Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frequent Feedback in Modern Organizations: Panacea or Fad?

  • Chapter
Feedback at Work

Abstract

Frequent feedback has garnered a lot of attention in organizations today. Also referred to as continuous, ongoing, informal, and real-time, frequent feedback is often suggested as a remedy for issues in performance management. Given the popularity of the frequent feedback trend in organizations, and in the interest of promoting evidence-based practices, a close look at the research and academic literature on this topic is critical. In this chapter, we seek to bring practice and research together by exploring how frequent feedback is described in practice and reflecting on the research findings. We reviewed the literature and summarized the noteworthy results and trends. In our review of the literature, we noticed that the operationalization of frequent feedback varies substantially across studies and that the way frequent feedback has been operationalized in the past may not entirely reflect the modern notion of frequent feedback that is à la mode today. Implications are discussed and future directions are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alavosius, M. P., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1990). Acquisition and maintenance of health-care routines as a function of feedback density. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(2), 151–162.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985-1998). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, C. G., & Murphy, K. R. (1985). Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance appraisal. Personnel Psychology, 38(2), 335–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birt, M. (2017, April 26). Why General Electric moved away from traditional HR review practices. Retrieved from https://business.financialpost.com/executive/why-general-electric-moved-away-from-traditional-hr-review-practices

  • Boswell, W. R., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000). Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: The role of perceived appraisal use. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(3), 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretz Jr., R. D., Milkovich, G. T., & Read, W. (1992). The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: Concerns, directions, and implications. Journal of Management, 18(2), 321–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cappelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016). The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 94(10), 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casas-Arce, P., Lourenço, S. M., & Martínez-Jerez, F. A. (2017). The performance effect of feedback frequency and detail: Evidence from a field experiment in customer satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 55(5), 1051–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhokar, J. S., & Wallin, J. A. (1984). A field study of the effect of feedback frequency on performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, L. (2015). Accenture CEO explains why he’s overhauling performance reviews. The Washington Post, July 23. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/23/accenture-ceo-explains-the-reasons-why-hes-overhauling-performance-reviews/

  • Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal characteristics. Journal of Management, 16(3), 619–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, E. M., & McShane, S. L. (1988). Employee perceptions of performance appraisal fairness in two organizations. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 20(2), 177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedor, D. B., Eder, R. W., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). The contributory effects of supervisor intentions on subordinate feedback responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(3), 396–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, A. S., Frantz, N. B., Levy, P. E., & Hilliard, A. W. (2014). The supervisor feedback environment is empowering, but not all the time: Feedback orientation as a critical moderator. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 487–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaby, S. H. (2004). Summarizing and measuring participants’ perceptions related to performance appraisal effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Roch, S. G., Ray, J. L., & Gamble, J. S. (2017). An exploratory study of current performance management practices: Human resource executives’ perspectives. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(2), 193–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985). Assessing the feedback environment in work organizations: Development of the job feedback survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. (2011). Technology is transforming the nature of performance management. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 188–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inderriden, E. J., Allen, R. E., & Keavey, T. J. (2004). Managerial discretion in the use of self-ratings in an appraisal system: The antecedents and consequences. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(4), 460–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, K., Oah, S., & Dickinson, A. M. (2005). The relative effects of different frequencies of feedback on work performance: A simulation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(4), 21–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., Wu, B. J., & McKee-Ryan, F. M. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees' response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1057.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. J., & Snell, S. A. (1994). The impact of interview process and context on performance appraisal interview effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6, 160–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaas, B. (2011). The interactive role of performance appraisal reactions and regular feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(2), 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., & Dysvik, A. (2017). Constructive supervisor feedback is not sufficient: Immediacy and frequency is essential. Human Resource Management, 56(3), 519–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, C. F., DeRue, D. S., Karam, E. P., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2011). The impact of feedback frequency on learning and task performance: Challenging the “more is better” assumption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 217–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. (1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(6), 751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechermeier, J., & Fassnacht, M. (2018). How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 145–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ledford, G. E., Benson, G., & Lawler, E. E. (2016). Aligning research and the current practice of performance management. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(2), 253–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leivo, A. K. (2001). A field study of the effects of gradually terminated public feedback on housekeeping performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(6), 1184–1203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. E., Tseng, S. T., Rosen, C. C., & Lueke, S. B. (2017). Performance management: A marriage between practice and science–just say “I do”. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 155–213). Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lurie, N. H., & Swaminathan, J. M. (2009). Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 315–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1993). Effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on error detection accuracy in a quality control simulation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13(1), 49–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pampino Jr., R. N., MacDonald, J. E., Mullin, J. E., & Wilder, D. A. (2004). Weekly feedback vs. daily feedback: An application in retail. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2-3), 21–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichler, S., Beenen, G., & Wood, S. (2018). Feedback frequency and appraisal reactions: A meta-analytic test of moderators. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitkänen, H., & Lukka, K. (2011). Three dimensions of formal and informal feedback in management accounting. Management Accounting Research, 22(2), 125–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is performance management broken? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 146–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, A., & Purang, P. (2011). Employee perceptions of performance appraisals: A comparative study on Indian banks. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3), 632–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • So, Y., Lee, K., & Oah, S. (2013). Relative effects of daily feedback and weekly feedback on customer service behavior at a gas station. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33(2), 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, L. A., & Wolfeld, L. (2018). The manager as coach: The role of feedback orientation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 41–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H., & Otto, L. (2000). Perception of performance appraisal by employees and supervisors: Self-serving bias and procedural justice. Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 29(4), 307–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. L., Deadrick, D. L., Lukaszewski, K. M., & Johnson, R. (2015). The influence of technology on the future of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 216–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villanova, P., Bernardin, H. J., Dahmus, S. A., & Sims, R. L. (1993). Rater leniency and performance appraisal discomfort. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 789–799.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

    Steven T. Tseng, Paul E. Levy, Sue Hua Aw Young, Ryan K. Thibodeau & Xiyang Zhang

Authors
  1. Steven T. Tseng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul E. Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sue Hua Aw Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ryan K. Thibodeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiyang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven T. Tseng .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA

    Lisa A. Steelman

  2. Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Jane R. Williams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Tseng, S.T., Levy, P.E., Aw Young, S.H., Thibodeau, R.K., Zhang, X. (2019). Frequent Feedback in Modern Organizations: Panacea or Fad?. In: Steelman, L.A., Williams, J.R. (eds) Feedback at Work. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30915-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation