The Social Context of Performance Appraisal: A Review and Framework for the Future

BACKGROUND Effective feedback may be defined as feedback in which information about previous performance is used to promote positive and desirable development. This can be challenging as educators must acknowledge the psychosocial needs of the recipient while ensuring that feedback is both honest and accurate. Current feedback models remain reductionist in their approach. They are embedded in the hierarchical, diagnostic endeavours of the health professions. Even when it acknowledges the importance of two-way interactions, feedback often remains an educator-driven, one-way process. LESSONS FROM THE LITERATURE An understanding of the various types of feedback and an ability to actively seek an appropriate approach may support feedback effectiveness. Facilitative rather than directive feedback enhances learning for high achievers. High-achieving recipients undertaking complex tasks may benefit from delayed feedback. It is hypothesised that such learners are supported by reducing interruptions during the task. If we accept that medical students and doctors are high achievers, we can draw on some guiding principles from a complex and rarely conclusive literature. Feedback should focus on the task rather than the individual and should be specific. It should be directly linked to personal goals. Self-assessment as a means to identify personal learning requirements has no theoretical basis. Motivated recipients benefit from challenging facilitated feedback from external sources. A NEW MODEL To achieve truly effective feedback, the health professions must nurture recipient reflection-in-action. This builds on self-monitoring informed by external feedback. An integrated approach must be developed to support a feedback culture. Early training and experience such as peer feedback may over time support the required cultural change. Opportunities to provide feedback must not be missed, including those to impart potentially powerful feedback from high-stakes assessments. Feedback must be conceptualised as a supported sequential process rather than a series of unrelated events. Only this sustained approach will maximise any effect.

State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback.

We review evidence showing that multisource feedback ratings are related to other measures of leadership effectiveness and that different rater sources conceptualize performance in a similar manner. We then describe a meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal studies showing that improvement in direct report, peer, and supervisor ratings over time is generally small. We present a theoretical framework and review empirical evidence suggesting performance improvement should be more likely for some feedback recipients than others. Specifically, improvement is most likely to occur when feedback indicates that change is necessary, recipients have a positive feedback orientation, perceive a need to change their behavior, react positively to the feedback, believe change is feasible, set appropriate goals to regulate their behavior, and take actions that lead to skill and performance improvement. It has been nearly 10 years since London and Smither (1995) evaluated the state of multisource feedback practice and offered theory-based propositions for understanding how people process and use the feedback. This article assesses progress in the field, especially focusing on the extent to which feedback recipients improve their performance after receiving multisource feedback. We argue that practitioners should not expect large, widespread performance improvement after employees receive multisource feedback. Instead, we present a theoretical model that suggests some feedback recipients should be more likely to improve than others. First, we review empirical evidence concerning the validity of multisource feedback. This is important because it would make little sense to focus

/pdf/does-performance-improve-following-multisource-feedback-a-3ixqbc4qd3.pdf

Does performance improve following multisource feedback? a theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings

Whereas coaching is very popular as a management tool, research on coaching effectiveness is lagging behind. Moreover, the studies on coaching that are currently available have focused on a large variety of processes and outcome measures and generally lack a firm theoretical foundation. With the meta-analysis presented in this article, we aim to shed light on the effectiveness of coaching within an organizational context. We address the question whether coaching has an effect on five both theoretically and practically relevant individual-level outcome categories: performance/skills, well-being, coping, work attitudes, and goal-directed self-regulation. The results show that coaching has significant positive effects on all outcomes with effect sizes ranging from g = 0.43 (coping) to g = 0.74 (goal-directed self-regulation). These findings indicate that coaching is, overall, an effective intervention in organizations.

/pdf/does-coaching-work-a-meta-analysis-on-the-effects-of-43s866pq9q.pdf

Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context

Executive Coaching: A Review and Agenda for Future Research:

This study examined the effects of executive coaching on multisource feedback over time. Participants were 1,361 senior managers who received multisource feedback; 404 of these senior managers worked with an executive coach (EC) to review their feedback and set goals. One year later, 1,202 senior managers (88% of the original sample) received multisource feedback from another survey. Managers who worked with an EC were more likely than other managers to set specific (rather than vague) goals (d= .16) and to solicit ideas for improvement from their supervisors (d= .36). Managers who worked with an EC improved more than other managers in terms of direct report and supervisor ratings, however, the effect size (d= .17) was small.

Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? a quasi-experimental field study

This paper hypothesized that ratees who share their multisource feedback with raters and ask for suggestions would improve more than other ratees. The participants were 5,335 ratees in a large, global corporation who received multisource feedback. Nine months after the initial survey, there was a follow‐up survey in which raters indicated whether the feedback recipient had shared the feedback and asked for suggestions. One year after the initial survey, there was a second multisource feedback survey. It was found that sharing feedback and asking for suggestions accounted for only a very small (albeit statistically significant) proportion of variance in improvement over time. This paper discusses factors that may affect the impact of sharing feedback and asking for suggestions following multisource feedback.

Raymond Flautt

Papers

Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? a quasi-experimental field study

Discussing multisource feedback with raters and performance improvement