Our text
transmits an understanding that constructive feedback is directly linked to
positive affects regarding goals and performance. However, this was a broad
stroke of the brush and further research suggests that feedback can have
negative effects both on the individual and team levels. The incongruent nature
between these conflicting ideas is representative of the many variables involved
such as goal obtainability, nature of the task, cooperation involved, specific
versus general feedback, and the manner in which feedback is delivered.
In the
article Four keys to goals and
performance, a simple four-step process to effective goal setting for
business associations was outlined. The authors broke these steps down into an
understanding of business context, alignment of business objectives, effective
measures that include feedback loops, and links to rewards (Kapel, Shepherd,
2004, p. 18). The feedback loops offer an opportunity to energize the
individual throughout and after the task in order to maintain a high degree of
productivity and superior performance. This supports the information presented
by (Brown, 2011, p. 321) whereas “feedback on individual performance has
positive effects on performance.”
In
association with individual performance, as outlined in Creating Performance Goals That Matter, the author presents a
powerful statement, "Establishing meaningful, substantive goals is
reflective of personal character and the determination to consistently prove
and increase your value" (Adamson, 2012). Therefore, individuals with
high determination for success are likely to prosper from feedback loops that
highlight either positive or negative performance. Yet, individuals with low
motivation and lack determination may conversely suffer from negative feedback,
or feedback delivered in a non-constructive nature. This could perpetuate the
downward spiral of the individual’s performance.
Brown
(2011) suggested contentions reside in the amount of feedback desired by
employees respective to generational differences. I would support argument but
further stress that there are many variable involved and this simple stereotype
is too broad. The feedback loops in present day with the advancements in
technology allow individuals to make more valid personal assessments today vice
50 years ago. The information individuals desired is now rapidly available
rather than through lengthy assessments or management reviews. Since many
organizational processes have been automated, we can further define individual
success and failures about goal attainment individually, rather than from
managerial feedback. The prescribed feedback required from a superior is simply
outdated in some respects.
On a
separate note, respective of goal setting in teams, Nahrgang et al. highlights
that combined research by Chen et al. (2009); DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt,
Milner, & Wiechmann (2004); Weingart (1992) has found that goal setting,
effort allocation and regulation, and particular feedback processes are similar
at both the individual level and team level. However, recent studies prove otherwise
(Nahrgang et al., 2013, p. 19). This recent study contrast several variables
about team goal setting. First, team members must all agree and support the
objective goals equally. Second, the goals and rewards from goal obtainment
much equally benefit team members. Lastly, particular to the feedback loops,
the feedback must be tailor to both the collective team and individually within
the team. Simply providing general feedback to the team is less productive and
does not improve team performance. There is a lack of accountability for
individual performance from the team’s performance. Teams need to incorporate
this aspect of accountability within performance reviews.
In The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and
Performance Feedback on Information Giving findings concluded that
individuals who received positive performance feedback gave less modified
information about their task performance. Additional finding represent that
individuals focused on mastery goals led to a stronger reciprocity orientation
and a weaker exploitation orientation. Further, mastery goal individuals
provided information of higher quality than performance goal individuals (Poortvliet,
et al., 2009, pp. 197-198).
On an
individual and organizational level I aim is to provide meaningful feedback to
my team through our after action review. This feedback process is tailored to
each team as I work with several individuals, many have varying personalities,
and all receive feedback in different ways. Some people you can lay out
objective facts and allow them to make their own conclusions while others you
have to connect the dots in order for them to reach a meaningful conclusion of
events. Regardless, after every objective (goal), we conclude with an after
action review. I use this feedback loop to also receive critiques about myself,
asking how I can better provide support or information to my team for future
objectives. This allows me to grow within my leadership style and learn more
ways to adapt to individuals.
My performance is usually improved
when I have specific goals and receive feedback. As due most, I too enjoy the
praise and accolades associate with meeting those goals by there suspense. I
even enjoy constructive motivational or supportive guidance if I come up short.
Regarding negative feedback, if I am able to gain something from the event, I still
tailor that as a win. It is counter productive and frustrating when one only
hears from their superiors when it’s negative against a failed goal or
suspense. Feedback has to support both positive and negative events and
supportive measures to improve a negative performance period.
Although,
one drawback that stems from too specific of goals is the loss of latitude or
freedom to accomplish tasks and goals. If goals are drawn too specific it
invites superiors to micromanage. This can be avoided if expectations are
founded during the goal development stage and effective measures are discussed
ahead of the performance period. Overall, I personally find constructive feedback
beneficial as it allows me to modify my performance to obtain objective goals.
References
Adamson, M. T. (2012). Creating performance goals that
matter. School Administrator, 69(11), 10. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/1272088338?accountid=27203
Brown, D. R. (2011). Goal Setting for Effective
Organizations. In An experiential approach to organization development
(8th ed., pp. 319-337). Boston: Prentice Hall.
Kapel, C., & Shepherd, C. (2004). Four keys to goals and
performance. Canadian HR Reporter, 17(4), 18-19. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/220819749?accountid=27203
Nahrgang, J. D., DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R.,
Spitzmuller, M., Jundt, D. K., & Ilgen, D. R.
(2013). Goal setting in teams: The impact of learning and performance goals on
process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 122(1), 12-21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.008
Poortvliet, P., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & de
Vliert, E. (2009). The Joint Impact of Achievement Goals and Performance
Feedback on Information Giving. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 31(3),
197-209. doi:10.1080/01973530903058276
No comments:
Post a Comment