University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

(USC Thesis Other)

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Professional Development in Generating Managerial High-Quality Feedback
by
Erin Anne Dunlap

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Erin Anne Dunlap 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Erin Anne Dunlap certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Allison Murazewski
Kathy Stowe
Courtney Malloy, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
The broader issue at play in this dissertation is a lack of high-quality managerial feedback
presented to recipients. The purpose of this study is to understand how to improve managerial
competency in providing high-quality feedback to direct reports by managers working at a for-
profit entertainment organization in the United States, referred to as Company A. High-quality
feedback was defined as feedback where providers utilized clear communication, understanding
confirmation, and action planning. Three research questions guided the inquiry: What knowledge
factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback? What motivation factors
influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback? What organizational factors
influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback? Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis model provided the theoretical and conceptual framework for this study. Frontline
operations managers were selected as the population for the study due to the frequency of
feedback provision in their roles. Results from 13 qualitative interviews provided the data for
this study. Findings from the data indicated assets and opportunities for improvement centered
on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors of feedback provision. Recommendations
were derived from the findings that suggest how the improvement of managerial feedback
provision for frontline managers at Company A can be addressed.

v
Dedication
To the memory of my father, Ronald Howard Dunlap. He was the first person to teach me about
growth mindset by asking, “Is this your best work?”. I am so thankful for all the lessons, love
and support he gave me.

To my mother, Ellen. I know that this would not have been possible without your unwavering
support. You are a woman who can solve any problem when helping me achieve my goals.
Thank you for your patience with me over the last three years! I am blessed to have a caring
family who has done all they can to help me succeed.

vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Dr. Malloy! It has been such a pleasure to be in your class and learn from
you as my dissertation chair. Your insight, feedback and mentorship have helped me grow in
innumerable ways. Dr. Regur, I appreciate all of the guidance you have provided in each of my
revisions! Dr. Muraszewski and Dr. Stowe, thank you for your participation on my dissertation
committee. I am thankful for your shared wisdom and direction through this process.
A special thank you to the people at Company A who have supported me on my doctoral
journey! I am so blessed to have made incredible friends at USC in this process, and I want to
thank Kristine, Lana and Rebekah for all the support and late-night text messages of
understanding and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank my dearest lifelong friends who
have always been there for me. Megan, Anna, Kelly, Tory, Whitney, and Courtney, I am so
lucky to have you in my life!

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 5
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 10
History of Feedback Intervention ...................................................................................... 10
Feedback Best Practices .................................................................................................... 17
Literature Gap in Provider Feedback Challenges .............................................................. 22
Knowledge Factors Influencing Feedback Provision ........................................................ 24
Motivational Factors Influencing Feedback Provision ...................................................... 28
Organizational Factors Influencing Feedback Provision .................................................. 33
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 37
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 39
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 40
viii
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 40
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 40
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 41
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 43
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 44
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 46
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter Four: Results .................................................................................................................... 49
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 49
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................... 51
Research Question 2 .......................................................................................................... 74
Research Question 3 .......................................................................................................... 81
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 99
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 99
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 103
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 109
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 110
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 111
References ................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 125

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic by Individual 50
Table 2: Stakeholder Demographics 51
Table 3: Participant mentions of High-Quality Factors 53
Table 4: Participant Questioning Examples 59
Table 5: Comparing High-Quality Components 66
Table 6: Metacognitive Strategy Use 67
Table 7: Frequency of Self-Regulation Behaviors 70
Table 8: Self-Efficacy Triggers 80
Table 9: Participant Use of Company Resources 90
Table A1: Interview Questions and Corresponding Concepts 125

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 38

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
The provision of high-quality managerial feedback to recipients is critical for personal
development and overall organizational success (Gallup, 2017). Research has shown that United
States employees feel they do not receive quality feedback from their direct supervisors. A 2017
study by Gallup, using the Gallup Client Database, surveyed over 195,000 United States
employees. The results were that only 23% of employees strongly feel they receive credible
feedback from their managers, demonstrating that this is a national problem.
Infrequent and poor-quality managerial feedback is a leading cause of employee concern
(Gallup, 2017). Gallup reports that managers fail to fully understand how to best provide
feedback, with employees echoing the need for clarity and meaningful interaction with their
managers. The survey found that only 20% of United States employees strongly agree that they
have engaged in a feedback conversation with their managers in the last 6 months. The survey
also found that only 23% of employees felt that their managerial feedback held meaning. Elliot et
al. (2017) noted the need for a more holistic method for educating managers that addresses
feedback from an information standpoint, cultural standpoint, and environmental standpoint.
Purposeful information provided by managers should address a recipient’s mastery learning
process. A deliberate culture of feedback provision will allow for the recipient’s acceptance of
feedback. Finally, a culture of feedback within the workplace, established in a top-down manner
by management, should encourage feedback recipients to learn from their interactions in a safe
environment.
This dissertation focused on how to improve the quality of feedback provided by
managers at one organization, Company A. I delved into the specific context and background of
the problem to provide a personally observed perspective on the current state of behavior
2

managerial feedback provision at Company A. The following sections will discuss the
dissertation’s importance and provide a brief overview of the theoretical framework of the
dissertation. This chapter will conclude with an explanation of key terms and definitions used
throughout this work.
Context and Background of the Problem
This study focused on an international entertainment for-profit organization referred to in
this dissertation as Company A to maintain confidentiality. Company A is an entertainment
organization based in the United States and operates multiple divisions, including entertainment,
design, sports, technology, and recreation. This study specifically evaluated operations
managers’ high-quality feedback provision in the hospitality division of Company A. Managers
in this department supervise thousands of frontline workers, creating the need for skilled
management feedback provision.
Professional development for frontline managers in Company A primarily occurs when
individuals are selected and promoted into supervisory roles. Newly promoted managers
complete an eight-day course on leadership training covering various topics, such as human
resources, leadership styles, and feedback interaction. A selected group of presenters, who work
in an education-based division of the organization, organize and present the leadership training
course. Trainers facilitate instruction on providing feedback in one section on the fourth day of
classroom training. Trainers encourage specific models for providing feedback in the leadership
training program. An example of the feedback models used by mentors is Davies and Jacobs’s
(1985) compliment sandwich, where managers provide feedback between two positive
comments. Additional models taught to managers are the Behavior, Effect, Alternative, and
Resolution model (BEAR) and Behavior, Effect, and Thank model (BET; Harms & Roebuck,
3

2010). Improvement-based conversations utilize the BEAR model, and positive reinforcement
conversations use the BET model. Both models only provide a basic framework for engaging
feedback conversations that do not address the overall process’s complexity.
Once new managers complete the training course, they are assigned to an established
leader in their business unit who will mentor them for their first 4 months on the job. Additional
training is self-directed through internal courses or external development opportunities.
Participation in internal courses is encouraged by company leaders but is not required. The
company does not require additional external training, and new managers are left to pursue
further education based on their interests.
In on-going employee round table sessions, managerial feedback is a common concern
for frontline employees. According to employees, the quality of feedback varies considerably
depending on the manager. Other general comments included employees stating that they had
never received feedback from a manager.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand how to improve managerial competency in
providing high-quality feedback to direct reports by managers working at Company A. I aimed
to accomplish this purpose by creating a diagnostic case study of Company A’s manager’s
existing feedback practice compared to the best practices seen in existing academic literature. I
framed this dissertation with Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis process model (gap or gap
analysis). To explore this problem of practice, I examined the following questions:
1. What knowledge factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
2. What motivation factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
4

3. What organizational factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality
feedback?
Importance of the Study
A manager’s ability to effectively provide feedback is a vital part of their toolkit to drive
business, lead, and develop their staff. A peer-reviewed study by Borchert and Rochford (2017)
highlighted that when recipients solicited feedback, managers provided feedback 57% of the
time, and 21% of recipients ignored feedback entirely. Complicating the issue, research shows
that only 26% of employees indicated that they strongly feel the feedback they receive will help
them better to execute their work (Gallup, 2017). A survey by Zenger and Folkman (2018)
gathered data from 899 individuals, and 72% of respondents agreed that their work performance
would be enhanced by manager feedback. In addition, the authors noted that 92% of respondents
agreed with the statement, “Redirecting feedback, if delivered appropriately, is effective at
improving performance.” This research highlights the need for managers to be able to deliver
feedback to their employees and know how to best deliver that feedback to recipients.
This problem is critical to address because, in a meta-analysis of feedback studies by
Kluger and DeNisi (1998), only one-third of the feedback provided by managers was effective.
The meta-analysis showed that one-third of feedback decreased recipient performance, and the
remaining one-third of feedback did not affect recipients. Determining opportunities to address
and improve feedback competency in managers might improve two-thirds of feedback
interactions. Improving managers’ feedback competency can impact the recipient’s ability to
achieve their goals, influencing the potential for a business’s success. Clark and Estes (2008)
noted that the findings from Kluger and DeNisi’s study might be even more salient in real-world
scenarios, as research settings can use select strategies not representative of the broader
5

environment and skew results. Further emphasizing the real-world importance of managerial
feedback provision, The Harris Poll on behalf of international talent organization Yoh conducted
a survey of 2,027 working adults in the United States (Yurick, 2018). The study determined that
a manager who engaged a recipient in inadequate feedback interactions was a consideration for
24% of respondents to quit their jobs.
I personally connected with the content of this study through personal experiences in the
workplace. The origin of the study’s focus was determined after a meeting at work clarified the
importance of managerial feedback. When I was having a discussion on potential employees who
were ready for promotion, the managerial team had a strong disagreement about one specific
candidate. Several managers on the team deemed the candidate to have performance gaps in their
communication and relationship-building skills. When I asked my peers about the feedback
conversations they had with the employee, not one manager could claim to have given the
employee high-quality feedback to help them improve their performance and reach their
promotional goal. The behavioral gap described in my peers’ feedback had the potential to
drastically change the employee’s professional trajectory but was not provided to the employee
until I pushed my peers to deliver the content. The lack of feedback by managers on my team
mirrored the data on feedback interactions noted by Gallup (2017), Klueger and DeNisi (1998),
and Zenger and Folkman (2018).
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The main theoretical framework used in this study was Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis. The gap analysis framework is composed of three main factors used to analyze gaps in
behavior or process: knowledge, motivation, and organization. Knowledge gaps refer to the
knowledge or skill that is lacking when meeting a set performance goal. Clark and Estes (2008)
6

break down the knowledge component into four main types: information, job aids, training, and
education. Each of these components builds off the previous in terms of breadth and depth of
knowledge. Motivational factors in the gap analysis refer to the elements that keep a person or
organization working towards a goal through active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Gap
analysis organizational factors are the work processes, resources, and workplace culture that
affect the ability to reach a stated goal. Knowledge, motivation, and organization combine to
create the necessary factors to address when analyzing the need to close organizational
performance gaps.
Gap analysis is an appropriate framework in addressing the stated problem of practice, as
it aligns closely with addressing the factors a manager needs to consider when improving their
ability to provide high-quality feedback to others. This framework allows for a holistic analysis
of how manager’s knowledge, motivation, and workplace environment affect their feedback
efficacy at Company A. The gap analysis also aligns well with my pragmatic epistemology,
allowing for the participants’ varied experiences.
The theory of change refers to the act of research itself compelling change (Tuck & Yang,
2014). The desired change underlying this research was to understand what intervention is
needed to bolster managers’ ability to provide high-quality feedback. Ultimately, this dissertation
aimed to identify the gap between current practice and the best practices in the literature. By
illuminating this gap, I aimed to encourage growth for managers at Company A in developing
their feedback efficacy.
The research design for this study was qualitative, where data were inductively
interpreted for meaning and used to generate theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This method
aligns with the purpose of this study as it focuses on the participants’ multiple subjective and
7

historical experiences. Qualitative studies are also appropriate to help answer process-based
research questions. Interviews allow for learning more about participants’ perspectives on the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that influence their delivery of high-quality
feedback. To address the credibility of the research design, I focused on the accuracy of findings
from my standpoint, the participants, and the audience by being transparent in positionality, data
gathering, and analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To further address credibility, I also used
multiple strategies, such as member checking and robust description in the findings.
Definitions
This section lists the relevant terms that are central to the study. These terms align with
the theoretical and conceptual frameworks used to frame the study. This list is not inclusive of all
terms used in the paper.
• Feedback: a communicative interaction between two parties where information is
presented on performance or behavior and is directed by providers to improve personal
development, reflection, and future work (Baker et al., 2013; Fong et al., 2018; Geitz et
al., 2015).
• High-quality feedback: The knowledge and use by individuals of clear communication,
understanding confirmation, and action planning in combination during a feedback
interaction.
• Clear communication: Clear communication involves the feedback provider’s use of two-
way communication, a clear explanation of a recipient’s performance gap, and specific
observations on recipient behavior (Esambe et al., 2016; Jug et al., 2019; Mathie et al.,
2018).
8

• Understanding confirmation: The process by which feedback providers engage a
recipient’s understanding by providing clear behavioral standards to measure
performance gaps against, detailed communication and address recipient personal bias
through recipient self-reflection and two-way communication (Palminteri et al., 2017;
Suhoyo et al., 2017; Voet et al., 2018).
• Self-regulation: Self-regulation is individuals’ ability to reflect on an action or
circumstance and control their behavior in response (Bandura, 1986).
• Self-efficacy: Individual’s beliefs in their ability determine the goals they set for
themselves (Bandura, 1986).
• Intrinsic motivation: Personal engagement in an activity or behavior due to personal
interest or satisfaction (Henry et al., 2018).
• Metacognition: Metacognition is the awareness of knowledge an individual has on a
subject, the ability to assess that knowledge, and the ability to act on that knowledge
(Medina et al., 2017).
• Knowledge gaps: Knowledge gaps refer to the four elements of information, job aids,
training, and education, that enhance job performance when individuals do not possess
the information necessary to meet goals or are needed to meet future problem-solving
needs (Clark & Estes, 2008).
• Motivational gaps: Motivational gaps are the diminished effort of active choice,
persistence, and mental effort used by individuals when working toward a performance
goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
9

• Organizational gaps: Organizational gaps refer to an organization’s diminished capacity
in providing alignment, organizational and material work processes, and a culture that
enables change (Clark & Estes, 2008).
• Workflow: The organizational process to achieve goals through a system of people,
equipment, and material interaction to reach a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
• Culture: The conscious and unconscious understanding of values, who an organization is,
and what it does during its operation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
• Action plan: A personally tailored plan, initiated by the feedback provider, including
defined and achievable goals, a clear understanding of the performance gap, and a
monitoring plan (Johnson et al., 2019).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One of this dissertation introduces the problem of practice concerning
managerial feedback efficacy of frontline managers at Company A and the importance of
addressing this problem. Chapter Two will provide a review of relevant literature and the
theoretical framework used to support the study. Chapter Three will provide an in-depth
explanation of the research methodology for the study. Chapter Four will present the findings of
the study. Finally, Chapter Five will discuss the implications and further recommendations that
result from the study’s findings.

10

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Two will examine the relevant literature on feedback theory, how providers use
feedback in an operational context, and the critical components found in the literature related to
building competency. I selected literature to analyze the problem of practice on managerial
feedback efficacy. The first section begins with an overview of historical work on feedback
interaction, divided into theoretical and operational work. The second section will focus on the
overall best practices and challenges related to feedback theory and practice noted in the
literature within the past ten years. The third section will articulate c concepts of knowledge,
motivation, and organization concerning feedback provision (Clark & Estes, 2008). The chapter
will conclude with a discussion of the dissertation’s conceptual framework. This framework
guided the research for the study’s problem of practice: non-efficacious managerial feedback to
recipients.
History of Feedback Intervention
Feedback is a new concept in theory and behavior sciences, with the first widely known
feedback theory published in 1927 (Thorndike, 1927). Originally, feedback was a mechanical
term used to denote the output and return of a mechanical system (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). The
term evolved to include acoustic meaning in the 1930s. It was not until the mid-1960s that
feedback became known as a process in which providers shared information to guide behavioral
change. In 1996, Kluger and DeNisi provided the next advancement in feedback theory by
providing a more inclusive approach, combining various processes detailing both motivation and
learning theory to create the feedback intervention theory. The practice of feedback is a widely
used concept in current management practice. Despite a breadth of literature on the subject, there
is little consensus on feedback implementation (Caemmerer & Wilson, 2010; Olencevicius,
11

2019). The following sections will examine both the theoretical development and operational use
of feedback.
Theoretical History
Theoretical notions of feedback and behavioral change were conceived at the turn of the
20th century and evolved in complexity over the past 100 years (Gray, 1970; Higgins, 1997;
Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Olencevicius, 2019; Skinner, 1938; Thorndike, 1927; Van Dijk &
Kluger, 2011). The theories of feedback-related concepts began with a simple conceptualization
of cause and effect (Thorndike, 1927). As feedback study grew, newer theories developed to
include neurological influence, motivation, and goal-directed behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996;
Olencevicius, 2019; Van Dijk & Kluger, 2011). To gain a robust understanding of feedback
theory, the following section will review the most prominent current theory examining the
concept of feedback and behavior modification.
Feedback theory has advanced from a stimulus or biological model to a multidimensional
account of subject behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Olencevicius, 2019; Van Dijk & Kluger,
2011). In 1996, Kluger and DeNisi published the feedback intervention theory (FIT). FIT is a
comprehensive model focused on predicting subject behavior from feedback interactions. FIT
was the first model solely focused on feedback interactions, instead of broader behavior
responses from a stimulus. The theory contains five tenets that build off the first tenet:
1. Behavior is regulated by comparisons of feedback to goals or standards;
2. Goals or standards are organized hierarchically;
3. Attention is limited, and therefore only feedback-standard gaps that receive attention
actively participate in behavior regulation
4. Attention is generally directed to a moderate level of the hierarchy;
12

5. Feedback interactions change the locus of attention and therefore affect behavior. (Kluger
& DeNisi, 1996, p. 259)
FIT advanced theory by combining recipient knowledge, motivation, task difficulty, and
attention to predict future behavior combined with a feedback interaction. Previous studies
focused on only one element, such as motivation or the result of behavior. The addition of a
recipient’s focus of attention was also a unique conceptual addition to FIT. FIT also considers
the difficulty of the task the subject performs (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998). Most complicated tasks
have a detrimental effect on a subject’s motivation. Therefore, feedback intervention on
increasingly complex tasks is less likely to result in behavior modification due to a disruption in
the recipient’s motivation. To avoid negative impacts on motivation, Kluger and DeNisi (1998)
noted that feedback interactions are most beneficial for providers when establishing goal setting
with recipients and helping recipients note the gap in behavior between current actions and their
goal. The act of integrating various components into FIT made FIT the most comprehensive
feedback theory to date (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Olencevicius, 2019).
As feedback theory has progressed, theorists have moved away from stimulus- or goal-
oriented models of behavior to a more multidimensional approach (Baker et al., 2013; Dahling et
al., 2017; Olencevicius, 2019). The multidimensional approach is critical in the advancement of
feedback interaction study. The combination of many factors needs to be considered by the
provider in predicting and guiding subject behavior. Multidimensional approaches consider
biology, brain function, motivation, task complexity, or locus of attention. Feedback providers
need to examine multiple angles when presenting feedback to recipients to be efficacious, in line
with the current multidimensional focus of theory. The following section looks at the concepts
13

created by the theorists mentioned above and translates theory into operational constructs for the
business sector.
Operationalized Feedback Intervention History in Management
The business world operationalized feedback models presented by researchers like
Kluger and DeNisi and adapted them to benefit the business world. The following section will
examine two current operational methods of feedback provision: 360-Degree feedback and
formative feedback. The section will conclude by examining recent trends in operational
feedback provision.
360-Degree Feedback
A popular business tool, 360-degree feedback has operationalized the concepts provided
by feedback theory, although its user base does not fully understand the complexity of its use.
First popularized in the 1990s by the book 360 Degree Feedback: The Powerful New Model for
Employee Assessment & Performance Improvement, this operationalized feedback model aims to
provide an on-going assessment of the recipient through a process of feedback from multiple
sources which directly work with or observe the recipient (Edwards & Ewan, 1995). The model
has three data-driven outcomes:
1. to collect rater perceptions of the recipient’s observable behavior,
2. the ability to compare ratings from multiple raters,
3. create a sustainable method of behavior change over time within an organization
(Bracken et al., 2016, p.764).
In analyzing the effect of the method, Bracken et al. (2016) noted the lack of established
accountability within the process and a typical misalignment with the process due to its use as a
tool for managing recipients and not merely providing feedback. As such, 360-degree feedback
14

remains a process lacking in many of the critical elements of a beneficial feedback approach
(DeNisi & Kluger, 2000; Gregory et al., 2017; Vidya & Ambrose, 2017). In a 2000 study, Kluger
and DeNisi analyzed 360-degree feedback combined with their previous meta-analysis work
used to develop FIT. DeNisi and Kluger’s (2000) study provided recommendations to improve
the operational process not previously utilized in 360-degree feedback. These recommendations
included helping recipients understand the feedback given, including goal-setting practices in the
feedback conversation, maintaining a regular time interval for providing feedback, and
maintaining a regular evaluation of the process (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000). Another challenge with
the 360-degree feedback process is the episodic nature of observable reports of recipient
behavior. Gregory et al. (2017) led a non-experimental correlation survey with 63 physician
participants involved in a 360-degree rating process. The study’s findings note that the brief
episodes of observation by feedback providers did not provide a holistic report on recipient
ability or behavior. Clearly defined roles and expectations are an unclear part of the 360-degree
feedback process. A quantitative study conducted in 2017 by Vidya and Ambrose worked to
identify how to effectively implement a 360-degree feedback process for faculty in a
management university program. Study results showed the need for defined performance
expectations before initiating the model due to stakeholders’ competing expectations. For
example, students rated performance on class content, where peers valued academic achievement
in feedback reviews. The different expectations from stakeholders created the need for providers
to communicate overall priorities before beginning the feedback process. These studies
demonstrate that the 360-degree feedback process lacks many of the key feedback practices that
make feedback interactions beneficial.
15

Operational management continues to use 360-degree feedback as a famous catchphrase,
yet participants’ complex environment and personal understanding are often not addressed by
providers in real-world practice. Providers can utilize the many benefits to build competency,
such as engaging various stakeholders in a recipient’s feedback process to gain multiple
perspectives. In contrast, providers need to understand the limitations of 360-degree feedback,
such as episodic feedback failing to measure the breadth of a recipient’s behavior. The next
section will address formative feedback. Formative feedback is another version of
operationalized feedback that focuses primarily on the recipient’s development.
Formative Feedback
Formative assessment feedback is an underutilized yet effective method of providing on-
going feedback to a recipient (Crisan, 2017; Donato et al., 2016; Korpi, 2019). Often, providers
confuse formative feedback with summative feedback in an operational setting; however, it is
crucial to note the distinction between the two practices (Jug et al., 2019). Unlike summative
feedback, formative feedback is an on-going process aimed at recipient development. Providers
do not tie formative feedback to any managerial decision process. A qualitative study of
university students showed that only 16.07% of respondents could name a formative feedback
method (Crisan, 2017). One of the many benefits of the formative feedback process is a
decreased stress response from feedback recipients. In a 2019 best practices study by Korpi,
purposefully designing opportunities for formative feedback confirmed the stress reduction in
student assessment compared to high stakes summative assessment. Korpi (2019) also found
formative assessment to increase motivation and on-going student engagement. Creating
educational opportunities for providers to understand the benefits and processes of formative
feedback is needed to better utilize this process. A qualitative study of 24 Clinical Competency
16

Committees showed that with education, instructors were able to provide 3.2 to 4.1 more
formative feedback comments to students (Donato et al., 2016). Formative feedback is a highly
useful tool to help recipients reduce stress and increase motivation to reduce gaps in
performance.
Formative feedback remains a quality process to provide feedback, though more
education and awareness are needed for providers to utilize this tool in an operational setting.
When appropriately used, providers have the opportunity to reduce recipient stress and increase
motivation. Formative feedback can still pair with summative feedback. Summative feedback
will allow for maintaining clear work-related expectations, while formative feedback will help
motivate on-going learning (Ahmed et al., 2019). In addition to more formalized and theory-
based feedback methods, many organizations integrate many fad feedback trends.
Fads: Job Aids
Fad feedback aids are a common yet highly primitive form for feedback provision that
focus on quick behaviors of feedback provision as opposed to a complex process (Doran, 1981;
French et al., 2015; LeBaron, 2000; Neher et al., 1992; Pendleton et al., 2003). Feedback aids are
various forms of guidance used in business to help providers implement feedback. Aids come in
the form of a series of simple steps for the provider to give feedback to a recipient. Some of the
fad models rely on an acronym to create decisive steps for feedback provision. The SMART
model notes the importance of specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timely behaviors in
providing feedback to recipients (Doran, 1981). Fad models also use simple steps to provide
feedback in a manner that recipients can quickly process. The sandwich model suggests that
placing negative feedback between two positive feedback comments will increase the likelihood
that the recipient will process and act on feedback (LeBaron, 2000). The ask-tell-ask model also
17

follows a three-step process to provide feedback. Providers first ask recipients to self-assess, and
then the provider will give their observation (French et al., 2015). Finally, the provider will ask
the recipient to confirm understanding. The model focuses on recipient engagement in the
process. Finally, some models rely on the recipient’s self-assessment of behavior. The Pendleton
method starts with a recipient self-assessment (Pendleton et al., 2003). Providers will then probe
the recipient’s assessment in order to evaluate their reasoning. This method focuses on the
recipient’s understanding of behavior. While there are many fad feedback methods, there is a gap
in the literature regarding each method’s efficacy.
Providers need to consider a balance when using fad feedback models since they only
focus on a limited view of feedback best practices. While fad feedback models may be easy to
remember, the models focus on small parts of a much larger and more complicated process.
Limited models will not provide useful direction for providers to gain feedback competency in
their practice. Currently, theorists do not cover the entirety of the feedback process in any one
theory or model. To further understand how to provide feedback best, the next section will
review the main feedback best practices.
Feedback Best Practices
Feedback literature presents a wide range of best practices, with over a quarter-million
titles of peer-reviewed text on the ProQuest database. Of the many suggestions, three recurring
best practices were present: clear communication, confirming the recipient’s understanding of
the feedback message, and utilizing an action plan are the top practices shown across the
literature. The three elements identified as feedback best practices were used in this dissertation
to form the elements of high-quality feedback. The following sections will address each best
practice, respectively.
18

Clear Communication
A primary best practice noted in the literature for providing quality feedback is a
provider’s ability to engage in clear communication with their feedback recipients (Esambe et
al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2019; Mathie et al., 2018). In a literature review, Jug et al. (2019) noted
that quality feedback must also involve direct observation so that the provider can provide clear
and specific observations while also remaining non-evaluative in their communication. Experts
in the field of education place clear communication as a best practice when providing feedback.
In a quantitative study on medical instructors, educators providing feedback to medical students
during hospital training filmed their interactions (Johnson et al., 2019). Second only to
responding to a recipient’s emotional response, clear communication was the second most
observed best practice in the video analysis with a mean of 1.75/2 and a standard deviation of
.53. Clear communication also involves bridging a student’s learning gap between their current
performance and goal. A participatory action research study of first-year dental students focused
on students’ feedback interactions with their professors (Esambe et al., 2016). The central theme
that developed from the study showed that provider communication often failed to clarify
feedback comments to students or address the gap between prior learning and current
expectations.
Establishing a clear way to communicate at the onset of a relationship between providers
and recipients is a way to ensure recipients optimally receive the message. A mix-methods study
aimed to explore barriers to feedback between researchers and contributors (Mathie et al., 2018).
Sixty-eight public and patient contributors and 39 health researchers participated in the study.
Results showed that there was not a clear understanding of what feedback, if any, should occur.
Concepts of feedback ranged from an acknowledgment to on-going progress and application
19

requests. Results indicated that feedback interactions should begin with providers establishing
the recipient’s precise frequency, mode, and type of feedback expectation. Overall, providers
need to understand that clear communication in feedback involves establishing recipients’
understanding of the gap between their accurately observed behavior and expectations and
providers’ expectations on frequency and mode of feedback interaction with their recipients.
Without clear communication on a recipients’ observable behavior, provider feedback
messages lack the data needed to help recipients understand their learning or behavior gaps. A
provider’s skill in creating and sharing this clear message is vital for recipient understanding. In
addition to clear communication to recipients, providers must also confirm understanding. If
providers communicate a message that recipients do not understand, the process can quickly
falter.
Confirming Understanding
A second commonly noted best practice for feedback provision includes ensuring both
providers and receivers of feedback communication clearly understand the message and engage
in two-way communication (Palminteri et al., 2017; Suhoyo et al., 2017; Voet et al., 2018).
Confirming understanding is vital for both providers and recipients. Jug et al. (2019) note that a
recipient’s best practice when receiving feedback includes self-reflections, open communication,
and the need to confirm their understanding of the provider’s message. Recipient participation is
a crucial part of the feedback process and can help create better provider feedback. A quasi-
experimental study involving 157 first-year university students focused on student engagement
with feedback provision (Voet et al., 2018). Results showed that when students specifically
requested feedback, providers could provide more focused messages and give more detailed
responses. Recipients need a clear understanding of feedback in comparison to a known
20

standard. In a quantitative survey study on feedback intervention experiences for 250 medical
students at a university, students reported over 889 feedback interactions (Suhoyo et al., 2017).
Researchers then compared those interactions to five selected feedback best practices. Student
perceptions showed that feedback was more credible when providers compared their actions to a
clear standard and explained or demonstrated the behavior standard students needed to obtain.
Confirming recipient understanding is crucial for feedback effectiveness, as recipients may favor
beliefs over data. In a 2017 experimental study by Palminteri, participants engaged in 192 trials
to determine the effects of bias on partial or complete feedback information. Both types of
feedback showed that when recipients acquire new data through feedback, they often ignore
information that suggests they have done something incorrectly. By confirming understanding,
recipients actively engage in the feedback process, and providers can ensure that a feedback
message is heard correctly by the recipients.
Ensuring the feedback provided to recipients is understood is necessary for the recipient’s
ability to act on the feedback. A failure in confirmation could cause a recipient to incorrectly
adjust behavior, making their behavior change stall or fail. In combination with clear
communication and understanding, using an action plan to follow up on given feedback is also
an essential best practice. Action planning allows for clear expectations on following through for
recipients and allows them to plan their behavior moving forward.
Action Planning
A third common best practice noted in the literature for feedback interactions is creating a
clear, actionable plan for recipients to follow post-interaction (Allan et al., 2013; Johnson et al.,
2019; Rodriguez et al., 2010; Suhoyo et al., 2017). Action planning is a complex process and is
successful when a knowledgeable feedback provider implements the action plan. While a
21

provider’s skill is necessary to provide clear communication and understanding, a provider’s
skill is also critical in creating actionable plans for feedback recipients. A two-part study
involving 72 participants looked at behavioral patterns of the action plan intervention (Allan et
al., 2013). Both studies analyzed behavior change in participants who self-reported the desire to
change snacking behaviors. Study 1 had participants set their action plans, and Study 2 paired
feedback providers to recipients who received an action plan intervention. Results showed that
the action plans were only as good as the skill of the provider who made them. When providers
deliver quality action plans, the results show positive increases in behavior change by recipients
who are not skilled in planning effectively for themselves. When a provider’s action plan for a
recipient is in place and utilized, this tool allows for improvement towards behavioral change.
Suhoyo et al. (2017) led a qualitative study on action planning as a feedback best practice
and understanding confirmation. Students rated receiving a prepared action plan in their
feedback intervention process as a method of credible feedback provision. Recipients utilized
action plans in 55% of the feedback interactions, and recipients demonstrated improved
performance when utilized (p> .05). Recipient engagement is also key to the success of action
planning’s effectiveness in post feedback interaction. In a mixed-methods study focused on
action planning as a tool to create change for users, researchers obtained 600 action plans from
participants in a medical continuing education course (Rodriguez et al., 2010). A 3-month post-
interaction follow-up detailed the after-effects of participant action plan usage; in all, 366
participants responded. The study found that 73% of participants had some degree of success
from utilizing their personalized action plan, and 17% noted that their action plans had been very
successful. Developing a provider’s skills in action planning allows recipients to achieve goals
more efficiently through more robust engagement in the feedback process.
22

To build provider competency in feedback provision, managers must know how to help
recipients create actionable plans to implement their feedback. Feedback interaction necessitates
understanding and action in order to minimize gaps in behaviors. Managers looking to increase
feedback competency need instruction on the best practices mentioned in the literature and must
recognize what challenges to avoid.
Literature Gap in Provider Feedback Challenges
In contrast to feedback best practices, there is no consensus on overall provider feedback
provision challenges in the literature. In the 58 literature references utilized in this dissertation’s
literature review, there was little consensus on the top challenges for feedback provision. I
gathered the literature through a search on the ProQuest and Google Scholar sites, which pull
from over 138 databases. Literature searches centered on key terms, including “feedback,”
“feedback best practices and challenges,” or “managerial feedback.” All articles selected were
peer-reviewed, with publishing dates from 2010 onward. Researchers further identified journals
from the references within selected works. This inconsistency in the literature stems from the
variability of feedback scenarios, recipient locus of attention, and the type of task being
evaluated interact in various degrees (Olencevicius, 2019).
In addressing the challenges of provider-led feedback provision, a feedback provider
must determine which presentation method is best suited for a recipient. Two leading operational
practices addressed in the literature are formative and summative feedback. Studies are
contradictory in their assertions on which method is most effective for providers. Gregory et al.
(2017) noted that the typical cycle of episodic feedback seen in summative feedback reflects
momentary observation and is not reflective of the recipient as a whole. In contrast, a 2017 study
by Lookadoo et al. examined the formative and summative feedback in video games and its
23

relation to student engagement and learning. The study found that summative feedback
facilitated higher learning scores for students than formative feedback. One insight into the
contradiction points to how the temporal pacing of each method and its effect on recipient
behavior change is unknown.
Challenges can also exist from the various behaviors required of the feedback provider. A
2019 study of 36 faculty and 239 students on perceptions of faculty feedback showed bias
concerns were prevalent among both teachers and students (Siddique et al., 2019). This fear from
recipients included both faculty and student maturity, level of teaching ability, personal grudges,
and personal disclosure. Providing quality feedback can falter due to a range of concerns, such as
emotional, knowledge-based, or technical provider errors. Jamshidian et al., in 2019, created a
mixed-methods study, survey, and interview of 24 clinical teachers, students, and university
administrators. The study addressed the following provider feedback provision errors:
● feedback providers who were not engaged in their role
● inappropriate data obtained by providers
● providers lack of transparency in the feedback and evaluation system
● providers lack of formative evaluation
● no follow up from providers
● providers inattention to the feedback recipients’ characteristics
● providers were not always educated on feedback principles. (Jamshidian et al., 2019,
p. 3-7)
Providers must be aware that there are many facets of feedback provision directly related
to provider behavior, and choice of provision methods influence the ultimate success of an
interaction with a recipient. Not only do these personal choices affect the efficacy of feedback
24

provision, but when providers have to evaluate recipient focus and type of recipient behavior, the
process is only further complicated. This complexity leads to the current literature gap on what
key elements exist in provider feedback challenges.
The following section of the literature review will address the three components of the
gap analysis and its relation to feedback provision (Clark & Estes, 2008). The three main
components are knowledge, motivation, and organization. The section on knowledge will look at
how both the provider and recipient’s existing knowledge relates to feedback provision. The
section on motivation will address how a provider must stimulate a recipient’s motivation in the
feedback process. The section on organization will examine how the provider and recipient’s
workplace related to the feedback process. Managers are the primary stakeholder for each of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors discussed. Managers’ knowledge of and
ability to reflect and act on each of the three factors is key to their development in providing
high-quality feedback.
Knowledge Factors Influencing Feedback Provision
Proper knowledge and the ability to analyze and enact that knowledge are key processes
in feedback provision for providers and recipients. Two main components of knowledge seen in
the literature are metacognition and self-regulation. When prompted by the provider, each
component interacts with the provider’s feedback to address recipient behavior to promote
behavior change.
Metacognition
When providers give feedback, understanding a recipient’s metacognitive process is
necessary to gauge how the recipient will interpret information. Metacognition is defined as the
awareness individuals have of their knowledge, the ability to assess that knowledge, and to act
25

on that knowledge (Medina et al., 2017). Metacognition involves two variables: control and
monitoring. Metacognitive control refers to an individual’s ability to regulate their thinking, and
metacognitive monitoring is the ability of an individual to assess their thinking.
Metacognition, as part of a mastery learning experience, needs to be addressed in
feedback interactions to promote recipient development (Chawla et al., 2019; Li-Ju et al., 2010;
O’Leary & Sloutsky, 2019;). Including methods to improve the recipient’s awareness of their
knowledge during and after feedback is a necessary metacognitive factor in improving feedback
provision. Four-hundred and fifty-four ninth-grade students participated in an experiment to
explore how metacognition-evaluated feedback influenced performance and behavior during
test-taking (Li-Ju et al., 2010). Metacognitive-evaluated feedback in this study referred to a
learning strategy taught to students that required each student to predict if they felt a test answer
was correct or incorrect. Providers returned test results to students to review and work on how to
correct their mistakes. The study results showed that middle-skill level students significantly
improved their review behavior during testing and improved testing scores by reflecting on their
knowledge.
Applying metacognitive learning strategies during the feedback process will also engage
the recipient’s efficacy toward reducing performance gaps. A 2019 study by Chawla et al.
analyzed job searching practice since job searching produces a constant flow of feedback from
multiple sources. Ninety-three students, who were actively job searching, received weekly
surveys over seven weeks or until they accepted a job offer. This study noted that when
providers incorporate metacognitive strategies in feedback interactions, recipients increased
action in the job search process. Recipients displayed metacognitive control in the number of
resumes sent and in the increased number of hours applicants spent in the job application
26

process. Each of these studies took aspects of metacognition and applied control or monitoring to
behavior change separately, showing successful behavior modification. Feedback providers
looking to build efficacy must consider all aspects of the metacognitive process by providing
recipients with feedback.
Focusing on the level of knowledge a recipient has and their ability to assess that
knowledge in comparison to feedback allows a recipient to understand and address behavioral
gaps. Providers must address both the variables of control and monitoring in order to provide
comprehensive feedback. A three-part experimental study had 90 participants engage in an
attempt to understand if metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control operate
congruently or separately after a feedback interaction (O’Leary & Sloutsky, 2019). Results
showed metacognitive monitoring and metacognitive control operate separately, as the
experimental task stimulated only metacognitive monitoring. This study showed the importance
of engaging not only a recipient’s evaluation of knowledge but also their strategy to adjust
behavior. Providers must be capable of helping a recipient gauge, evaluate, reflect, and act on
their knowledge to stimulate behavioral change in the feedback provision process.
Addressing the ability to monitor a recipient’s knowledge and understanding is critical in
feedback provision to achieve recipient understanding, behavior change, and performance gap
reduction. A recipient’s ability to reflect on what they do not understand and make adjustments
to their behavior is necessary for feedback to be efficacious. In addition to metacognitive
practices that advance provider feedback competency, providers need to address recipient self-
regulation to help recipients appropriately adjust behavior to meet their goals.

27

Self-Regulation
Self-regulation is the ability of individuals to reflect on an action or circumstance and
control their behavior in response (Bandura, 1986). Self-regulation is a crucial component for
recipients to engage in when involved in the feedback process to stimulate behavioral change
(Brown et al., 2016; Chawla et al., 2019; Lee, 2016). Dembo and Seli (2016) noted that self-
regulation behaviors stimulate six components that help drive behavior: motivation, learning
strategies, use of time, physical environment, social environment, and monitoring performance.
When providers prompt recipients to engage in self-regulation during the feedback process,
recipients are better able to reduce performance gaps. In a study on feedback and self-regulation,
Brown et al. (2016) noted that providing feedback alone is not a predictor of behavioral change.
Providers need to address the recipient’s self-regulation to help trigger behavioral changes in the
recipient. The study examined the responses of 278 university students who took a 32-item
feedback questionnaire measuring engagement. Results showed that recipients who actively
engaged in the feedback process had reported higher levels of self-regulation behaviors and a
higher GPA than their peers who did not engage. This result demonstrates the importance of
providers encouraging active engagement in feedback interactions in order to trigger recipient
self-regulation.
The quality of feedback presented by providers impacts the engagement of the recipient’s
self-regulation. Chawla et al. (2019) described how feedback is integral to the components of
self-regulation, specifically in setting goals, identifying and reducing gaps, and on-going
monitoring. The study also analyzed self-regulation behaviors in prospective job seekers’
feedback interactions, in addition to metacognition. Results showed that providers’ feedback
quality is critical for self-regulation, regardless of whether the feedback is positive or negative.
28

Providers can effectively trigger recipient self-regulations by presenting feedback in terms of the
distance a recipient is from their goal. A 2016 study by Lee focused on the interaction between
feedback and self-regulation when recipients work toward either high or low importance goals,
with feedback denoting progress toward or distance from those goals. In the quasi-experimental
study, researchers assigned 124 participants to one of four experimental condition groups.
Distance feedback, or how far a recipient was from attaining their goal, was shown to trigger
self-regulation skills in performance by speeding up the recipient’s response time for task
completion. Considering recipient self-regulation in the feedback process allows an efficacious
provider the ability to reduce performance gaps by actively engaging recipients in the feedback
process and triggering their motivation to bridge their behavioral gaps.
Providers demonstrate competency when provider feedback allows recipients to engage
in self-regulation and behavior change during the feedback process. Self-regulation allows
recipients to act in their own best interest to change behavior and respond to feedback-directed
goals. When providers engage in triggering this behavior while presenting a recipient with
feedback, they help set that individual up to meet their goals. In addition to addressing
knowledge-related components in the feedback process, providers must address the motivational
needs of the recipient, which is key to improving feedback competence.
Motivational Factors Influencing Feedback Provision
Motivation is a powerful driver in the feedback process and can drive recipients to
outperform their contemporaries and, as a result, become more likely to receive promotional
opportunities in the workplace (DePasque & Tricomi, 2015; Eklöf et al., 2014). This next section
will look into two main topics in the literature that links motivation to feedback interactions. The
29

following sections will discuss recipient intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy in relation to
provider feedback provision.
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation refers to the recipient’s engagement in an activity or behavior due to
interest or satisfaction (Henry et al., 2018). Feedback alone is not enough to help recipients
improve their performance gaps. A provider must also manipulate a recipient’s intrinsic
motivation to help facilitate behavior change and engagement (McGee & Johnson, 2015).
Engaging in a recipient’s internal motivation will increase their response to feedback
interaction (Badami et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2017; DePasque & Tricomi, 2015). Framing
feedback positively is vital for a provider when attempting to trigger a recipient’s intrinsic
motivation towards feedback response. Researchers assessed student intrinsic motivation when
providers gave positive and negative feedback after a sporting event during a study by Badami et
al. (2011). Researchers found that positive feedback provided directly after an event helped
increase participant intrinsic motivation and feelings of competence. Providers need to engage
recipients to know what internally motivates them to help trigger positive feedback reactions.
Chen et al. (2017) conducted a qualitative study measuring employee reactions to supervisor
feedback. Researchers surveyed 192 employees at a manufacturing company. The results showed
that positive reactions to feedback were due to employee’s internal motivation as opposed to the
study’s hypothesized concept of belonging. Human brains are wired to respond to motivation,
and tapping into this connection when providing feedback allows providers to help recipients
better engage in behavioral change. DePasque and Tricomi (2015) conducted a study where 50
adult student volunteers underwent magnetic resonance imaging to examine the connection
between intrinsic motivation and feedback processing. Study results linked intrinsic motivation
30

as a critical factor in learning by allowing recipients the ability to utilize feedback information
due to motivations triggering neural processing. Providers who access a recipient’s internal
motivation through positive feedback interactions help stimulate their sense of belonging and
competence in order to help propel the recipient to their goals.
When building competency in feedback provision, providers need to be aware of the
effect a recipient’s intrinsic motivation has on their ability to adapt their behavior. By addressing
recipient intrinsic motivation, recipients are better able to affect their response to feedback and
goal achievement positively. Providers should also bolster a recipient’s self-efficacy when
providing feedback to trigger a positive motivational response.
Self-Efficacy Triggers
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs in their ability, which determines the goals
they set for themselves (Bandura, 1986). Providers promote a recipient’s self-efficacy through
various influencing factors, such as recipient emotional arousal, social persuasion, vicarious
experience, or a recipient’s past accomplishments. Providers need to know how to bolster self-
efficacy triggers in order to promote recipient growth through feedback interaction (Beattie et al.,
2016; Dimotakis et al., 2017; Sherf & Morrison, 2020). Self-efficacy triggers tied to feedback
noted in the literature include emotional arousal and social persuasion.
Emotional arousal triggers a recipient’s judgment on self-efficacy based on the
recipient’s emotional state (Bandura, 1986). Providers can engage a recipient’s perspective to
trigger recipient self-efficacy, allowing feedback recipients to be more receptive to a provider
message. Sherf and Morrison (2020) conducted five separate studies exploring the relationship
between self-efficacy and feedback provision. The researchers proposed adding perspective-
taking, or considering the feedback providers’ viewpoint, would allow for feedback to better
31

trigger a recipient’s self-efficacy. Combined across all studies, 1,734 participants engaged in a
quasi-experimental study and responded to surveys to generate data. Results across all five
studies indicate that when a recipient engages in perspective-taking and self-efficacy, the
combination increases the recipient’s ability to receive and accept the message. Providers trigger
self-efficacy when stimulating recipient emotional arousal that aims for improved outcomes for
feedback recipients.
The second self-efficacy trigger noted in the literature is social persuasion, where a
recipient’s self-efficacy is triggered by coaching messages from providers (Bandura, 1986).
Dimotakis et al. completed a study in 2017 aimed at the effects of both positive and negative
feedback on an individual’s career trajectory when combined with self-efficacy. The study
expanded to include mitigating factors of showing support and supervisor belief in improving
recipients’ abilities mollified the negative feedback responses on self-efficacy. The study took
place over 15 years and had a final total of 128 participants. Participants began with a 3-day
program at an assessment center. Researchers sent a follow-up survey after two and a half years.
Finally, 15 years after the first program, participant career information was collected by the
research team. The study results indicate that self-efficacy ties to feedback-seeking behaviors
and leads to improved career outcomes. Results also found, when implementing feedback, the
addition of both support and supervisor belief in the potential of a recipient increased the
recipient’s self-efficacy, as opposed to merely delivering the negative feedback message alone.
Effective feedback providers need to be aware of how they trigger a recipient’s emotions
in order to engage their self-efficacy. Providers engaging in detailed performance feedback
messages will positively engage a respondent’s self-efficacy and, therefore, a recipient’s ability
to engage in behavior change. Beattie et al. (2016) combined three separate quasi-experiments,
32

with 176 participants split between the experiments. The studies focused on the relationship
between self-efficacy and performance feedback, with variations for feedback quantity, time, and
content changes. The overall results showed that detailed managerial performance feedback leads
to a recipient’s positively affecting future performance. In pairing perspective, outcome-oriented,
and supportive messages in the feedback process, providers can engage recipients’ social and
emotional self-efficacy to reach feedback-related goals.
In considering improving managerial feedback efficacy, it is important to address
motivation factors not only for managers triggering behavior in recipients but also for the
managers themselves. There is not a substantial amount of literature that addresses managerial
feedback provision and motivation specifically. However, the general literature on individual
motivation makes it clear that the concepts of metacognition and self-efficacy are just as
important for the providers themselves (Elliot et al., 2017). Elliot et al. (2017) noted that the
engagement of metacognitive practices enables an individual’s skills to understand and monitor
their ability to recognize, define and represent a problem. Metacognition further enables the
creation of strategy formulation, monitoring, and evaluating a problem. Each of these
metacognitive elements is needed for a manager to engage in feedback provision. The addition of
self-efficacy in individuals helps enable goal setting and the strategy needed to attain those goals.
In building the tools as a provider to give competent feedback, stimulating a respondent’s
self-efficacy through detailed, performance-based feedback will positively affect their ability to
respond. Also, providers need to help a respondent engage in perspective-taking to see the value
of given feedback to stimulate growth. A final consideration when identifying gaps in a
provider’s ability to engage in competent feedback performance is organizational barriers.

33

Organizational Factors Influencing Feedback Provision
The final component of the gap analysis concerns organizational barriers (Clark & Estes,
2008). Organizational barriers address the structures in place in an operation or business unit that
creates a disparity between where an organization currently is and its goal. Clark and Estes
(2008) noted that organizational culture and process affect the ability to improve performance.
To ensure feedback positively impacts a recipient, the nature of the organization must be taken
into consideration by the provider. The following section will delve into two main organizational
gaps affecting the feedback process found in the literature: work process and culture.
Work Process Implications on Feedback
A work process refers to the process in which people interact with each other to create a
specific result; in this study, the interaction is feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008). To provide quality
feedback to recipients, providers need to adjust to changing workflow patterns, particularly with
the use of technology (Balta & Tzafilkou, 2019; Crook et al., 2012; Mayhew, 2017). Adapting to
a changing work process involves utilizing technology to improve traditional practices and
allowing for the adaptation of in-person interaction to an online environment.
New software allows for improvement to traditional feedback practices that were
traditionally limited to time-intensive in-person interaction. Adapting technology to allow for
timely feedback is how providers can adjust workflow to address recipients’ needs. A 2019 study
by Balta and Tzafilkou analyzed the use of software to provide feedback. Fifty students using the
online Socrative software program participated in the study. Results showed that software
advantages provided instant feedback in a formative manner at the end of each course. Positive
implications were that researchers noted recipient ease of access as a motivating factor. Teachers
were able to add a closing set of questions at the end of each course to retrieve feedback and
34

check for student understanding. Providers adjusting to new technology can also expand
feedback practices by providing more detailed feedback than traditional methods, allowing
students to better understand the information presented. In order to adjust to student expectations
of the learning environment, professors at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom
changed feedback procedures to include video assessment feedback using screen capture
technology (Mayhew, 2017). This screen capture technology allowed professors to provide an
online response, both visually and verbally, with no added cost of time to their existing
workload. One professor used a screen capture software to record feedback on the first essay of
the term, record the feedback, and send it to students. Professors sent feedback over two
semesters, and 55 total students responded to follow-up surveys. Results showed 90% of students
reported that they found the recorded footage beneficial, and 81% reported favoring the recorded
feedback to traditional written feedback on their essays. Using technology to improve feedback
interaction will be a useful tool for effective feedback providers as the work process continues to
evolve.
In addition to adapting software, online virtual resources are shaping a growing online
culture. In this new environment, providers need to acclimate to an environment based both
online and in-person. Eight teachers and 105 students engaged in trial use of new online
software, ASSET, that allowed for video recorded messages of feedback assessment provided by
teachers (Crook et al., 2012). This study examined the efficacy of administering feedback in an
online experience and sought to determine if creating online communication to match user needs
would create more engagement. Results showed that student engagement increased as 61%
reported viewing feedback videos multiple times. 60% of students reported that video
engagement via the application encouraged more interaction than traditional methods of
35

procuring teacher feedback interaction. Providers must be able to adapt their work process to the
organizational environment by meeting recipients’ needs and engaging in the available tools
necessary to make the process easy to use and understand.
Adapting the work process by using new technology can create accessible, user-friendly,
detailed feedback for recipients. Utilizing technology to the benefit of interaction is part of
building competence in the feedback process for providers. Also, learning to navigate the
organizational culture a provider operates in is part of building competence and narrowing the
provision gap.
Cultural Impacts on Feedback Provision
An organization’s culture has an impact on the efficacy of feedback interactions (Pruvli,
2014; Suhoyo et al., 2017). Understanding the culture of the environment that providers work in
is key to understanding how to provide feedback that matters to recipients. In a quantitative
survey study on feedback intervention experiences for 250 medical students at a university,
students reported over 889 feedback interactions (Suhoyo et al., 2017). Researchers compared
interactions with five selected feedback best practices. The study showed that students agreed
with four out of five best practices. The four practices students agreed with were providing
feedback on what behavior needed improvement, comparing behavior to a standard, explaining
and demonstrating correct behavior, and using an action plan to improve future behavior.
However, the one best practice, as determined in the literature review, that did not show as
favorable by students was “mentioning students’ strengths.” Researchers attributed this result to
the Indonesian students’ culture who valued conformity over individualism and did not see a
benefit in noting their strengths. Providers must consider the in which they are working and the
culture of those with whom they work when delivering feedback. In a qualitative study focused
36

on managerial feedback in a foreign culture, Pruvli (2014) found that recipient’s reactions to
feedback were unintelligible due to differences in body language, causing recipients to question
the content of the message. This response led Pruvli to claim the need for management cultural
training to focus on adjusting communication styles when working across cultures to create
enhanced feedback understanding. Providing feedback in the context of an organization’s culture
is a crucial factor of competent provider feedback provision.
Competent feedback providers can shape organizational culture through their feedback
provision (Dahling et al., 2016; Hysong et al., 2018). Management’s direct line of feedback on
subordinates directly affects corporate culture. Dahling et al. (2016) noted in their study on the
effects of feedback motives that 47.62% of respondents rated company culture as highly relevant
to them, and providers should direct feedback as part of that company culture as a learning
experience. When providers establish a culture of feedback that aims to have recipients
understand the information in a constructive way, managers can influence positive business
results in the workplace. In a year-and-a-half-long study, researchers interviewed leaders from 16
Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals on the mental models they utilized when reviewing feedback
from an external peer review program mandated by the VA organization. Leaders with positive
mental models saw higher-performing programs due to framing the feedback received as a way
to be transparent with staff, benchmark, and strategically align their work for continued
improvement (Hysong et al., 2018).
Managers can shape an organization’s culture. Managers who are competent feedback
providers can use their skills to help create a culture where recipients actively seek and
appreciate feedback. Providers working to improve feedback competence need to address the
culture they are working in so that the messages they provide are understood and credible to
37

recipients. When leaders work not only to understand the culture in which they operate but also
work to create a culture that is open to feedback, recipients can prosper in that environment. This
environment is also one that they can shape. The history, best practices, challenges, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors that manipulate the feedback environment and provider
competence create the conceptual framework that directs this study. The next section will
combine the elements of this literature review into the guiding conceptual framework used to
guide this dissertation.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework that shapes this study was driven by theory-based thinking
and relevant literature on building feedback competency for providers (Grant & Osanloo, 2014).
Figure 1 presents a visual of the conceptual framework. The main theoretical frame used to guide
this study was Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis. Aimed explicitly at determining
performance gaps, the gap analysis focuses on three main parts: knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps. This theory fits well with the current theoretical approach to combining the
multidimensional factors involved in feedback provision. Gap analysis also allows for parts of
the existing theoretical models on the framework to fit within its component structure while also
adding the element of organizational context, which is lacking in current feedback-specific
models. Gap analysis also creates a robust framework for the given problem of practice and
competency of managers in feedback provision. The analysis provides structure to identify the
areas that managers need to address to build competence in feedback provision.

38

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

The overarching goal of the conceptual framework presented is to provide a framework
that will guide the study in determining how to improve managerial feedback provision.
Knowledge factors of feedback interaction addressed in the framework examine manager’s
knowledge of the three high-quality feedback elements of clear communication, understanding
Knowledge
•Clear Communication
•Understanding Confirmation
•Action Planning
•Metacognition
•Self-Regulation
•Intrinsic Motivation
Motivation
•Self-Efficacy
•Self Motivation
Organization
•Work Flow
•Culture
•Technology
•Resources
39

confirmation and action planning listed in the literature as feedback best practices. Other
knowledge factors supported in the literature include metacognition, self-regulation, and
managers knowledge of engaging intrinsic motivation. Motivation factors supported in the
literature include self-efficacy and self-motivation. The organization factors supported in the
literature include culture and technology, in addition to elements of workflow and resources.
Summary
Feedback interaction is a multidimensional process between providers and recipients.
History shows the development of feedback interaction, starting with respondent behavior
prediction by responses to a stimulus in their environment. As theory progressed, it has
demonstrated the complicated interaction between respondent locus of attention, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Providers need to be aware of the complex interaction
each of these influences can have on their recipients when providing feedback. Awareness and
action to enhance each influence are necessary for providers to build competence in this skill.

40

Chapter Three: Methodology
Guided by the literature and conceptual framework noted in Chapter Two, this chapter
will explain this qualitative study’s design plan. In following the study’s purpose of
understanding how to build managerial competence in feedback provision, I developed three
guiding research questions. Along with the guiding research questions, this chapter will provide
an overview of the study’s design, the research setting, my background, data sources used,
validity and reliability measures used in the study, and ethical considerations.
Research Questions
This study focused on three research questions developed through the lens of the gap
analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Each question focuses on one of the main elements of
the gap analysis and its relation to managerial feedback provision: knowledge, motivation, and
organization. The three research questions are
1. What knowledge factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
2. What motivation factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
3. What organizational factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality
feedback?
Overview of Design
The methodological design of this study is qualitative, with the data collection taking
place during interviews. Qualitative methods are best suited to provide data on participant
meaning and provide a holistic account of the participant experience (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Qualitative methods best align with the purpose of the study and are necessary to learn
more about the history and experience of managers at Company A and how those managers
interact with the elements of high-quality feedback, knowledge, motivation, and organization to
41

impact their feedback competency. This method also allowed me to work inductively to create a
set of themes from the data gathered in order to answer the research questions (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Qualitative study also focuses on the meaning and understanding of data
acquired (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative data allowed me to discover how managers
participate in learning processes and determine what knowledge, motivation, and organizational
factors influence feedback interaction at Company A.
Interviews are appropriate for this study because they allow for the gathering of
information from participants who cannot otherwise be directly observed (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Interviews also help to gather the information needed from participants that covers the
internal thought process of a participant’s knowledge and motivation. Organizational culture is
also not always readily observable and can be subjective due to individual participant experience.
Interviews also allow participants to convey historical information, such as their learning process
or critical lessons learned from previous feedback interactions.
Research Setting
Company A is an entertainment organization in the United States. The division that
participated in the study comprises 42 operations managers who lead several thousand frontline
employees. Operations managers in this organization are frontline leaders whose direct
leadership influences the organization’s employees. Managers work in teams of five to 12 in
shifts to oversee the daily operation, develop their employees, and respond to any customer
needs. The educational background of Company A managers varies widely, as there is no
educational requirement for promotion into this role. The majority of managers matriculate into
leadership positions after showing leadership aptitude in hourly leader positions. The
organization provides an educational training course to prepare managers for their role with the
42

help of an internal training team. Company trainers touch on feedback interaction training during
the management training program. There are also online programs offered to review concepts of
feedback provision. Both of these educational opportunities focused on feedback interaction are
short, under two hours.
The majority of managerial training happens in the new manager’s assigned location
through a series of observational experiences with a senior team member assigned to help them
through their training process. Training processes can vary by team and by the assigned senior
manager mentor. New leaders are invited by senior managers to witness various first-hand
feedback interactions on the job site. Those mentoring the new managers will also have the new
manager carry out feedback interactions while observing the new manager’s skill. Mentoring
managers will then provide the new manager with their feedback on how to improve. Managers
looking to further engage in their development can reach out to their peers for mentorship,
engage with the internal training department for seminar-type classes, or participate in an
educational reimbursement program to gain further education from external educational
organizations.
Managers oversee a diverse population of employees. Employees start as young as 18,
with the older employees being in their post-retirement years. The majority of employees are
college-age individuals in their first job. Employees’ inexperience in the business world
necessitates a need for managers to identify gaps in knowledge or behavior and help direct these
employees to grow through continuous feedback.
With limited training expressly provided for feedback interaction, managers must
continually identify their educational opportunities and then seek out those improvement
opportunities on their own. Personal knowledge, motivation, and organizational experience lead
43

to a range of feedback training, mentorship, and feedback competency. To develop optimal skills
and practice mastery learning, managers need to understand the critical components of adequate
feedback provision and routinely practice and examine those skills.
The specific work setting at Company A led to the development of this study’s research
questions. Stemming from the stated problem of practice, the research questions’ central focus is
on the factors that influence building managerial competence in feedback provision. Research
questions break down using the three components of the gap analysis as a strategy of inquiry
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research questions specify managers in the line of inquiry.
This specification led to the choice of frontline managers as study participants due to their direct
and influential role in the feedback process at Company A.
The Researcher
I had a pragmatic worldview when approaching research. My inquiry was value-driven,
and the research aimed to lead toward practical outcomes (Saunders, 2019). My pragmatic
philosophical worldview ties in with the qualitative nature of this study in order to see how the
actions and situations experienced by Company A’s managers created the feedback environment
experienced in this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Pragmatism also fits well with the
theoretical framework as it explores both an internal view of the participant (knowledge and
motivation) and the external world (organization) (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
I currently work in a for-profit business as a frontline manager and have a 17-year tenure
with the organization. Having started as an entry-level employee and being promoted into
management has allowed me first-hand experience with receiving and providing feedback in a
business setting. I have also mentored new managers during their formative learning process on
feedback practices.
44

The experience I have as a frontline manager, similar to my interviewees, is essential to
address and mitigate any biases at the start of the research process. With the understanding that
our own experience is not always representative of a group as a whole, I turned to a robust
method of inquiry in order to examine a long-term and broader perspective (Duke & Martin,
2011). To help mitigate any potential bias, I enlisted the help of my dissertation chair and
dissertation committee to review the study and consult the literature for a deeper understanding
of the feedback process (Malloy, 2011). The process of inquiry also relied on robust data
collection and transparent measures of validity and reliability.
Data Sources
This study used interviews as the source of data for analysis. Interviews excel at
providing robust and holistic descriptions, participant perceptions, detailed processes, and
complex phenomena that cannot be directly observed (Weiss, 1994). The following section will
detail the study’s interview process’s specifics, including participants, instrumentation, data
collection procedures, and analysis procedures.
Interviews
In this study, interviews refer to a semi-structured process where I engaged in a series of
questions based on the research questions with a participant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
study’s problem of practice questions what knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
influence a manager’s feedback. Since this information requires historical data and perspective,
asking participants to share this data via an interview is the best method for the study.
Participants
The sampling approach for this study was non-probability purposeful. Participants were
frontline operations managers working within Company A. Company A’s division director sent a
45

pre-contact notification email to the population of managers before the I selected participants.
The email informed potential participants of the study and its purpose, as well as of their right to
decline participation with no repercussions. Participants were operations managers who had been
in a leadership role for a minimum of a year. The target sample size for this study was 12 to 15
participants. Due to limitations accused by the COVID-19 pandemic, only managers who were
actively working, with actively working direct reports, were selected for this study.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation used for the study is an interview protocol sheet. The interview is a
standardized open-ended interview, allowing for comparable answers, where each participant
answers the same full set of items (Patton, 2002). The protocol contains 21 questions with
accompanying probes. Interview protocol questions align with the theoretical and conceptual
frameworks focused on knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Additional
questions follow to assess the conceptual framework concepts of clear communication,
understanding confirmation, and action planning. Based on the guidance of Patton’s (2002) six
types of questions, protocol questions vary in type in order to obtain a variety of data on
experiences, opinions, feelings, knowledge, and background. The protocol sheet has space for
direct reflection on the participant’s answers for each question and a section for an observer
comment. Appendix A displays the full interview protocol.
Data Collection Procedures
Interviews lasted approximately one hour. The interviews took place remotely using
Zoom online meeting software and were transcribed using Rev.com. I began each interview
covering the intention of the interview, the rights of the participant, confirming informed consent
to participate, the interview contents’ use, and logistics, including obtaining permission to record
46

the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the interview, I both recorded the meeting and
took notes on the protocol sheet. Recording the interview allowed for a full transcript and the
ability to review the conversation in depth at a later time for more robust data. During the
interview, note-taking also allowed me to capture non-verbal data, such as attitudes, behaviors,
or other observations that may occur during the interview process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A
password-protected USB drive securely stored all interview data.
Validity and Reliability
Credibility and trustworthiness are essential elements of the research process, allowing
the study to provide accurate and consistent results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In
consideration of the study’s research questions and methodology, I chose four strategies to
ensure credibility and trustworthiness. The four strategies to be used are member checking,
robust description, peer auditing, and providing an audit trail.
Member checking allowed for the accuracy of findings to be verified when I circled back
to the interview participants and confirms with them that the reporting and study themes are an
accurate reflection of their answers (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This verification aligns well
with the interview data process since the act of analysis itself confers meaning through my
interpretation, and participants can confirm the results personally (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At
the end of the data analysis, I took the main themes found and confirmed understanding with a
select number of participants and allowed them to comment on the findings of the study.
A full description is a necessary part of credible and trustworthy qualitative research,
providing detailed descriptions of participant data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These thick
descriptions allow readers to form a clear understanding of the material presented. I
accomplished the robust description by taking detailed notes on the interview protocol, recording
47

the interviews, having the audio transcribed, and journaling my thoughts and decisions during
the research process.
Peer auditing or debriefing is a process that enables accuracy by having an external peer
review to question the data and findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This process allows for a
peer, with an outside perspective, to ensure that the study is translatable to a broader audience. A
panel of experts reviewed this study through a dissertation committee. The committee helped
guide my work and ensure alignment at all levels of the study.
Audit trails allow for a transparent and robust description of my process and decision
making during the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to accomplish this, I kept a detailed
journal during the research process. This journal detailed the interview process, observations,
and decisions I made during data collection and analysis. The audit trail also allows other
researchers to understand the process used during this study to describe how I came to the
study’s concluding results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
Maintaining an ethical study is of paramount importance. Well-conducted research
should aim to do no harm, understanding that the trustworthiness of the data aligns with the
practices of those who conduct that research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All participants were
engaged in informed consent before I gathered any data. I provided the participants a clear
description of the study, its purpose, the research questions, data use, the security of the data,
confidentiality, and a request for permission to record before any research occurs. Participants
also understood that the process was voluntary, and they were free to stop the data collection
process at any point. Participants were under no obligation to answer anything they did not want
48

to answer (Glesne, 2011). Participants were provided a form of consent with this information
before the interview started.
I maintained participant confidentiality in this study’s report. All notes, recordings, and
the interview protocol were kept on a password-protected laptop and not shared with anyone
outside of those directly involved in data analysis. Only the final dissertation was made available
within the organization studied, and the document did not have any identifying links to the
participants.
Quality research needs to be carried out by qualified and trained individuals (Glesne,
2011). I was a student of research practices through the Doctor of Education in Organizational
Change and Leadership program at the University of Southern California. Also, I completed the
human subjects research training with the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. The
study was reviewed by a panel of educators and then submitted for institutional review board
approval at the University of Southern California.
49

Chapter Four: Results
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the current practice of feedback
provision by frontline operations managers at Company A in order to build competency. The
managers’ feedback practices were compared to the known best practices of high-quality
feedback provision examined in Chapter Two. Chapter Four will detail the findings of 13
interviews. The chapter will follow the layout provided by the three guiding research questions
found in Chapter Two:
1. What knowledge factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
2. What motivation factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
3. What organizational factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality
feedback?
In addition, each section will discuss the elements listed in this dissertation’s conceptual
framework. Additional insights from the interviews are then provided. A summary of findings
concludes the chapter.
Participants
Thirteen Company A frontline operations managers participated in the interview process.
The interviewees came from an existing population of 41 working managers who were actively
supervising hourly employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Managers who volunteered to be
interviewed are herein referred to as participants. To maintain confidentiality, pseudonyms were
used in place of the participants’ real names. Demographic data on each participant was
gathered, including gender, age, management seniority and highest education level completed by
the individual. Table 1 displays the participants’ demographics.

50

Table 1
Demographic by Individual
Name Gender Age Manager seniority Education level
Anna F 31 3 Masters
Byron M 26 4 Bachelors
Charles M 52 29 Bachelors
Darius M 40 16 Some college
Ellen F 60 20 Bachelors
Francis F 40 7 Bachelors
Grace F 46 10 Some college
Howard M 37 3 Bachelors
Isabel F 54 22 Bachelors
Jackie F 54 13 Associates
Kelly M 44 8 High school
Laurence M 29 3.5 Bachelors
Miguel M 32 5 Bachelors

Participants were diverse in age, ranging from 26 to 61 years old. Gender was split with
seven male interview participants and six female interview participants. Participants’ seniority in
their management role ranges from three years to 29 years. Aggregated interview participant data
is shown in Table 2.

51

Table 2
Stakeholder Demographics
Demographics
N = 13
Gender
Male 7
Female 6
Age
20–29 years 2
30–39 years 3
40–49 years 4
50–59 years 3
60+ years 1
Education
High school 3
Associates degree 1
Bachelor’s degree 8
Master’s degree 1
Employment seniority
1 to 9 years 7
10 to 19 years 3
20 to 30 years 3

Participants predominantly held bachelor’s degrees. The majority, seven participants, had
1 to 9 years seniority with Company A. Participants mainly ranged in age between 30 and 59
years old, with only three people outside of this range. The first section of data findings to be
highlighted is knowledge factors that influence manager feedback provision.
Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What knowledge factors influence a manager’s ability
to provide high-quality feedback?” This section will begin by addressing the findings related to
the three elements of high-quality feedback: clear communication, understanding confirmation,
52

and action planning. Following the findings on high-quality factors, the findings related to
metacognition, self-regulation, and participant knowledge of invoking recipient intrinsic
motivation will be discussed.
High-Quality Factors of Feedback Provision
The three factors of clear communication, understanding confirmation, and action
planning were identified through the literature review as the components of high-quality
feedback. Interview questions about participants’ knowledge sought to identify the use of these
factors in their participant feedback process. Clear communication was an asset of participants
who were able to provide multiple examples of how they ensure a feedback message is clearly
provided. Understanding confirmation was less frequently used and many of the examples
showed feedback interactions that did not enable recipient understanding, indicating an
opportunity for managerial growth. Action planning was least used and finding indicated a
knowledge gap due to participants disuse or dislike of the practice. Table 3 identifies the
instances of each factor mentioned throughout each participant’s interview.

53

Table 3
Participant Mentions of High-Quality Factors
Participant Clear communication Understanding
confirmation
Action planning
Anna 4 4 0
Byron 4 4 1
Charles 3 3 1
David 3 2 0
Ellen 6 6 2
Francis 7 3 2
Grace 2 5 1
Henry 4 2 2
Isabel 5 2 3
Jackie 3 7 3
Kelly 4 4 1
Laurence 2 1 0
Miguel 6 3 0
Total 53 46 16

Participants most frequently mentioned clear communication, with 53 separate
references. Participants mentioned understanding confirmation 46 times, and action planning was
described the least, with 16 mentions. Not only was action planning the least mentioned, but four
participants also failed to describe its use in their answers at all. Each of the three high-quality
sections contained commonalities in the data and is described in detail in the following sections,
beginning with clear communication.
Clear Communication
Participants mentioned clear communication as the most frequently used high-quality
feedback factor. A majority identified personally witnessed examples and direct conversation,
suggesting that there were assets in those areas. Fewer examples of timely conversation and two-
54

way suggested an opportunity for growth. Participants also shared examples of one-way data that
suggested it should be removed from feedback practice. As seen in Table 3, the importance of
clear communication was mentioned by every single participant, suggesting that they have
awareness of this component and that this is an asset among interviewees. When asked about
their own approaches to feedback and how they chose to communicate with participants,
interviewees noted four strategies: using personally witnessed examples, being direct, two-way
discussions, and timely communication.
When considering clear communication in providing feedback, nine out of 13 participants
described using behavioral examples of recipients they had personally witnessed. Anna provided
a personal example that examines the importance of providing clear, witnessed examples in
feedback provision when she shared,
A leader very recently called me bossy and condescending, and I asked for clarification
and specific examples, and they were unwilling to provide me with those examples. The
provider just kept saying, “Well, that is the perception that I have of you.” So, I think that
moment was one of the biggest learning opportunities for me when it comes to feedback
because if I can’t give people examples, why am I giving them the feedback? It does no
one any good if you don’t have those tangible examples.
Darius added, “I think part of feedback was spending time making those observations and
spending time watching them work.” Isabel agreed, adding, “I always feel like I need to have
good examples of behavior I see that needs to improve.”
Interview data indicated that using personally witnessed examples was a strength for
participants. Anna reported how her own feedback experience, not receiving personally
witnessed examples, helped to confirm the importance of the practice in her own conversations.
55

The additional eight participants described the addition of witnessed examples in their feedback
provision.
Direct speech in communicating a feedback message was discussed by seven participants.
Participants were asked to describe their feedback style, and three individuals used directness as
a descriptor of their style and approach. Miguel noted that direct communication was a part of
his style to build transparency with his feedback recipients when he said,
Being direct about telling [them] the situation from my perspective, what I’m seeing, and
what we need to happen. Being very transparent about that. I’m going to tell you directly,
because if I don’t, you’re going to know it, and you’re going to be like, “Oh, you see,
he’s too afraid to say it all. He just doesn’t want to hurt my feelings.”
Jackie also used the same language when describing her style by saying, “I think it’s important to
be direct, so that there’s understanding.” Ellen added, “I like honest, open [feedback
conversations]. I don’t like people talking about people behind their backs, whether it’s
managers or anybody else.”
Directness was also a factor of clear communication that participants mentioned as a
successful element of feedback provision. When describing recent successful feedback
conversations, two participants cited direct communication as part of their approach. Howard
described a situation where direct feedback helped a recipient to hear the given message. He
described the outcome by saying, “I think the employee needed that directness for the feedback
to sink in, realize, ‘I’m causing trouble at work,’ and he [changed behavior]. I feel that direct
feedback was effective.” Jackie mentioned, “I think it's important to be direct, so that there's
understanding.” Howard and Jackie’s statements indicate how direct feedback helped them
provide a successful message to their recipients and encourage participants’ understanding. The
56

use of direct communication as an element of clear communication and as a factor of
participants’ personal feedback style indicated a knowledge asset.
Timely delivery was a strategy mentioned by four participants. Ellen provided the
following example:
Have recent examples. You cannot give somebody feedback when you were saying 6
months ago this was a problem. Well, why weren’t you talking to me 6 months ago?
Make everything relevant, pertinent in time, that it just happened, so it’s fresh in their
mind, and it’s fresh in your mind that you have a situation that you want to talk about.
Ellen’s feelings were echoed by Grace when she shared, “I feel like it’s one of those things that
you should do as quickly as possible. If something happens with the employee and you can talk
to them that same shift, it’s still fresh.” Laurence agreed, stating, “I immediately, based on the
severity of the concern, pulled the employee to the office and delivered the feedback
conversation.” Laurence shared he was timely in more severe conversations but did not use this
behavior in every conversation. Timely communication was an opportunity for growth due to the
infrequent description of this strategy in participants’ practice. In addition, one participant only
utilized timely communication in more severe interactions, instead of consistently utilizing the
practice
The final factor of clear communication that six participants mentioned was two-way
conversation. Two-way conversation centered on an open conversation between feedback
providers and receivers. Participants used two-way communication to engage recipients, to
gather information, and as a tool for training other providers. Miguel shared, “I think the most
important thing that I want people to hear about when I’m delivering feedback is that we’re
having a conversation. Instead of, I am coaching you, or I am reprimanding you.” Laurence
57

added, “I come from a place of wanting to investigate and wanting to understand their side of
what happened. After getting their side of the story [and the circumstances of the concerning
behavior], we can address key learnings.” Byron noted the importance of training new managers
to provide two-way communication. He stated, “When training a new manager, I would tell them
that listening is a great part of the feedback. That feedback is best when it’s a conversation, when
it’s a dialogue, not a monologue.” Participants’ examples indicated that two-way conversations
allowed providers to gain clearer understanding of feedback situations. Two-way conversation
also promoted recipient participation in the conversation.
In addition, managers communicated their preference for two-way communication
through stories that showed the negative impact of one-way communication. One-way
communication occurred when the provider shared a feedback message without allowing for
dialogue or rebuttal with the recipient. Participants gave two examples of feedback interactions
they witnessed and shared that one-way communication was not a behavior they wanted to
emulate. Kelly remembered one of his previous leaders was prone to providing one-way
conversations:
I had this supervising manager, and he [had a mentality of] it’s my way or the highway. If
it didn’t make sense, or I had a problem with it crossing my moral compass, I would
always ask the reason behind it. Or I would basically fight it, in the sense that I would
want to be justified that my opinion or my views were heard. One day, this manager told
me, “I need to show you how to do it my way, and this is a mess.”
Miguel shared a similar viewpoint on one-way communication, saying, “I’m trying to be
conversational as possible to allow two-way communication, instead of me saying ‘Let me tell
you what I have to tell you.’ And then you’re going to sit there and listen to it.” Kelly noted his
58

