In Fribourg, should feedback be spoken or written?
A manager can comment on the same work in a conversation, an email or a quality form, without creating the same opportunities for dialogue. The management question is precise: when does feedback require discussion, and what should be recorded afterwards?
What the literature establishes
Daniel Ilgen, Cynthia Fisher and Susan Taylor (1979, Journal of Applied Psychology) review the processes through which feedback can influence behaviour at work. They distinguish, among other things, the perception of the message, its acceptance and the willingness to respond: transmitting information is therefore not enough to make it actionable. Their analysis does not identify a universally superior medium.
The mechanism: resolving ambiguity, not just transmitting information
Richard Daft and Robert Lengel (1986, Management Science) distinguish a lack of information from the existence of competing interpretations. Their theoretical framework suggests that exchanges allowing immediate adjustments are particularly suited to equivocal situations. Applied to feedback, this reasoning distinguishes a factual correction that can be documented from a disagreement about what constitutes satisfactory work.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that sensitive feedback should always be delivered orally. That would turn an analytical framework into an absolute prescription: a conversation can leave different interpretations unresolved, while a written message can make a criterion available for scrutiny. A combination therefore deserves testing: discuss what is open to interpretation, then record the point agreed. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of the evidence and of routine practice
These two articles do not constitute a trial comparing spoken and written feedback protocols in Fribourg businesses. Nor do they allow an effect to be attributed solely to the medium when it might stem from the content, the hierarchical relationship or language proficiency. Counting the written summaries sent measures traceability, not shared understanding.
A practical check in Fribourg
As part of SHR's « L'art du feedback » programme, an agri-food team, a bilingual industrial workshop or a service within Fribourg's university sector could test the same check over a period defined in advance. After each feedback exchange involving an ambiguous criterion, the manager and recipient would separately record the expected change and the criterion for observing it, in their working language. Before discussing their answers, they would compare the statements and calculate the proportion of cases in which they agree on both elements, distinguishing between the media used. This local indicator would not establish the causal superiority of one medium, but would help check whether a discussion followed by a written record still leaves disagreements undetected. To go further: explore the The Art of Feedback training in Fribourg in the canton of Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: The Art of Feedback in Fribourg
- the art of feedback
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg