An Objective Review of The Effectiveness and Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback in Organizational Settings 1985 1998
An Objective Review of The Effectiveness and Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback in Organizational Settings 1985 1998
An Objective Review of The Effectiveness and Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback in Organizational Settings 1985 1998
To cite this article: Alicia M. Alvero , Barbara R. Bucklin & John Austin (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,
DOI: 10.1300/J075v21n01_02
Download by: [Nova Southeastern University] Date: 04 March 2017, At: 15:35
REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE
(Prue & Fairbank, 1981), (b) information transmitted back to the re-
sponder following a particular performance (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer,
1991), (c) information that tells performers what and how well they
are doing (Rummler & Brache, 1995), and (d) information about
performance that allows an individual to adjust his or her performance
(Daniels, 1994).
Just as there is no consensus for the exact definition of the term
‘‘feedback,’’ there is no agreement about the behavioral function(s) of
feedback. Some have argued that feedback is an antecedent (Daniels,
1994); others suggest that it functions as a reinforcer (Komaki et al.,
1978); and still others contend that it may serve multiple functions:
‘‘Feedback may function as a reinforcer or punisher; and/or may serve
a discriminative function’’ (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991, p. 590). It
might also act as an establishing operation, or engender rule-governed
behavior (Agnew, 1998; Agnew & Redmon, 1992).
The lack of uniformity concerning this popular and effective inter-
vention has led some researchers to advise caution when using the
term. Peterson (1982) advised, ‘‘Much ambiguity would be eliminated
if behavior analysts no longer used the term ‘feedback.’ It is not a new
principle of behavior and does not refer to a specific procedure; it at
best has simply become professional slang’’ (p. 102). In 1985, Balca-
zar, Hopkins, and Suarez conducted a review of the performance
feedback literature and found that feedback does not uniformly im-
prove performance. This finding should be of no surprise because the
function(s) of feedback has not yet been scientifically tested. If we do
not know what function(s) feedback serves, how can we determine
when and how to utilize it for maximal results?
Despite these concerns and the paucity of scientific research regard-
ing the behavioral function(s) of feedback, it continues to be widely
used in the field of OBM. Therefore, it is important to track the uses of
performance feedback in applied settings in order to determine:
(a) what changes, if any, have been made regarding its implementation
(e.g., combinations, characteristics), and (b) what steps have been
taken to improve the consistency of its effects.
The main purpose of the performance feedback literature review
conducted by Balcazar et al. (1985) was to determine what feedback
combinations and characteristics were most commonly used and
which were associated with the highest levels of consistent effects.
Their review of four premier journals, Academy of Management Jour-
6 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
METHOD
All issues between 1985 and 1998 of the four journals reviewed by
Balcazar et al. (1985), AMJ, JABA, JAP, and JOBM, were reviewed to
identify articles that reported the use of performance feedback as an
intervention in applied studies. ‘‘Applied’’ or ‘‘field’’ experiments
were defined as research that studied the target behavior(s) in its
natural environment. Therefore, analog and laboratory studies were
excluded from further review. All field studies were further investi-
gated if the word ‘‘feedback’’ was used in the abstract or any part of
the method section. In keeping with this criterion, articles that reported
the effects of ‘‘information on task performance’’ (e.g., Meyer &
Review and Discussion Article 7
INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT
DATA COLLECTION
Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***
Alavosius & Sulzer- 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. a verbal weekly FB & BC
Azaroff (1996) Supervisor written
Allison et al. (1992) 1 Unknown Effects Manager Private Indiv. a written daily FB Alone
graph weekly
2 Unknown Effects Expert Private Indiv. a written daily FB & BC
graph weekly
Anderson et al. 1 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a verbal & graph weekly FB Alone
(1988a) 2 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a graph weekly FB & GS
3 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. a graph weekly FB, GS & BC
Anderson et al. 1 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a graph daily Ant. & FB
(1988b) Private
Arco (1997) 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB, GS & BC
written
2 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB & BC
Austin et al. (1996) 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv.& h verbal daily FB, GS & BC
Group graph weekly
2 Consistent Supervisor Public Indiv. & e verbal daily FB, GS & BC
Private Group graph
Babcock et al. 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. & g verbal weekly FB & GS
(1992) Group written
graph
2 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. & j verbal weekly FB & GS
Group written
graph
Brown & Sulzer- 1 Consistent Researcher Public Indiv. & f graph weekly FB Alone
Azaroff (1994) Private Group
Buller & Bell 1 No Effects Supervisor Private Indiv. & k written weekly FB & GS
(1986) Group graph
9
10
TABLE 1 (continued)
Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***
Johnson & Masotti 1 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. & f verbal daily FB, GS & BC
(1990) Group graph weekly
Johnson (1985) 1 Consistent Customer Private Indiv. k written less than every FB & BC
graph other month
Jones et al. (1985) 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group b graph weekly Ant. & FB
Karan & Kopelman 1 Mixed Mechanical device Public Group b written monthly FB Alone
(1986)
Kortick & O’Brien 1 Mixed Did not report Public Group l written daily FB & BC
(1996) weekly
monthly
LaFleur & Hyten 1 Consistent Researcher Public Group e graph daily Ant., FB, GS &
(1995) Supervisor BC
Langeland et al. 1 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. c verbal weekly FB, GS & BC
(1998)
Nordstrom et al. 1 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a verbal daily FB, GS & BC
(1988) graph
2 Consistent Manager Public Indiv. a graph 3 ’s a week FB, GS & BC
3 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. d written weekly FB, GS & BC
4 Mixed Manager Public Indiv. d graph weekly FB, GS & BC
Parsons & Reid 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB Alone
(1995) (after ea. session)
Parsons et al. 1 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal weekly Ant., FB & BC
(1987) monthly
2 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c written weekly Ant., FB & BC
monthly
3 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. c written weekly Ant., FB & BC
monthly
Petty et al. 1 Mixed Manager Public Group e written quarterly FB & BC
(1992)
Porterfield et al. 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Indiv. c verbal 2 x’s a day FB Alone
(1985) Private graph
2 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB Alone
Authors Appl.* Consistency Source Privacy Participants Content** Medium Frequency Combinations***
Pritchard et al. 1 Consistent Researcher & Public Group i written & graph monthly FB Alone
(1988) Supervisor
2 Consistent Researcher & Public Group i written & graph monthly FB & GS
Supervisor
3 Consistent Researcher & Public Group i written & graph monthly FB, GS & BC
Supervisor
Ralis & O’Brien 1 Consistent Researcher Public Indiv. a verbal weekly Ant., FB & BC
(1986) Private graph
Richman et al. 1 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal 2 ’s a day FB Alone
1988 Self-generated written
Siero et al. 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group b written weekly Ant. & FB
(1989)
Sulzer-Azarof f 1 Consistent Supervisor Public Group e verbal weekly FB, GS & BC
et al. (1990) graph
Welsh et al. 1 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB & BC
(1993a)
Welsh et al. 1 Mixed Supervisor Private Indiv. c verbal did not report FB & BC
(1993b)
Wilk & Redmon 1 Consistent Supervisor Private Indiv. d verbal 2 ’s a day FB & GS
(1990) graph daily
Wilk & Redmon 1 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. d verbal 2 ’s a day FB, GS & BC
(1998)
2 Consistent Manager Private Indiv. c verbal 2 ’s a day FB, GS & BC
graph
Wilson et al. 1 Mixed Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal daily FB Alone
(1997) Supervisor written
Wittkopp et al. 1 Consistent Researcher Private Indiv. c verbal daily Ant. & FB
(1990) Supervisor mechanical weekly
11
*** Feedback Combinations: Ant.: Antecedent; BC: Behavioral Consequences; FB: Feedback; GS: Goal Setting
12 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
Feedback Combinations
Feedback Alone
Feedback Frequency
Feedback Participants
Feedback Privacy
Feedback Content
Category
Content dimension a b c d e f g h i j k l
Individual performance x x x x x x x x
Group performance x x x x x x
RESULTS
Content
Table 3 summarizes the distribution of feedback applications accord-
ing to content and effectiveness. Unknown effects were observed in
four feedback applications. These four applications were excluded from
further review. Consistent effects were observed in 58% of the total
number (64) of feedback applications reviewed, mixed effects occurred
in 41% of the applications, and no effects were observed in only 1% of
the feedback applications. In the previous review, Balcazar et al. (1985)
identified consistent effects in 41% of the articles reviewed, mixed
effects in 49% and no effects in 10% of the articles.
Review and Discussion Article 17
Feedback Effectiveness
Total: 68
Balcazar et al. (1985) found that the most frequently used procedure
was feedback alone. This continues to be the trend. The present review
found that feedback alone was used in 29% of the feedback applica-
tions. Despite its popularity, this procedure did not result in the most
consistent effects (47%). Applications that combined the use of ante-
cedents (excluding goals) and feedback produced the highest levels of
consistent effects (100%). The highest levels of mixed effects were
observed in applications that implemented a combination of feedback
and goal setting (57%) and feedback alone (53%). Using feedback in
combination with any other procedure(s) produced much higher levels
of consistent effects than using feedback alone, with the exception of
feedback and goal setting. Feedback and goal setting produced (a) the
lowest level of consistent effects (29%) and (b) the only application
that was categorized as having no effects.
FEEDBACK CHARACTERISTICS
Feedback Effectiveness
SOURCE
37 26 1 64
MEDIUM
37 26 1 64
FREQUENCY
37 26 1 64
PARTICIPANTS
37 26 1 64
PRIVACY
37 26 1 64
Review and Discussion Article 19
Feedback Effectiveness
CONTENT
37 26 1 64
Source
Medium
The use of graphs with written feedback and graphs with verbal
feedback resulted in the highest levels of consistent effects (86% and
75% respectively), but the most commonly used medium of feedback
delivery was written feedback alone (17/64 or 27% of feedback ap-
plications). The latter finding differs from the results found by Balca-
zar et al. (1985); they reported graphical feedback as the most com-
monly used feedback medium (used in 32% of the applications in their
20 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
DISCUSSION
The most significant difference between the previous review of the
performance feedback literature (Balcazar et al., 1985) and the present
review was the number of feedback articles and feedback applications
identified. Balcazar et al. (1985) reviewed eleven years of journal
publications and found 69 articles that used feedback as an interven-
tion and 126 feedback applications. The authors of the present article
reviewed 14 years of the same four journals and were only able to
identify 43 articles and 68 feedback applications.
Logically, some combination of two things occurred: (1) fewer
feedback articles were published and/or (2) the use of the term ‘‘feed-
back’’ decreased. The majority of the performance feedback articles
that were included in the previous and present review were found in
JOBM, which has significantly decreased its number publications.
Between 1977 and 1986, JOBM averaged 20 publications a year, but
the mean decreased to 12 publications a year between 1987 and 1997
(Nolan et al., 1999). As previously mentioned, there were a number of
articles that implemented feedback as an independent variable or as a
component of an intervention, but did not label the procedure as feed-
back (e.g., Baron, 1990; LaMere, Dickinson, Henry, Henry, & Poling,
1996; Meyer & Gellatly, 1988). It is plausible that behavior analysts
have been more cautious when using the term ‘‘feedback’’ as a result
of published concerns, such as Peterson’s (1982), regarding the use of
‘‘feedback’’ to represent procedures that can be explained by operant
principles. Future research could perhaps confirm and better deter-
mine why this reduction occurred.
22 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
Combination Feedback alone FB & consqs (52%) Feedback alone Feedback &
FB & GS (53%) antecedents (100%)
Group (71%)
Content Individual Individual & Individual Group & stnd.
performance standard Individual & group (75%)
individual (100%) standard Individual. &
individual stnd. indiv. (75%)
Daily (71%)
Frequency Daily (42%) Monthly (80%)
Daily Weekly (41%) Weekly Daily & weekly
(80%)
24 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
NOTE
1. Whereas Balcazar et al. (1985) used the term ‘‘mechanism’’ to refer to the man-
ner in which the feedback was presented, we use the term to refer to an understanding
of the underlying behavioral principles (e.g., Normand, Bucklin, & Austin, 1999).
Therefore, throughout the manuscript we substituted the term ‘‘medium’’ for ‘‘mech-
anism.’’
REFERENCES
Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in organizational behavior manage-
ment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18, 7-19.
Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of
‘‘rules’’ in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Be-
havior Management, 12, 67-76.
Alavosius, M. P., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1986). The effects of performance feedback
on the safety of client lifting and transfer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
19, 261-267.
Allison, D. B., Silverstein, J. M., & Galante, V. (1992). Relative effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness of cooperative, competitive, and independent monetary incen-
tive systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13, 85-112.
Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Domen, M., & Howard, G. S. (1988). Performance
posting, goal setting and activity-contingent praise as applied to a university
hockey team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 87-95.
Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Hantula, D. A., & Siroky, L. M. (1988). Task
clarification, and individual performance posting for improving cleaning in a
26 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT