The Art of Feedback training in Lausanne · canton of VaudFeedback: why some comments improve performance and others degrade it
Giving feedback has become a mandatory managerial reflex. But research asks: are all remarks equal?
A counter-intuitive result
Avraham Kluger and Angelo DeNisi (1996, Psychological Bulletin) synthesised decades of experiments on feedback interventions: in about one third of cases, feedback reduced performance instead of improving it. The effect depends on what the remark directs attention to.
The explanatory mechanism
In their theory, feedback works when it addresses the task and the gaps to close; it becomes counterproductive when it shifts attention to the person — trait judgements, social comparisons, flattery or global criticism. The ego then absorbs resources the task should have received.
The limits
Many synthesised experiments are old and laboratory-based, often with simple tasks. Transposing them to complex professional situations, where the manager–employee relationship matters as much as the message, requires caution. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What follows for management
The question is not “should we give feedback?” but “what does it focus on?”. A useful remark describes an observable behaviour and the gap with an expectation, without labelling the person. Task-centred formulations can be trained and checked.
A practical implication, verifiable in Lausanne
Before a review, write the remark in one sentence starting with a behaviour (“in Tuesday's meeting, you…”) rather than a trait (“you are someone who…”). Reviewing your own formulations over a month shows the share of person-centred feedback. It is an exercise we practise with Lausanne managers. To go further: explore the The Art of Feedback training in Lausanne in the canton of Vaud, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: The Art of Feedback in Lausanne
- the art of feedback
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne