Jacobs 1 Evan Jacobs CAS 450W: Group Communication Theory and Research Final Paper Delivering Effective Feedback In order to effectively work in group situations one should be keenly aware of interaction and communication between group members. All communication has consequences, either positive or negative, that can affect the performance of a group. As a result, communication in groups serves many purposes, it allows members to organize, share ideas and build cohesion. In addition, communication allows group members to provide feedback to each other. Giving feedback is important because when it is delivered effectively it can enhance an individual’s or group’s performance; however, when feedback is not effective it can be detrimental to performance. In the area of Interpersonal and Group Communication, researchers have long been interested in the effect feedback has on a group member’s performance. Researchers have identified certain characteristics (source, message and recipient) that must be considered in order to deliver effective feedback. When the source considers these characteristics before giving feedback, he or she will have a better possibility to influence that group member, and, hence, improving the group member’s performance. The purpose of this paper is to review the relevant scholarly literature that points to this conclusion, to analyze it, and to suggest what limitations one should consider in accepting this generalization. In order to study feedback, one must have a basic understanding of what feedback is and the purpose it serves within a group. As Haslett and Ogilvie state (2001) “feedback is the response listeners give to others about their behavior” (p. 97). Feedback

Jacobs 2 can be seen in almost all group interactions and is essential to enhance performance. If group members did not provide feedback to each other then it would be difficult for individual’s to improve performance or change the direction of their task. Larson (1984) states, “Feedback serves both to keep its members’ behavior directed toward desired goals and to stimulate and maintain high levels of effort” (p. 42). In addition, it satisfies an individual’s need for information about the extent to which his or her goals are met. Individual’s like to have affirmation about the job they are doing, especially when it is positive. Feedback, can act as a motivating tool for leaders when they have positive comments. However, negative feedback is also necessary, but more difficult to deliver effectively. Studying feedback is important because it can provide insight into how individuals can use feedback, both positive and negative, to improve their group’s performance. Many efforts have been made to study all different aspects of feedback. The difficulty in this area of research is in the way feedback can be observed and later analyzed objectively. Feedback is not something that can be observed under a microscope or quantified completely objectively. The study of feedback can only be successful through observation and breaking it up into individual elements. Researchers have analyzed feedback in many different ways all of which shed light on how to effectively deliver a message. Some of this research has come from studies based in controlled environments while other research has been based on observations from actual task groups, both providing important information to the literature on feedback processes. It is important to study this literature for its practical applications. As a leader myself, I feel much can be learned from this research and then applied to the work groups we

Jacobs 3 participate in everyday. As I examine the literature on elements of effective feedback, I will try to expand on the literature to show its practicality in operational task groups. Before looking at how feedback is delivered, it is important to consider factors that influence feedback. Haslett and Ogilvie (2001) label these factors as source, message and recipient characteristics. Awareness of these there characteristics will allow an individual to be more effective in delivering his or her message. Source characteristics deal with who is delivering the message. How the receiver perceives the person giving the feedback is just as important as the message itself. Haslett and Ogilvie (2001) mention that trustworthiness, power and status of the source and communicator style are three variables that influence how the receiver will perceive the source and, hence, the feedback. Trustworthiness entails believability. If a receiver feels that the source is credible and trustworthy they are more likely to be receptive to the feedback. The basic idea being if “you trust the feedback, you assume the motives and intentions of the source are fair” (p. 101). The second variable, power and status, refers to the position held by the source. When giving feedback you should consider what is your status relative to the receiver? The way in which you deliver your message should be different based on whether or not you are relatively superior, equal or inferior in status or power. Davies and Jacobs (1985) observed that “feedback from group leaders was rated more acceptable than feedback from other group members” (p. 388). Receivers are more likely to be receptive to sources that are superior or are considered experts. However, this is not to say that if you are not in a superior role you cannot deliver effective feedback, yet this factor is important to consider because it might change the style in which you deliver your

Jacobs 4 message. Style is the third variable referred to by Haslett and Ogilvie (2001) and deals with “the manner in which feedback is given” (p. 101). If a source is more assertive or dynamic in his or her style they might be able to overcome impediments such as status. And vise versa, a source with higher status can lose effectiveness if their style seems timid or not confident. After considering the source, it is then important to look at the recipient. Haslett and Ogilvie (2001) mention that one should consider the recipient’s mind set and his or her personal qualities when delivering feedback. Mind-set has a lot to do with the mood of the recipient at the time of feedback. If the recipient is having a bad day they might not be as receptive to feedback. It is important to keep this in mind when choosing the time to deliver your feedback. In addition, personal qualities factor into how feedback should be delivered and how the message should be formulated. Varca and Levy (1984) identify two types of individuals, repressors and sensitizers and discuss how they cope with feedback. They predict that repressors cope with unfavorable information with traditional defensive behaviors, such as task derogation and reduced affect for the group. These behaviors distance oneself from the situation and can be viewed as minimizing the severity of self-esteem threat. Sensitizers on the other hand, should cope with the same threat by amplifying or approaching it. For example, where repressors deny the task as valid and reduce attraction to the group, sensitizers should accept the task and increase attraction. (p. 102) What does this mean for formulating feedback? Think about the recipient and whether he or she is a repressor or sensitizer. If they are a repressor, it would be more effective to direct unfavorable information towards the group; on the other hand, sensitizers would be more receptive to negative feedback directed specifically at them.

Jacobs 5 The final characteristic mentioned by Haslett and Ogilvie (2001) is the message itself. The four variables they mention are content, timing, channel and message valence (p. 102). The content of a message can either contain “referent” or “appraisal” information. Another important factor of content, not mentioned by the authors, is relevance. Lucas (1965) states that “more effective performance tended to be associated with high relevant feedback” (p. 267). This means that the more relevant the feedback is the more likely the recipient is to respond to the message. When formulating feedback it is important not to deviate from your message; therefore, decreasing the relevance of the feedback. In addition, specificity is extremely important. Ilgen, Mitchell and Fredrickson (1981) state, “more specific feedback should be better accepted, more useful in guiding future responses and less easily denied than general feedback” (p. 389). The second variable mentioned by Ogilvie and Haslett (2001) is timing. It is important not to delay the delivery of feedback. They state, “effective feedback is more effective when closer in time to the occurrence” (p. 102). Next, the authors discuss the channel of the feedback. It is important to consider what will be the most effective medium for giving feedback. Verbal feedback is seen to be the most rich and timely making it more useful for solving problems (p. 102). The final characteristic that must be considered is the message valence. Valence refers to whether a message is positive or negative. Much research has been completed specifically in regards to this subject. The reason for this being that feedback is received much differently depending on its valence. In group situations it is important to give both positive and negative feedback; however, it is essential that both types are given effectively. Davies and Jacobs (1985) discuss a concept known as the “credibility gap.” The idea being that positive feedback is

Jacobs 6 seen as more believable than negative feedback. It is clear that “delivering positive evaluations to others has beneficial consequences” (p. 387); however, it is just as important that negative evaluations also have beneficial consequences and, hence, close the credibility gap. In order to close this gap Davies and Jacobs suggest “sandwiching” negative comments between positive comments. Their research has shown that this is the most effective way to deliver negative comments and still have receivers be amenable to the feedback. Haslett and Ogilvie’s (2001) research provides an excellent review of factors that influence feedback. The results of their research have many practical implications which are necessary to consider anytime you are formulating feedback. James Larson (1984) took a different approach to studying variables that influence feedback. He categorized influences under three different variables: cognitive, affective and situational. Cognitive variables are “informational factors that are likely to influence the delivery of performance feedback by affecting supervisors’ perceptions of judgments about their subordinates and their subordinates’ task performance” (p. 45). Larson mentions that salience is an important variable that fits within this category. He states, “task performance is salient, either because it stands out from the norm (e.g. exceptionally good or exceptionally poor performance out in the field), or because it hold special significance for the supervisor” (p. 45). The more salient the task is the more likely feedback will be given to workers on that task. Larson also points out that below average performance might be more salient than above average performance; therefore, be more susceptible to feedback.

Jacobs 7 It is important to be able to recognize these cognitive variables because it can lead to giving more effective feedback over the long run. For example, if you are giving feedback and take the time to recognize salient tasks you can also recognize tasks that are not as salient, but still deserve feedback. It is just as important to give feedback for above average performance as it is for below average performance and can sometimes aid in delivering negative feedback (Davies and Jacobs (1985) sandwiching concept). Recognizing high and low salient tasks and providing equal feedback on both can increase your credibility and trustworthiness within a group because group members will see that you are more objective with your feedback and are taking notice of everything, positive and negative, that is happening in the group. The second influence mentioned by Larson (1984) is affective variables. This type of variable involves the affective relationship between the supervisor and his/her subordinate (p. 50). The idea behind affective variables is that supervisors or superiors are concerned with their personal relationships with subordinates; as a result they might be reluctant to convey negative feedback when it directly concerns individuals. In this case, the source might be too concerned with the recipient’s feelings, diminishing the effectiveness of his or her feedback. Larson mentions that concerns over affective relationships can decrease the probability feedback will be given at all, it can delay the delivery of feedback (this deals with timing concerns discussed earlier) or it can lead to distortions of feedback (p. 51). Clearly all three of these outcomes would have negative affects on group performance. Therefore, when delivering feedback it is important to analyze your relationship with the recipient and decide if this is affecting how you deliver

Jacobs 8 your message. It is a difficult task to balance relationships while still being able to deliver an affective message; however, being aware of this limitation will be helpful. The final influence Larson (1984) mentions is situational variables. This group of variables “has to do with the characteristics of the situation in which the subordinate’s performance occurs” (p. 52). Situational variables include the degree to which the supervisor is dependent on his or her subordinates and task and outcome dependence. Both of these variables influence a source’s behavior when deciding to deliver feedback. “High dependence on subordinates leads to an increase in informal feedback” (p. 53). The reason being that the supervisor feels more involved because the subordinate’s performance reflects on the supervisor. In a study completed by Ilgen, Mitchell and Fredrickson (1981), they came to similar conclusions. They found “there was a clear trend for supervisors who believed their own rewards were dependent upon their subordinates’ performance to respond more positively toward the subordinates who performed poorly” (p. 405). A final influence within situational variables is normative pressures. Norms and roles within a group or community can influence a supervisor’s behavior. Being aware of situational variables can lead to giving more effective feedback because in many ways it makes a source aware of motivations and constraints for giving feedback. Once again, this awareness can lead to an increase credibility and trustworthiness (discussed earlier) because the receiver will see that you have thoroughly thought out your message and can provide information to improve performance both for the individual and the group because the two are linked together.

Jacobs 9 After reviewing the literature on feedback processes I have noticed that there is a wealth of resources discussing feedback and how it affects the source, recipient and group performance. Some of the research is more theoretical than others, for example Larson’s (1984) performance model is much more difficult to understand than Davies and Jacobs (1985) sandwiching theory; however, all of the literature provides a solid foundation for understanding how to deliver effective feedback. Nevertheless, one way in which I feel the researchers fail, is to point out the practical implications of their work. By drawing from the literature on effective feedback one can see why this research is pertinent to group communication. Feedback directly affects group performance. Poorly delivered feedback can decrease performance while effective feedback encompassing the ideas discussed in this paper can lead to an increase in a group’s and/or an individual’s performance. To review, when formulating feedback to deliver an effective message it is, first, important to consider the source, recipient and the message. Being aware of these three variables and adjusting your feedback accordingly will create a more receptive environment for receivers, thereby increasing their likelihood to react positively towards your feedback. Second, make sure to thoroughly consider the valence of your message. There are different strategies to effectively delivering your message depending on whether it is positive or negative. Finally, be aware of why and how you are delivering feedback. What cognitive, affective or situational variables have affected your decision? Take into consideration that these variables will add to the credibility of the source and the effectiveness of your message.

Jacobs 10 Considering all of these factors simply to deliver feedback, that many times comes naturally in dialogue, might seem like a lot of effort; however, when one does take the time to reflect on these characteristics before giving feedback, he or she will have a better possibility to influence an individual group member and the group, and, hence improve individual and group performance.

Jacobs 11

References Davies, D., & Jacobs, A. (1985). “Sandwiching” complex interpersonal feedback. Small Group Behavior, 16, 387-396. Haslett, B. B., & Ogilvie, J.R. (1996). Feedback processes in task groups. In R. Y. Hirokawa, R. S. Cathcart, L. A. Samovar, & L. D. Henman (Eds.), Small group communication theory & practice: An anthology (8th ed., pp. 97-108). Los Angeles: Roxbury. Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Frederickson, J. W. (1981). Poor performers: Supervisors and subordinate responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 386-410. Larson, J. R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42-76. Lucas, C. (1965). Task performance and group structure as a function of personality and feedback. Journal of Social Psychology, 66, 257-270. Varca, P. E., & Levy, J. C. (1984). Individual differences in response to unfavorable group feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 100-111.