In Neuchâtel, how can managers correct a task without shifting attention to the person?
In Neuchâtel’s microtechnology, watchmaking and precision microelectronics activities, pointing out a deviation does not necessarily make it possible to correct it. For SHR — Swiss Human Resources’ « Management de proximité » programme, the question is specific: how can managers frame feedback that helps people adjust their work rather than defend their self-image?
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 impair it. Their theory proposes, in particular, that effectiveness declines when feedback shifts attention away from the task towards self-related concerns. Giving more feedback is therefore not, on its own, a sound principle for improvement.
The mechanism: making adjustment possible
John Hattie and Helen Timperley (2007, Review of Educational Research) distinguish feedback about the task, the process, self-regulation and the person. Their review, which focuses on education, highlights the value of information that clarifies the intended outcome, the current position and the next step. Applied cautiously to management, this distinction suggests replacing “you lack rigour” with a description of the deviation and the check to perform.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that every comment simply needs to become more technical. That would overlook the fact that a precisely described deviation does not necessarily provide the means to correct it: contradictory instructions, unsuitable equipment or skills still being developed may remain the underlying issue. Managers therefore need to check what prevents adjustment rather than treating every non-conformity as an individual failing. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings cannot guarantee
The meta-analysis brings together heterogeneous tasks and settings; the second review concerns learning in educational settings. These studies do not demonstrate that a particular wording will reduce defects in a Neuchâtel workshop. They offer a working hypothesis, not a reason to replace quality procedures or bypass traceability requirements.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
In a Neuchâtel workshop, an exercise linked to the « Management de proximité » programme could involve recording corrective feedback about the same operation for two weeks, without changing quality procedures. For each instance, record whether the feedback specifies an observable deviation, an expected criterion and a verification action, without judging personality. Calculate the proportion of feedback instances containing all three elements, then record whether the same deviation recurs at the next inspection, expressing cases relative to the number of operations inspected. Comparing these indicators with a documented baseline period would help verify a change in practice and explore its association with quality, without automatically attributing it to feedback alone. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Neuchâtel in the canton of Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Neuchâtel
- frontline management
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel