The future of feedback: Motivating performance improvement through future-focused feedback

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 19;15(6):e0234444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234444. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Managerial feedback discussions often fail to produce the desired performance improvements. Three studies shed light on why performance feedback fails and how it can be made more effective. In Study 1, managers described recent performance feedback experiences in their work settings. In Studies 2 and 3, pairs of managers role-played a performance review meeting. In all studies, recipients of mixed and negative feedback doubted the accuracy of the feedback and the providers' qualifications to give it. Disagreement regarding past performance was greater following the feedback discussion than before, due to feedback recipients' increased self-protective and self-enhancing attributions. Managers were motivated to improve to the extent they perceived the feedback conversation to be focused on future actions rather than on past performance. Our findings have implications for the theory and practice of performance management.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Administrative Personnel / organization & administration*
  • Administrative Personnel / psychology
  • Administrative Personnel / statistics & numerical data
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Feedback, Psychological*
  • Female
  • Forecasting
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Models, Organizational
  • Models, Psychological
  • Motivation*
  • Personnel Management / methods*
  • Personnel Management / statistics & numerical data
  • Quality Improvement
  • Surveys and Questionnaires / statistics & numerical data
  • Workplace / organization & administration*
  • Workplace / psychology
  • Workplace / statistics & numerical data
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

This research received funding from the Melbourne Business School while the first three authors were either visiting (JG, JK) or permanent (IOW) faculty there. While working on this research, the first two authors (JG, JK) also worked as owners and employees of management consulting firm Humanly Possible. Humanly Possible provided support in the form of salaries and profit-sharing compensation for authors JG and JK, but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the “author contributions” section.