View source for Blog:Docmoates/what-good-feedback-actually-looks-like

The organizational feedback literature has settled on a set of consistent findings: feedback is valuable in principle, most feedback in practice is poorly delivered, and the gap between the two produces significant costs, in employee development, in performance management, and in the trust relationships that make organizations function.

The specific failures are welldocumented. Feedback is too infrequent (the annual review model concentrates what should be continuous information into a single highstakes event). It is too vague (&quot;you need to communicate better&quot; tells the recipient nothing actionable). It is too focused on person rather than behavior (&quot;you're disorganized&quot; versus &quot;the last three project plans were missing the timeline and resource sections&quot;). And it is frequently contaminated by bias, the same behavior described differently depending on the demographics of the person exhibiting it.

<span id="what-works-instead"></span>
== What works instead ==

Specific, behavioral, timely feedback is the consistent recommendation of the research. Specific: it names exactly what was observed. Behavioral: it describes observable actions, not inferred characteristics. Timely: it comes close enough to the event that both parties remember it clearly and can connect the feedback to specific choices.

Separating developmental feedback from evaluative feedback is also supported. When the recipient knows they're being evaluated, they're less able to engage with developmental feedback as information. Formal evaluation processes and informal coaching conversations serve different functions and are more useful when not conflated.

----
''Originally published August 16, 2017 on [https://docmoates.com/blog/what-good-feedback-actually-looks-like/ docmoates.com].''