Effective Feedback-must Read

7/28/2019 Effective Feedback-must Read

1/28

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION ARTICLE

An Objective Review of the Effectivenessand Essential Characteristics

of Performance Feedbackin Organizational Settings

(1985-1998)

Alicia M. AlveroBarbara R. Bucklin

John Austin

ABSTRACT. Performance feedback has been used successfully toincrease performance in a variety of organizational settings for over 20years. The main objective of the present review was to update thefeedback literature review conducted by Balcazar, Hopkins, and Suarezin 1985. The current review identified 68 applications of feedback from43 studies in applied organizational settings. Each application was cate-

Alicia M. Alvero is a doctoral student in the Psychology Department, Western

Michigan University. Barbara R. Bucklin and John Austin are both affiliated withWestern Michigan University.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: John Austin,

Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI 49008(E-mail: [email protected]).

Portions of this paper were presented at the Association for Behavior Analysis26th annual convention in Washington, D.C., May 2000.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Vol. 21(1) 2001E 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 3


2/28

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT4

gorized by: feedback effectiveness, combinations of other interventionswith feedback, and essential characteristics of feedback. The results ofour review support some findings of the previous review: (a) feedbackdoes not uniformly improve performance, and (b) the addition of otherprocedures tends to improve the consistency of feedback effects. Ourreview also suggests that more useful and practical information wouldcome from assessing the functional mechanisms of feedback. The im-plications of these findings and suggestions for future research are

discussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth DocumentDelivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: Website: E2001 by The Haworth Press,

Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Performance feedback, objective review, effects of feed-back characteristics, feedback only, feedback with other intervention com-ponents, characteristics of feedback effects

The delivery of feedback to change performance can be traced backto some of the landmark studies in organizational behavior manage-ment (OBM) (e.g., Komaki, Barwick, & Scott, 1978; Sulzer-Azaroff,

1978). Performance feedback continues to be used to successfullychange performance in a variety of organizational settings (e.g., for auniversity hockey team: Anderson, Crowell, Domen, & Howard,1988; in the electric utility industry: Petty, Singleton, & Connell,1992; for bank tellers: Crowell, Anderson, Abel, & Sergio, 1988; in atextile factory: Welsh, Luthans, & Sommer, 1993; for hotel banquetstaff: LaFleur & Hyten, 1995; and for nursing home staff: Hawkins,Burgio, Lanford, & Engel, 1992). In a review of the first ten years ofthe Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), Balca-zar, Shupert, Daniels, Mawhinney, and Hopkins (1989) found thatsome form of performance feedback was used in fifty percent of thearticles, and Nolan, Jarema, and Austin (1999) found the trend to

continue (i.e., in 71% of studies) over the past 10 years. The successand popularity of this traditional intervention are not disputed, but theuse of the term, its exact meaning, and the behavioral principles re-sponsible for its effectiveness continue to cause much discussion(Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985; Ford, 1980; Peterson, 1982).

Performance feedback has been defined a number of different ways.Some of these definitions include: (a) information that is given topersons regarding the quantity or quality of their past performance


3/28

Review and Discussion Article 5

(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 theyare doing (Rummler & Brache, 1995), and (d) information aboutperformance 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) offeedback. 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 servea discriminative function (Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991, p. 590). Itmight also act as an establishing operation, or engender rule-governedbehavior (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 theterm. Peterson (1982) advised, Much ambiguity would be eliminatedif 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 atbest has simply become professional slang (p. 102). In 1985, Balca-zar, Hopkins, and Suarez conducted a review of the performancefeedback literature and found that feedback does not uniformly im-prove performance. This finding should be of no surprise because thefunction(s) of feedback has not yet been scientifically tested. If we donot know what function(s) feedback serves, how can we determinewhen 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 widelyused in the field of OBM. Therefore, it is important to track the uses ofperformance 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 beentaken to improve the consistency of its effects.

The main purpose of the performance feedback literature reviewconducted by Balcazar et al. (1985) was to determine what feedbackcombinations and characteristics were most commonly used andwhich were associated with the highest levels of consistent effects.Their review of four premier journals, Academy of Management Jour-


4/28


nal (AMJ), Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), Journal ofApplied Psychology (JAP), and Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement (JOBM), over eleven years (1974-1984) yielded 69 ar-ticles that reported the use of performance feedback in applied set-tings. Some of these articles used feedback in several interventionsand/or experiments, therefore, a total of 126 applications of feedbackwere identified for review. The results of this widely recognized re-

view indicated that: (1) adding rewards and/or goal setting proce-dures to feedback improves the consistency of its effects, and (2) somecharacteristics of feedback are more consistently associated with im-proved performance than others (p. 65) (e.g., the use of graphicfeedback; supervisors/managers as the source of feedback delivery).Because performance feedback continues to be used as an interventionin organizational settings, we felt that it was time to update the reviewconducted by Balcazar et al. in 1985.

The present review has several purposes: (a) conduct an objectivereview, similar to the one conducted by Balcazar et al. (1985), of themore recent (1985-1998) performance feedback literature, (b) comparethe results of this review to those of the previous review, (c) make an

attempt to determine the impact, if any, that articles such as Peterson(1982) and Balcazar et al. (1985) have had on the use of performancefeedback, (d) discuss any progress that has been, or should be, madetoward pinpointing the behavioral mechanisms responsible for changein performance when using feedback as an independent variable inorganizational settings, and (e) discuss the benefits and/or implica-tions of these findings for researchers and practitioners.

METHOD

All issues between 1985 and 1998 of the four journals reviewed byBalcazar et al. (1985), AMJ, JABA, JAP, and JOBM, were reviewed to

identify articles that reported the use of performance feedback as anintervention in applied studies. Applied or field experimentswere defined as research that studied the target behavior(s) in itsnatural environment. Therefore, analog and laboratory studies wereexcluded from further review. All field studies were further investi-gated if the word feedback was used in the abstract or any part ofthe method section. In keeping with this criterion, articles that reportedthe effects of information on task performance (e.g., Meyer &


5/28


Gellatly, 1988) or destructive criticism on performance (e.g., Bar-on, 1990), but did not refer to the term feedback, were not includedin this literature review.

These criteria yielded a total of 43 articles. Some of these publica-tions used several interventions involving feedback. For example,Anderson et al. (1988) implemented three interventions that utilizedfeedback to improve the performance of a university hockey team.

The three interventions following baseline were the implementation of(a) feedback alone, (b) feedback plus goal setting, and (c) feedback,goal setting and praise. To be consistent with the methods used byBalcazar et al. (1985), each intervention that used feedback was classi-fied as a separate application of feedback. Therefore, the 43 articlesreviewed yielded 68 applications of feedback. Table 1 lists the 43articles included in this review, the number of feedback applicationsfound in each, and the results of all other variables reviewed.

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT

The first and second authors independently coded every articlepublished in JAP, JOBM, AMJ, and JABA between 1985 and 1998.Each coder selected articles for inclusion in the present review basedon the selection criteria described earlier. The selected articles werethen classified according to the above-described categories. Agree-ment on both the selection of the feedback articles and the criteria forclassifying feedback applications was calculated by dividing the totalnumber of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagree-ments. Agreement on the selection of articles was 93%, and 82% forclassification of feedback applications. The first and second authorsthen discussed all disagreements until they arrived at a unanimousdecision for both the selection and classification of all the articles

reviewed.

DATA COLLECTION

Feedback applications were categorized using methods similar tothose used by Balcazar et al. (1985). Each was classified according toits effectiveness, feedback characteristics, and the feedback combin-


6/28

8

TA

BLE1.ListofAllArticlesIncludedin

ThisReviewandtheResultsforAllVariables

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

Allisonetal.(1992)

1

UnknownEffects

Manager

Private

Indiv.

a

written

daily

FBAlone

graph

weekly

2

UnknownEffects

Expert

Private

Indiv.

a

written

daily

FB&BC

graph

weekly

Andersonetal.

1

Mixed

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

verbal&graph

weekly

FBAlone

(1988a)

2

Mixed

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

graph

weekly

FB&GS

3

Mixed

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

graph

weekly

FB,GS&BC

Andersonetal.

1

Consistent

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

graph

daily

Ant.&FB

(1988b)

Private

Arco(1997)

1

Mixed

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

didnotreport

FB,GS&BC

written

2

Mixed

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

didnotreport

FB&BC

Austinetal.(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

Babcocketal.

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

FBAlone

Azaroff(1994)

Private

Group

Buller&Bell

1

NoEffects

Supervisor

Private

Indiv.&

k

written

weekly

FB&GS

(1986)

Group

graph

Calpinetal.

1

Mixed

Self-generated

Private

Indiv.

a

written

weekly

FBAlone

(1988)

2

Mixed

Self-generated

Private

Indiv.

c

written

weekly

FB&GS


7/28

9

Authors

Appl.*

Consistency

Source

Privacy

Participants

Content**

Medium

Frequency

Combinations***

Crowelletal.

1

Mixed

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

verbal

daily

FBAlone

(1988)

Private

graph

2

Consistent

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

verbal

daily

FB&BC

Private

graph

DeVriesetal.

1

Consistent

Manager

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

bi-weekly

FB&BC

(1991)

written

graph

Doerretal.

1

Mixed

Researcher

Public

Group

b

graph

daily

FB,GS&BC

(1996)

2

Mixed

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

a

verbal

daily

FB,GS&BC

Fox&Sulzer-

1

Consistent

Supervisor

Public

Group

b

written

weekly

FBAlone

Azaroff(1989)

Private

2

Consistent

Expert

Public

Group

b

written

weekly

FBAlone

Private

Gaetanietal.

1

Consistent

Self-generated

Private

Indiv.

a

written

daily

FBAlone

(1985)

2

Consistent

Self-generated

Private

Indiv.

a

written

daily

FB&BC

Godbey&White

1

Consistent

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

a

written

weekly

Ant.,FB&BC

(1992)

2

Consistent

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

a

verbal

weekly

FB&BC

Goltzetal.

1

Consistent

Researcher

Private

Group

b

written

daily

FBAlone

(1989)

graph

weekly

2

Consistent

Researcher

Private

Indiv.&

f

written

daily

FBAlone

Group

graph

weekly

Hawkinsetal.

1

UnknownEffects

Supervisor

Public

Indiv.

d

verbal

bi-weekly

FB&GS

(1992)

Self-generated

Private

graph

2

UnknownEffects

Supervisor

Public

Indiv.

d

verbal

bi-weekly

FB,GS&BC

Self-generated

Private

written

graph

Henry&Redmon

1

Consistent

Manager

Private

Indiv.

c

written

daily

FB&BC

(1990)

Houmanfour&

1

Mixed

Manager

Private

Indiv.

a

written

weekly

FBAlone

Hayes(1998)

2

Mixed

Manager

Private

Indiv.

f

graph

weekly

FBAlone

Public

3

Mixed

Manager

Private

Indiv.

a

written

weekly

FBAlone


8/28

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

lessthanevery

FB&BC

graph

othermonth

Jonesetal.(1985)

1

Consistent

Supervisor

Public

Group

b

graph

weekly

Ant.&FB

Karan&Kopelman

1

Mixed

Mechanicaldevice

Public

Group

b

written

monthly

FBAlone

(1986)

Kortick&OBrien

1

Mixed

Didnotreport

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

Langelandetal.

1

Consistent

Manager

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

weekly

FB,GS&BC

(1998)

Nordstrometal.

1

Consistent

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

verbal

daily

FB,GS&BC

(1988)

graph

2

Consistent

Manager

Public

Indiv.

a

graph

3

saweek

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

didnotreport

FBAlone

(1995)

(afterea.session)

Parsonsetal.

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

Pettyetal.

1

Mixed

Manager

Public

Group

e

written

quarterly

FB&BC

(1992)

Porterfieldetal.

1

Consistent

Supervisor

Public

Indiv.

c

verbal

2xsaday

FBAlone

(1985)

Private

graph

2

Consistent

Supervisor

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

didnotreport

FBAlone


9/28

11

Authors

Appl.*

Consistency

Source

Privacy

Participants

Content**

Medium

Frequency

Combinations***

Pritchardetal.

1

Consistent

Researcher&

Public

Group

i

written&graph

monthly

FBAlone

(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&OBrien

1

Consistent

Researcher

Public

Indiv.

a

verbal

weekly

Ant.,FB&BC

(1986)

Private

graph

Richmanetal.

1

Mixed

Supervisor

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

2

saday

FBAlone

1988

Self-generated

written

Sieroetal.

1

Consistent

Supervisor

Public

Group

b

written

weekly

Ant.&FB

(1989)

Sulzer-Azaroff

1

Consistent

Supervisor

Public

Group

e

verbal

weekly

FB,GS&BC

etal.(1990)

graph

Welshetal.

1

Mixed

Supervisor

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

didnotreport

FB&BC

(1993a)

Welshetal.

1

Mixed

Supervisor

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

didnotreport

FB&BC

(1993b)

Wilk&Redmon

1

Consistent

Supervisor

Private

Indiv.

d

verbal

2

saday

FB&GS

(1990)

graph

daily

Wilk&Redmon

1

Consistent

Manager

Private

Indiv.

d

verbal

2

saday

FB,GS&BC

(1998)

2

Consistent

Manager

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

2

saday

FB,GS&BC

graph

Wilsonetal.

1

Mixed

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

daily

FBAlone

(1997)

Supervisor

written

Wittkoppetal.

1

Consistent

Researcher

Private

Indiv.

c

verbal

daily

Ant.&FB

(1990)

Supervisor

mechanical

weekly

*

Referstothenumber

ofapplicationsidentifiedineacharticle.

**Thesecontentcatego

riescorrespondtothosedescribedinTable2.

***FeedbackCombinatio

ns:Ant.:Antecedent;BC:BehavioralConsequences

;FB:Feedback;GS:GoalSetting


10/28


ation used. The majority of the categorization definitions were thesame as those used in the Balcazar et al. review. The following is a listof definitions for the categorization criteria used in this review.

Consistency of Effects

Four categories of consistency were used, as defined by Balcazar et al.(1985):

Consistent Effects

Feedback was categorized as consistently effective when it uni-formly produced desired mean increases or decreases of performancecompared with mean baseline levels and/or levels produced by anyother independent variable(s). Feedback effects had to be observed inall of the participants, settings, and/or behavior analyzed in order to beclassified as consistent. The feedback in experiments reporting dataaggregated over participants was rated as being consistent when itproduced statistically significant effects for all of the dependent vari-ables or conditions.

Mixed Effects

The effectiveness of feedback was categorized as mixed when itproduced desired mean baseline increases or decreases of performancefor some, but not all, of the participants, settings, and/or behaviorsanalyzed. Studies reporting aggregated data were rated as havingmixed effects when feedback produced statistically significant effectsfor some, but not all, of the dependent variables or conditions.

No Effects

A feedback procedure was classified as having no effects whenmean performance levels during feedback were equal to mean base-line levels and/or when feedback effects were equivalent to the meaneffects observed in a control group.

Unknown Effects

This category was used to classify those studies in which the base-line consisted of two data points or fewer, which would not allow forcomparisons of the effectiveness of the independent variables.


11/28


Feedback Combinations

Feedback was used alone or in combination with any or all of thefollowing: antecedents, goal setting procedures, and behavioral conse-quences.

Feedback Alone

Feedback alone referred to studies in which participants only re-ceived information about the quantity or quality of their performance.

Feedback and Antecedents

This combination was not analyzed by Balcazar et al., but wasidentified in several of the feedback applications included in this re-view. Feedback and antecedents referred to studies in which partici-pants received feedback and some form of antecedent stimuli, exclud-ing goals (e.g., staff training, task analyses given to participants asinformation, job aids, weekly task objectives/assignments, superviso-ry prompts, etc.).

Feedback and Behavioral Consequences

Feedback and behavioral consequences referred to studies in whichparticipants received feedback and, additionally, events such as praise,monetary incentives, and time off work were given following desiredchanges in the target behaviors.

Feedback and Goal Setting

Feedback and goal setting referred to studies in which participantsreceived feedback and, additionally, performance goals were also

introduced. Goals specified a performance outcome or a standard ofindividual or group performance.

Feedback, Antecedents and Behavioral Consequences

Studies that were classified under this category provided anteced-ents (excluding goals), feedback, and behavioral consequences to par-ticipants.


12/28


Feedback,Goal, Setting, and Behavioral Consenquences

Studies that provided feedback, goals and behavioral consequencesto participants were classified under this category.

Feedback, Antecedents, Goals, and Behavioral Consequences

This category was used to classify those studies that provided acombination of feedback, goals, other antecedents and behavioral con-sequences to participants.

Feedback Characteristics

The six characteristics used to classify each feedback applicationare similar to those identified by Balcazar et al. (1985). Minorchanges, as described below, were made to four of the characteristics:source, medium (i.e., mechanism), frequency, and content.

Feedback Source

Feedback source referred to the individual or device that presentedthe information to the performer. Feedback sources were classifiedinto one of the following nine categories: (a) supervisors and/or man-agers; (b) researchers; (c) self-generated feedback (from employeesusing a self-recording procedure); (d) customers; (e) mechanical de-vices; (f) experts (e.g., a fire safety expert delivered feedback to thestaff of an organization as part of fire evacuation training, Fox &Sulzer-Azaroff, 1989); (g) supervisors and researchers; (h) supervisorsand self-generated feedback; and (i) studies that did not report thesource of feedback.

Feedback Medium

Feedback medium (called mechanism by Balcazar et al. 1985)1

described the means used to communicate the feedback information tothe recipients. Eight feedback media were identified: (a) graphs(which display individual and/or group performance); (b) verbal;(c) written; (d) verbal feedback and graphs; (e) verbal and writtenfeedback; (f) verbal and written feedback and graphs; (g) writtenfeedback and graphs; and (h) verbal and mechanical (e.g., videotape)feedback.


13/28


Feedback Frequency

Feedback frequency referred to how often feedback was providedto recipients. Frequency of feedback was classified in eight intervals:(a) daily (one or more times in a period of 24 hours); (b) weekly (anyfrequency less than once per day and at least once per week); (c) monthly(any frequency less than once per week and at least once per month);

(d) quarterly (any frequency less than once a month and at least onceevery four months); (e) daily and weekly; (f) daily, weekly and month-ly; (g) weekly and monthly; and (h) studies that did not report thefrequency.

Feedback Participants

Feedback participants referred to the people whose performancewas described by the feedback. The three types of participants werethe following: (a) individual(s); (b) group(s); and (c) individuals andgroup(s) combined.

Feedback Privacy

Feedback privacy referred to how widely feedback information wasmade available. There were three classifications of privacy: (a) public-ly posted feedback (when feedback information was available not onlyto the performing individual or group, but also to other members of theorganization); (b) private feedback (when feedback information wasprovided only to the performing individual); and (c) a combination ofpublicly posted feedback and private feedback (frequently used toseparate group and individual performance or when some of the infor-mation was kept confidential).

Feedback Content

Feedback content identified the type of information provided to feed-back recipients. Twelve types of content were identified and are listedbelow as categories a through l. These content categories are alsosummarized in Table 2: (a) comparison of an individuals performancewith his/her previous performance; (b) comparison of a groups perfor-mance with its previous performance; (c) comparison of an individualsperformance with a standard (e.g., a goal or a mean of performance) of


14/28


TABLE 2. Distribution of Feedback Content Dimensions According to Category

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

Standard of individual performance x x x

Standard of group performance x x x x x

Previous individual performance x x

Previous group performance x

Different groups performance x x x

individual performance (information regarding previous performancewas not provided); (d) comparison of an individuals performance withhis/her previous performance and a standard of individual performance;(e) comparison of a groups performance with a standard of groupperformance; (f) comparison of individual performance with groupperformance; (g) comparison of individual performance with a group

goal; (h) comparison of individual performance with group perfor-mance and a standard of group performance; (i) comparison of groupperformance with a different groups performance; (j) comparison ofindividual performance, a standard of group performance, and a differ-ent groups performance; (k) a comparison of individual and groupperformance with a standard of both individual and group performance;and (l) information regarding a different groups performance.

RESULTS

Content

Table 3 summarizes the distribution of feedback applications accord-

ing to content and effectiveness. Unknown effects were observed infour feedback applications. These four applications were excluded fromfurther review. Consistent effects were observed in 58% of the totalnumber (64) of feedback applications reviewed, mixed effects occurredin 41% of the applications, and no effects were observed in only 1% ofthe feedback applications. In the previous review, Balcazar et al. (1985)identified consistent effects in 41% of the articles reviewed, mixedeffects in 49% and no effects in 10% of the articles.


15/28


TABLE 3. Distribution of Feedback Applications According to Content andEffectiveness

Feedback Effectiveness

Feedback combination Consistent Mixed No Effects Subtotal Unknown

Feedback alone 9 (47%) 10 (53%) 0 19 1

Feedback & antecedents 4 (100%) 0 0 4 0

Feedback & behavioral 7 (58%) 5 (42%) 0 12 1

consequences

Feedback & goal setting 2 (29%) 4 (57%) 1 (14%) 7 1

Feedback, antecedents & 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 0 6 0

behavioral consequences

Feedback, antecedents, goal 1 0 0 1 0

setting & behavioral consequences

Feedback, goal setting & 10 (67%) 5 (33%) 0 15 1

behavioral consequences

37 (58%) 26 (41%) 1 (1%) 64 4

Total: 68

Balcazar et al. (1985) found that the most frequently used procedurewas 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 mostconsistent effects (47%). Applications that combined the use of ante-cedents (excluding goals) and feedback produced the highest levels ofconsistent effects (100%). The highest levels of mixed effects wereobserved in applications that implemented a combination of feedbackand goal setting (57%) and feedback alone (53%). Using feedback incombination with any other procedure(s) produced much higher levelsof consistent effects than using feedback alone, with the exception offeedback and goal setting. Feedback and goal setting produced (a) thelowest level of consistent effects (29%) and (b) the only applicationthat was categorized as having no effects.

FEEDBACK CHARACTERISTICS

Table 4 shows the distribution of feedback effectiveness as a functionof feedback characteristics. The four applications that were categorizedas having unknown effects were not included in the distribution.


16/28


TABLE 4. Distribution of Feedback Effectiveness as a Function of FeedbackCharacteristics


Feedback Characteristic Consistent Mixed No Effects Total

SOURCE

Supervisor/manager 20 (59%) 13 (38%) 1 (3%) 34Supervisor & researcher 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 0 7

Supervisor & self-generated 0 1 0 1

Researchers 7 (50%) 7 (50%) 0 14

Self-generated 2 2 0 4

Customer 1 0 0 1

Expert 1 0 0 1

Mechanical 0 1 0 1

Not reported 0 1 0 1

37 26 1 64MEDIUM

Graph 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 0 10

Verbal 5 (50%) 5 (50%) 0 10

Written 9 (53%) 8 (47%) 0 17

Verbal & graph 9 (75%) 3 (25%) 0 12

Verbal & written 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 0 4

Verbal, written & graph 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 0 3

Written & graph 6 (86%) 0 1 (14%) 7

Verbal & mechanical 1 0 0 1

37 26 1 64

FREQUENCY

Daily 12 (71%) 5 (29%) 0 17Weekly 13 (52%) 11 (44%) 1 (4%) 25Monthly 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 5Quarterly 1 1 0 2Daily & weekly 4 (80%) 1 (20%) 0 5Daily, weekly & monthly 0 1 0 1Weekly & monthly 2 1 0 3Not reported 1 (17%) 5 (83%) 0 6

37 26 1 64PARTICIPANTS

Individual 23 (55%) 19 (45%) 0 42Group 10 (71%) 4 (29%) 0 14Individual & group 4 (50%) 3 (38%) 1 (13%) 8

37 26 1 64PRIVACY

Private 20 (56%) 15 (42%) 1 (2%) 36Public 9 (50%) 9 (50%) 0 18Private & public 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 0 10

37 26 1 64


17/28



Feedback Characteristic Consistent Mixed No Effects Total

CONTENT

(a) Individual 10 (56%) 8 (44%) 0 18

(b) Group 5 (71%) 2 (29%) 0 7

(c) Standard individual performance 9 9 0 18

(d) Individual & standard individual 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 4performance

(e) Group & standard group 3 (75%) 1 (25%) 0 4performance

(f) Individual & group 2 2 0 4

(g) Individual & standard group 1 0 1performance

(h) Individual, group & standard group 1 0 1performance

(i) Group & different groups 3 0 0 3performance

(j) Individual, standard group performance & 0 1 0 1different groups performance

(k) Individual, group, standard individual & 1 0 1 2

standard group performance

(l) Different groups performance 0 1 0 1

37 26 1 64

Source

The most commonly used source of feedback continues to be super-visors or managers (34/64 or 53% of applications). However, thehighest levels of consistent effects were associated with the deliveryby supervisors/managers and researchers (86%).

Medium

The use of graphs with written feedback and graphs with verbalfeedback resulted in the highest levels of consistent effects (86% and75% respectively), but the most commonly used medium of feedbackdelivery 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


18/28


previous review). There were no significant differences between theeffectiveness of the other media used to deliver feedback.

Frequency

Weekly feedback, at 39%, was the most common frequency forfeedback delivery (25/64 applications). The previous review (Balcazaret al., 1985) found that daily feedback was the most frequently used(54% of applications), but was not more consistently effective thanweekly feedback. The present review found that daily, monthly, andthe combination of daily and weekly feedback resulted in higher levelsof consistency effects (71%, 80% and 80%, respectively) than weeklydelivery of feedback (52%), which also produced the only applicationcategorized as having no effects.

Participants

Individuals continue to be the most common participants in feed-back interventions (used in 42/64 or 65% of the applications in thepresent review and 70% of the applications in the previous review),but consistency effects were higher for applications that used groupparticipants (71% for groups and 55% for individuals). This findingwas also true for the literature reviewed by Balcazar et al. (1985),although the differences were not as substantial (48% for groups and40% for individuals).

Privacy

The previous literature review (Balcazar et al., 1985) did not findany significant differences in consistency effects among the threeforms of privacy. The present review found the combination of privateand public feedback to be more consistently effective (80% of applica-tions) than either private (56%) or public (50%) feedback independentof one another. Although Balcazar et al. (1985) found that publicfeedback was most common (54%), the current review identified pri-vate feedback to be more frequently implemented (36/64 or 56% ofapplications).

Content

The two most popular contents of feedback involved the (a) com-parison of individual performance with his/her previous performance


19/28


(18/64 or 28% of applications), and (b) comparison of individualperformance with a standard of individual performance (18/64 or28%; information regarding previous performance was not provided).Consistency effects for these applications were comparable (56% and50%, respectively). The highest levels of consistency effects werefound in applications that provided information concerning the com-parison of (a) group performance with a standard of group perfor-

mance (75% of applications), (b) individual performance with a stan-dard of individual performance or previous performance (75% ofapplications), or (c) group performance with its previous performance(71% of applications).

DISCUSSION

The most significant difference between the previous review of theperformance feedback literature (Balcazar et al., 1985) and the presentreview was the number of feedback articles and feedback applicationsidentified. Balcazar et al. (1985) reviewed eleven years of journalpublications and found 69 articles that used feedback as an interven-

tion and 126 feedback applications. The authors of the present articlereviewed 14 years of the same four journals and were only able toidentify 43 articles and 68 feedback applications.

Logically, some combination of two things occurred: (1) fewerfeedback articles were published and/or (2) the use of the term feed-back decreased. The majority of the performance feedback articlesthat 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, butthe mean decreased to 12 publications a year between 1987 and 1997(Nolan et al., 1999). As previously mentioned, there were a number ofarticles 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 analystshave been more cautious when using the term feedback as a resultof published concerns, such as Petersons (1982), regarding the use offeedback to represent procedures that can be explained by operantprinciples. Future research could perhaps confirm and better deter-mine why this reduction occurred.


20/28


Despite the possible variables responsible for decreases in the useof the term feedback and the number of feedback publications, it isimportant to consider the implications that such decreases may havefor the field of OBM. For example, one of the main objectives of thepresent literature review was to determine what feedback combina-tions and characteristics were associated with the highest levels ofconsistent effects and how these findings compare to those of the

earlier review. The lack of consistency when referring to feedbackmade it difficult to identify objective selection criteria that wouldinclude all of the literature that used performance feedback as anindependent variable. The low number of articles included in thisreview suggests that some applications of feedback were not identifiedby the inclusion criteria defined for this review (i.e., all field studieswere further investigated if the word feedback was used in theabstract or any part of the method section). Due to the low number ofapplications, we must be cautious when drawing conclusions from theresults of this literature review regarding the consistency effects offeedback combinations and characteristics.

Another main difference between the two reviews was the additions

made to the number of feedback combinations and characteristic sub-categories (e.g., medium: graph, verbal, written, etc.) identified. Thesechanges contribute to the difficulty in understanding the effectivenessof feedback. Balcazar et al. (1985) identified two primary problems inunderstanding the effectiveness of feedback: (a) the literature has notalways carefully differentiated among feedback when it is appliedalone or in combination with other procedures, and (b) feedback canhave many different characteristics. Unfortunately, these obstaclescontinue to exist because of the increasing number of feedback com-binations used and the growing number of feedback characteristicsimplemented. For example, the current review identified three feed-back combinations that were not analyzed in the previous review

(Balcazar et al., 1985): (a) feedback and antecedents (other thangoals), (b) feedback, behavioral consequences, and antecedents otherthan goals, and (c) feedback, behavioral consequences, goals, andother antecedent stimuli. Some changes made to the characteristicsub-categories were as follows: (a) the addition of supervisors plusresearchers as the source of feedback, (b) the addition of the verbal,written and graphic feedback combination under the medium category,and (c) the addition of several sub-categories under feedback content


21/28


that included the comparison of performance to a different groupsperformance (e.g., group As performance was graphed in comparisonto group Bs performance).

These changes, combined with the small number of applicationsidentified, make it difficult to compare these results with those foundby Balcazar et al. (1985). Table 5 summarizes the main findings ofboth the previous and present review of the performance feedback

literature.Overall, our findings corroborate those of Balcazar et al. (1985),

although specific dimensions depict more or less agreement. Forinstance, the most consistent effects continue to occur when feedbackis used in combination with other procedures. However, our reviewfound feedback and antecedents to be most consistently effective,whereas Balcazar et al. (1985) found feedback and consequences to be

TABLE 5. Overall Comparison of Findings from the Previous and PresentReview (Objective Review of FB)

Balcazar et al. (1985) Present review

Fe edb ack Most freq uen tly Hi ghe st co nsi stency Most freq uen tly Hig hest

used effects used consistency

effects

Combination Feedback alone FB & consqs (52%) Feedback alone Feedback &

FB & GS (53%) antecedents (100%)

Source Supervisor/ Supervisor/ Supervisor/ Supervisor &

manager manager (50%) Manager researcher (86%)

Privacy Public No differences Private Public & private

(80%)

Participants Individual Group (48%) Individual Group (71%)

Group (71%)

Content Individual Individual & Individual Group & stnd.

performance standard Individual & group (75%)

i ndi vi dua l (10 0%) stand ard Indi vi dua l. &individual stnd. indiv. (75%)

Medium Graph Graph (54%) Written Written & graph

(86%)

Daily (71%)

Frequency Daily (42%) Monthly (80%)

Daily Weekly (41%) Weekly Daily & weekly

(80%)


22/28


most consistently effective. It is important to note, again, that cautionshould be taken when analyzing this latter finding due to the lownumber of applications (four) that implemented a combination offeedback and antecedents. Although this feedback combination wasassociated with the highest levels of consistency effects, the low num-ber of applications makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions.The reviews also agreed that feedback is more consistently effective

when delivered at the group level than when delivered at the individu-al level. In terms of feedback characteristics, the two reviews are inagreement that feedback is most often presented alone (i.e., withoutother programmed stimuli), delivered by supervisors, to individuals,depicting individual-level performance. The fact that we only foundgeneral agreement between the reviews, especially in terms offeedback effectiveness, suggests that the characteristics of feedbackmay not be as critical as the way in which it is implemented. AsBalcazar et al. (1985) stated, If the effects of most feedback character-istics are derived from their relationship with functional, differentialconsequences, little useful knowledge is likely to result from experi-mentally exploring the relative effectiveness of the different character-

istics (p. 85). More useful and practical information would comefrom assessing the functional mechanisms of feedback.

Some have argued that feedback may serve multiple functions (e.g.,discriminative, reinforcing, punishing, conditioned establishing opera-tion) depending on the context in which it is implemented (Duncan &Breweheide, 1985; Prue & Fairbank, 1981). Although this conclusionis intuitive, we were unable to locate any data confirming this belief inthe course of our review.

One goal of organizational behavior management (OBM) and ap-plied behavior analysis is to effectively change behavior (in sociallyimportant ways). If we are to do this in the most efficient way pos-sible, we require a thorough understanding of behavioral techniques,

such as feedback. That is, to most effectively utilize techniques suchas feedback, we must understand why the techniques change behavior.Experimentation and demonstration of the possible functions of feed-back will help us to be better practitioners of OBM. Suggestions havebeen made to scientifically research the behavioral functions of feed-back (e.g., Prue & Fairbank, 1981), and we have made similar argu-ments elsewhere (Austin, Carr, & Agnew, 1999; Normand, Bucklin, &Austin, 1999; Poling, Dickinson, Austin, & Normand, 2000). As Dun-


23/28


can and Brewelheide (1985) suggested, . . . a functional organizationof feedback, based on behavioral mechanism, may allow feedback tobe better tailored to the specific performance situation (p. 92).

Practitioners of OBM have applied performance feedback for nearly30 years now, and yet, little is known about the reasons for its effec-tiveness. A first step in this search for knowledge might be to conductstudies that demonstrate how to make feedback more effective. Next,

researchers might demonstrate how feedback could serve a particularbehavioral (i.e., reinforcing, discriminative, establishing operation)function. Such a line of research studies may help us to develop afunctional organization of feedback (as suggested by Duncan andBrewelheide, 1985), contribute to a more widely agreed upon defini-tion for the term, and to use this knowledge to more effectively prac-tice 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 ofrules in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Be-havior Management, 12, 67-76.

Alavosius, M. P., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1986). The effects of performance feedbackon 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). Performanceposting, goal setting and activity-contingent praise as applied to a universityhockey team. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 87-95.

Anderson, D. C., Crowell, C. R., Hantula, D. A., & Siroky, L. M. (1988). Taskclarification, and individual performance posting for improving cleaning in a


24/28


student-managed university bar. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 9, 73-90.

Arco, L. (1997). Improving program outcome with process-based performance feed-back. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 17, 37-64.

Austin, J., Carr, J., & Agnew, J. L. (1999). Need for assessing maintaining variablesin OBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,19, 59-87.

Austin, J., Kessler, M. L., Riccobono, J. E., & Bailey, J. S. (1996). Using feedbackand reinforcement to improve the performance and safety of a roofing crew.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 16, 49-75.Babcock, R. A., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Sanderson, M., & Scibak, J. (1992). Increasing

nurses use of feedback to promote infection-control practices in a head-injurytreatment center. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 621-627.

Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review ofperformance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 65-89.

Balcazar, F. E., Shupert, M. K., Daniels, A. C., Mawhinney, T. C., & Hopkins, B. O.(1989). An objective review and analysis of ten years of publication in the Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 10, 7-38.

Baron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relativeefficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245.

Brown, C. S., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). An assessment of the relationship be-tween customer satisfaction and service friendliness. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 14, 55-75.Buller, P. F., & Bell, Jr. C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on

productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305-328.Calpin, J. P., Edelstein, B., & Redmon, W. K. (1988). Performance feedback and goal

setting to improve mental health center staff productivity. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 9, 35-58.

Crowell, C. R., Anderson, D. C., Abel, D. M., & Sergio, J. P. (1988). Task clarifica-tion, performance feedback and social praise: Procedures for improving the cus-tomer service of bank tellers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 65-71.

Daniels, A. C. (1994). Bringing out the best in people. New York: McGraw-Hill.DeVries, J. E., Burnette, M., & Redmon, W. K. (1991). AIDS prevention: Improving

nurses compliance with glove wearing through performance feedback. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 24, 705-711.

Doerr, K. H., Mitchell, T. R., Klastorin, T. D., & Brown, K. A. (1996). Impact of

material flow policies and goals on job outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 142-152.Duncan, P. K., & Bruweldeide, L. R. (1985). Feedback: Use and possible behavioral

functions. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 91-113.Ford, J. E. (1980). A classification system for feedback procedures. Journal of

Organizational Behavior Management, 2, 183-191.

Fox, C. J., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1989). The effectiveness of two different sources offeedback on staff teaching of fire evacuation skills. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 10, 19-35.


25/28


Gaetani, J. J., Hoxeng, D. D., & Austin, J. T. (1985). Engineering compensationsystems: Effects of commissioned versus wage payment. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 7, 51-63.

Godbey, C. L., & White, A. G. (1992). Increasing the accuracy of computerizedsummaries of court case activity. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 13, 113-127.

Goltz, S. M., Citera, M., Jensen, M., Favero, J., & Komaki, J. L. (1989). Individualfeedback: Does it enhance effects of group feedback. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 10, 77-92.Hawkins, A. M., Burgio, L. D., Lanford, A., & Engel, B. T. (1992). The effects of

verbal and written supervisory feedback on staff compliance with assignedprompted voiding in a nursing home. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-agement, 13, 137-150.

Henry, G. O., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). The effects of performance feedback on theimplementation of a statistical process (SPC) program. Journal of Organizational

Behavior Management, 11, 23-46.Houmanfour, R., & Hayes, L. J. (1998). Effects of feedback on task completion, time

distribution, and time allocation of graduate students. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 18, 69-91.

Johnson, C. M. (1985). Customer feedback to the main office: Selling newspapersplot, stock, and bare shelf. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7,37-49.

Johnson, C. M., & Masotti, R. M. (1990). Suggestive selling by wait staff in family-style restaurants: An experiment and multisetting observations. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior Management, 11, 35-54.

Jones, H. H., Morris, E. K., & Barnard, J. D. (1985). Increasing staff completion ofcivil commitment forms through instructions and graphed performance feedback.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 29-43.Karan, B. S., & Kopelman, R. E. (1986). The effects of objective feedback on

vehicular and industrial accidents: A field experiment using outcome feedback.Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 45-56.

Komaki, J., Barwick, D., & Scott, L. R. (1978). A behavioral approach to occupa-tional safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing sale performance in a food manufactur-ing plant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 434-445.

Kortick, S. A., & OBrien, R. M. (1996). The world series of quality control: A casestudy in the package delivery industry. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man-

agement, 16, 77-93.LaFleur, T., & Hyten, C. (1995). Improving the quality of hotel banquet staff perfor-

mance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 15, 69-93.LaMere, J. M., Dickinson, A. M., Henry, M., Henry, G., & Poling, A. (1996). Effects

of a multi-component monetary incentive program on the performance of truckdrivers: A longitudinal study. Behavior Modification, 20, 385-406.

Langeland, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Mawhinney, T. C. (1998). Improving staffperformance in a community mental health setting: Job analysis, training. Journalof Organizational Behavior Management, 18, 21-43.


26/28


Meyer, J. P., & Gellatly, I. R. (1988). Perceived performance norm as a mediator inthe effect of assigned goal on personal goal and task performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 73, 410-420.Nolan, T., Jarema, K., & Austin, J. (1999). An objective review of Journal of Organi-

zational Behavior Management: 1986-1997. Journal of Organizational BehaviorManagement, 19, 83-114.

Nordstrom, R., Hall, R. V., Lorenzi, P., & Delquadri, J. (1988). Organizational behav-ior modification in the public sector: Three field experiments. Journal of Organi-

zational Behavior Management, 9, 91-112.Normand, M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (1999). Analysis of behavioral mecha-nisms in JOBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 19, 45-56.

Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (1995). Training residential supervisors to providefeedback for maintaining staff teaching skills with people who have severe dis-abilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 317-322.

Parsons, M. B., Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., Mcann, J. E., & Green, C. W. (1987).Expanding the impact of behavioral staff management: A large scale, long-termapplication in schools serving handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 20, 139-150.Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior

Analyst, 5, 101-102.Petty, M. M., Singleton, B., & Connell, D. W. (1992). An experimental evaluation of

an organization incentive plan in the electric utility industry. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 77, 427-436.

Poling, A., Dickinson, A. M., Austin, J., & Normand, M. (2000). Basic behavioralresearch and organizational behavior management. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr(Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 295-320). Reno: ContextPress.

Porterfield, J., Evans, G., & Blunden, R. (1985). Involving families and staff inservice improvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7, 117-133.

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K. K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988).Effects of group feedback, goal setting and incentives on organizational produc-tivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358.

Prue, D. M., & Fairbank, J. A. (1981). Performance feedback in organizationalbehavior management: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 3, 1-16.

Ralis, M. T., & OBrien, R. M. (1986). Prompts, goal setting, and feedback to increase

suggestive selling. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 5-18.Richman, G. S., Riordan, M. R., Reiss, M. L., Pyles, D. A., & Bailey, J. S. (1988).

The effects of self-monitoring and supervisor feedback on staff performance in aresidential setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 401-409.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: Managing thewhite space on the organizational chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Siero, S., Boon M., Kok, G., & Siero, F. (1989). Modification of driving behavior ina large transport organization: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 417-423.


27/28


Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1978). Behavioral ecology and accident prevention. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management, 2, 11-44.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Loafman, B., Merante, R. J., & Hlavacek, A. C. (1990). Improv-ing occupational safety in a large industrial plant: A systematic replication. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 99-120.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change.Fort Worth, TX: Harcout Brace College.

Welsh, D. H., Luthans, F., & Sommer, S. M. (1993a). Organizational behavior modi-

fication goes to Russia: Replicating an experimental analysis across cultures andtasks. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 13, 15-35.Welsh, D. H., Luthans, F., & Sommer, S. M. (1993b). Managing Russian factory

workers: The impact of U.S. based behavioral and participative techniques. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 36, 58-79.

Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1990). A daily-adjusted goal-setting and feedbackprocedure for improving productivity in a university admissions department.

Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11, 55-75.Wilk, L. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1998). The effects of feedback and goal setting on

productivity and satisfaction of university admissions staff. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior Management, 18, 45-68.

Wilson, C., Boni, N., & Hogg, A. (1997). The effectiveness of task clarification,positive reinforcement, and corrective feedback in changing courtesy amongpolice staff. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 17, 65-99.

Wittkopp, C. J., Rowan, J. F., & Poling, A. (1990). Use of a feedback package to

reduce machine set-up time in a manufacturing setting. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior Management, 11, 7-22.


28/28


Effective Feedback-must Read

Documents

Transcript of Effective Feedback-must Read