exercise within the “Leadership d'excellence” programme could focus on a recurring deliverable: a medtech validation file, a project handover at a higher education institution, an event file in international sport or a product release at a scale-up in the Lake Geneva region. During an initial two-week period and a second period of equal length, record the proportion of deliverables requiring another correction against a predefined criterion, keeping the scope and assessment rule unchanged. During the second period, structure each piece of feedback around the expected criterion, the observable gap and the next check, then compare the proportions while retaining the underlying counts and correction records. This local test would not prove causality, but would establish whether the change in practice coincides with fewer repeated corrections, rather than simply more conversations. To go further: explore the Executive Leadership training in Lausanne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Executive Leadership in Lausanne
- executive leadership
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne