Corrective feedback: when leaders divert attention away from the work

In SHR — Swiss Human Resources’ “Leadership d’excellence” programme, feedback deserves to be approached as an intervention in work rather than simply a communication skill. The managerial question is precise: how can a deviation be corrected without shifting attention from the task to judgements about the person?

What the literature establishes

Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi (1996, Psychological Bulletin) show in a meta-analysis that feedback interventions improve performance on average, but can also undermine it. Their theory proposes a mechanism: feedback becomes less effective when attention moves away from the task and towards concerns about the self. More emphatic feedback is therefore not necessarily more useful feedback.

The goal gives feedback a reference point

Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham (2002, American Psychologist) synthesise research on goal setting and emphasise the role of feedback in assessing progress towards a goal. Feedback becomes actionable when it helps someone assess a result against an understood target, under conditions that include ability and commitment. For managers, this suggests specifying the deviation and a possible action rather than repeating a general demand for excellence.

The premature conclusion

One might conclude that every personal judgement should simply be replaced with a technical instruction. That would overlook the possibility that a deviation stems from equipment, an ambiguous instruction or a production trade-off rather than individual behaviour. Focusing feedback on the task does not mean automatically making the operator responsible for correcting the problem. (our executive and employee training programmes)

What the evidence cannot promise

The meta-analysis brings together heterogeneous tasks and contexts; it does not provide a validated script for a watch manufacturer or a microelectronics workshop. Nor does the goal-setting review constitute an evaluation of the “Leadership d’excellence” programme. These studies support a practical hypothesis to test, not a promise that a particular wording will reduce defects.

A practical check in Neuchâtel

In a Neuchâtel team working in microtechnology, watchmaking or precision microelectronics, an exercise associated with the programme could involve documenting corrective feedback on the same type of deviation over four weeks. For each instance, record the expected criterion, the observable deviation and the agreed next action with the person responsible for it, then calculate the proportion of feedback instances containing all three elements. Separately tracking recurrence of the same defect relative to the number of parts inspected, while noting process changes, would help distinguish the quality of feedback formulation from the industrial outcome. Without a controlled comparison, simultaneous improvements would remain useful indications, not proof of causality. To go further: explore the Executive Leadership training in Neuchâtel in the canton of Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.

In pictures: Executive Leadership in Neuchâtel

• executive leadership
• Neuchâtel
• research
• training neuchâtel