What is feedback? As ever with "corporate" words, there are many possible definitions.
That's why I'm proposing that we define a very strict framework for this word, to make sure we're always talking about the same thing.
Performance feedback is not a sign of recognition. Performance feedback should be seen as a purely technical and functional element, enabling groups to assess the quality of their performance. To avoid confusion with signs of recognition, which are social feedbacks, when we talk about feedback, we always mean performance-related feedback.
As we've already discussed with Eric Berne's Strokes, signs of recognition play a very important social role in people's sense of belonging. They deal with affects and emotions, feelings, beliefs and values.
They also serve to nourish the relationship through feedback. This is why they are often included in the concept of feedback. In this case, it's social feedback.
They can also be used to soften negative performance feedback. In fact, it can be more effective and empathetic to announce a poor result while assuring the recipient that this will in no way hinder his or her social relationship with the group.
However, it is essential to make a clear and unambiguous distinction between performance feedback, whose purpose is to inform about a level of performance, and the sign of recognition (or social feedback), whose purpose is to deal with the human relationship. It's the ambiguity between these two notions that cause misunderstandings and crises, and even more so, that can be used for emotional manipulation.
In the context of systemic motivation, the term feedback is exclusively associated with the quality of performance information.
(Performance-related) feedback satisfies the three-F rule:
Feedback must be factual, i.e. based on proven facts that are as measurable as possible. It must leave no room for doubt or interpretation.
In reality, this is almost impossible, but the ambition is to get as close as possible. We must always ensure that the person receiving the feedback understands and validates the context in which it is given. So it's a good idea to make sure.
Feedback must be reliable (foolproof). This may sound absurd, but it's often the reason why its validity is questioned. Not only must it be based on tried-and-tested measurement tools. But also, and this is often where the problem lies, it must be provided by someone who has the expertise. A manager who provides feedback in an area of expertise he or she has not mastered loses credibility, and therefore the value of the information.
It is important that the person receiving the feedback validates the reliability of the source.
There is nothing to prevent the use of monitoring tools to provide reliable feedback.
These software systems will count, measure, collect and aggregate a large number of data related to a set of activities. If the software is correctly configured, the results provided will be perfectly reliable.
Feedback must be frequent. This makes a big difference to motivation.
The frequency of feedback is a driving force in maintaining motivation. And its absence is a brake.
Let's take an example from outside the world of work: the comparison between motivation to lose weight and motivation to stop smoking.
In the first case, the first results are very slow in coming. The scales will only show positive signs after several days, or even weeks. This makes it difficult to maintain the diet.
In the second case, certain symptoms of smoking disappear rapidly. Breathlessness returns after just a few days, and even if nicotine cravings persist, the positive effects can partly compensate for this. It's only after a long week that the positive effects normalize, and sensations of improvement fade. This is when it becomes difficult to resist. The absence of feedback makes the effort unbearable, and motivation disappears.
The frequency of feedback can also lead to a form of addiction. Take video games, for example. The results of our interventions are displayed directly. We can redirect our actions to improve our performance. In this case, it's the over-frequency of feedback that creates a kind of mental abandonment in the game, an addiction to performance, a Flow.
The choice of frequency is therefore an important factor in the quality of feedback.