dislike of not being able to engage in the feedback conversation or have his opinion heard.
Miguel also noted the dislike of only telling a recipient what to do, instead of engaging in a
conversation. With less than half of participants providing examples of two-way communication
and additional examples highlighting the negative use seen by participants of one-way
communication, findings indicate this element of clear communication as an opportunity for
knowledge growth.
In sum, every participant stressed the importance of clear communication; four main
strategies leading to clear communication were discussed, including personally witnessed
examples, direct communication, timely communication, and two-way communication.
Personally witnessed examples and direct communication’s use by over half the participants
suggested knowledge assets. The less frequent examples of timely and two-way communication
indicated areas of opportunity.
Understanding Confirmation
Understanding confirmation is the process of ensuring that the participant accurately
receives the provider’s intended message. When asked about their own approaches to feedback
and how they chose to ensure participant understanding, interviewees noted five strategies:
questioning, providing a why, time to process, avoiding sandwiching models, and being aware of
body language. Each strategy was found to have limited use by providers’ in delivering high-
quality feedback provision. This finding shows the knowledge of participants ability to ensure
recipient understanding of a feedback message is an opportunity for improvement.
The most commonly described strategy to check a recipient’s understanding of a
feedback message was to question the recipient directly. Twelve participants mentioned
questioning recipients. Two types of questioning emerged in the interviews: closed-ended
59

questions and open-ended questions. Closed ended questioning led to responses from participants
that were short or yes/no. Open-ended questioning by providers to confirm recipient
understanding allowed recipients to respond with what they understood and confirmed that the
message was transferred accurately. Table 4 details the examples of both types of questioning
methods the participants used.

Table 4
Participant Questioning Examples
Participant Closed-ended questions Open-ended questions
Miguel After a big chunk of statements, I
will ask if they have any
questions.
But I’m not asking a yes or no question. I
have to draw it out, especially if I think the
feedback isn’t going to be well received.
Asking, “What do you think about how
this is happening? Describe what you are
seeing here?”
Miguel If it’s a good conversation, yes or
no is fine. Like, “Do you have
questions so far?” It’s just, “No,
I understand.”
“Let me ask you what you think you just
heard?” And I make sure that what I have
just said has been received in the way that
I intended it to be received.
Kelly It becomes direct because I just
want to reiterate, I’m telling you
right now, this is what you need
to do, do you understand me?
I’ll ask, “tell me what you need to do when
this happens,” and then that’s kind of like
the two-fold way of giving feedback and
seeing if that makes sense.
Jackie So, I actually use the word, I’m
checking for understanding. I tell
them, “Because if you’re not
understanding, this,
unfortunately, will happen again.
“Can you repeat to me what we talked
about? What are your thoughts? What
were my thoughts on it? And how are we
going to be resolving this?”
Francis Does that make sense? “What questions do you have about that?”
Or, “Is there anything else you have for
me while we’re sitting together?” Trying
to bring understanding and then also
leaving it more open-ended
Charles I’ll ask, and I know I’ve already
done this with you today. Does
that make sense?
I love when they can repeat back to me,
“Well, this is the message that I’m getting.
This is what I’m hearing.”

60

Participants shared those open-ended questions helped the provider to confirm through
recipient response if the feedback message was transferred correctly. Participants use of
questioning was an asset due to its wide use. Opportunity for improvement exists with
participants primarily using open-ended questions to retrieve more detailed responses from
recipients.
Interviewees shared that it was important to provide information regarding why
behavioral change is needed. Three participants shared their experience with providing a why
during feedback provision. Kelly described a personal story examining feedback he received
from his manager, saying,
[My manager] told me about one thing that I would do, [a verbal filler in conversation].
At first, I was annoyed because I didn’t realize how many times I said that. My mentor
told me that everyone’s always looking at me, so I want to make sure that you never look
like a fool. People measure us by the reality of their first impression.
Jackie also noted the significance of sharing why a feedback message was important, saying,
“I’ll say I want you to understand the gravity of this. I want you to understand the why because
you need to understand why so that it doesn’t escalate.” Ellen shared a similar statement by
describing how she starts feedback conversations by saying, “I’ll start with the purpose of the
meeting. It’s having them understand why they’re in there.” Participants shared that providing a
why helped to identify purpose behind their feedback message. The limited number of
participants who shared this strategy indicates providing a why is a growth opportunity.
To build a recipient’s understanding of a feedback message, three participants shared
there is occasionally the need to allow time for the recipient to process that information.
61

Participants described providing time for a recipient to examine and process a feedback message
resulted in better understanding. Grace noted,
If they’re very quiet or they’re not maybe taking it well, I’ll check in with them again at
another point. I’ll make a note to follow up with them on their next shift and see where
we’re at from that point. I tend to get a pretty good understanding from [recipients] when
I do that.
Charles agreed, saying, “Sometimes it’s good to set a little timeline because people need [time]. I
think it’s silly to expect that somebody is going to leave a feedback conversation and
immediately change whatever it was they were doing.” Anna agreed, sharing, “I try and follow
up with them in about a week to see if they got the message, or see if there’s something that I
need to go back and clarify, or give them time to emotionally process.” The limited number of
interviewees that identified process time as a critical part of understanding confirmation suggests
this is a knowledge gap. Those participants who did utilize this feedback strategy had a good
understanding of how to enact this behavior and shared why it was an important high-quality
feedback behavior.
The sandwiching model of feedback, referenced in Chapter One, refers to presenting
feedback messages with positive comments at the beginning and end of the conversation (Davies
& Jacobs, 1985). Two participants shared their use of this practice. Two participants shared their
dislike of the practice.
Participants in favor of sandwiching feedback mentioned that they wanted to address
positive aspects of the recipient as well as the behavior they wanted to correct. Ellen shared,
“I’ve learned to sandwich feedback with what they’re good at. What I want them to change, and
then you end with a positive as well, because everybody has good qualities.” Grace echoed, “Let
62

them know constructive feedback and give them something positive. I try to not make it every
time that they have to come to talk to us, it’s something horrible.” Participants mentioned that
their use of sandwiching helped them feel like their feedback conversations were not always
negative experiences.
Participants against the use of sandwiching feedback shared they felt the message would
get lost when using this practice. Anna described, “I do not like the compliment sandwich. I
think it detracts from the message when you’re trying to get actual critical feedback.” Isabel
elaborated, “Early in my career, I’d say, ‘You did this wrong, but you’re doing other things
right.’ People would miss the point. I always tell a leader, ‘Just give it to me straight, because
otherwise, I might miss the point.’” Interview participants were split on the effectiveness of
using a compliment sandwich model to provide understanding confirmation during a feedback
interaction. The continued use of sandwiching feedback, along with only two participants
understanding that this method of feedback is a distraction to understanding confirmation, shows
this is an opportunity to strengthen knowledge of understanding confirmation.
Provider’s ability to read a recipient’s body language was noted as a part of
understanding confirmation by two participants. Kelly described,
Body language, when I’m delivering the content and having a conversation, I look at
everything. Are they making eye contact with me? What does their posture say? In the
moment, eye contact is huge.
In addition to Kelly’s example, Darius described how he questions recipients’ body language
during feedback to see if individuals are receptive to the message. He stated, “What is it that is
talking [when you look at their] body language. Do they seem engaged in the conversation? Are
they sitting back in the chair? Comfortable in their seat?” Both participants used the body
63

language of the feedback recipients to determine engagement and if the individual was receptive
to the message provided. The lack of participants commenting on body language as an element
of understanding confirmation suggests this is a knowledge opportunity for providers.
In sum, each participant was able to discuss a personal strategy of understanding
confirmation they used in their own practice. Participants use of questioning suggested an asset.
The few examples provided of providing a why, process time, and body language suggested a
knowledge opportunity. Use of sandwiching also suggested an opportunity to eliminate the
practice.
High-Quality Feedback: Action Planning
The final high-quality factor of feedback provision identified in this dissertation is action
planning. Action planning by participants was shown to be a knowledge gap in high-quality
feedback provision. Nine participants shared that action planning was not used in their practice
or not a preferred strategy and four did not mention action planning at all, suggesting this is a
need in the organization. Miguel stated, “Even though I would probably recognize the value in
that, it’s just not something that I’ve personally done.” When asked if she used actions plans,
Francis shared, “In general, no.”
Participants provided stories where they avoided action plans because they didn’t want to
be too hard on the recipient. Laurence shared,
I might not have a formal sit down with the employee regarding an action plan, but I will
almost always ask how they're doing with that conversation. I’ll ask, ‘are you struggling
with esteem issues, have you made strides, what are you doing to better yourself?’ I find
that it all depends on the severity of the situation, but I try being normal as possible to
make those employees feel a little bit more at ease and not in the hot seat.
64

Howard noted, “If it is just something where I can close a loop, then try and just give them the
reasons why, and I don’t want to beat them up.” Kelly echoed, “I like giving people an
opportunity that it’s a mistake, and a one and done kind of thing. I don’t like action plans until
they are repetitive mistakes.”
The concept of action planning was associated with the potential for termination, and it
was not considered for routine feedback interaction. Ellen shared, “There’s not like an action
plan for every time I’m giving feedback. When you say the word action plan to me, that’s the last
straw of a manager’s career when you’re on an action plan.”
In sum, nine participants shared that action planning was not a part, or not a preferred
part of their feedback practice. An additional four participants did not mention action planning as
a part of their feedback practice. Participant examples of action planning’s disuse indicated this
was a knowledge gap.
High-Quality Feedback Factors in Combination
The interview questions directly asked participants for examples of both a positive
feedback experience and a negative feedback experience. The responses were categorized by the
high-quality elements detailed in Chapter 2. A listing of other factors contributing to the
feedback interaction being successful or less successful were added for responses that did not
align with the high-quality feedback factors. Stories from participants that noted a feedback
outcome that resulted in recipient progress were marked as positive. Stories that indicated no
progress, or behavior regression were marked as negative. A category was not marked if the
factor was not mentioned. Findings mirrored previous sections where participants were able to
provide examples of clearly communicated feedback messages, but fell short of engaging
understanding confirmation and action planning.
65

Clear communication was cited most often in the positive and negative feedback
examples. Understanding confirmation was cited three times in positive feedback examples and
six times in negative feedback examples. Francis was the only participant to cite the use of action
planning as a positive factor in feedback example. There were no mentions of action planning in
negative feedback interactions. Table 5 offers the results.

Table 5
Comparing High-Quality Components
Clear
communication
Understanding
confirmation
Action planning Other
Participants Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative
Anna X X
Byron X X X
Charles X X X Metacognition
Darius X Relationship building
Ellen X X Relationship building
Francis X X X X Environment
Grace X Use of time,
metacognition,
Relationship building

Howard X X Relationship building
Isabel X Relationship building
Jackie X X Monitoring
performance

Kelly X X X X
Laurence X X
Miguel X X Relationship building
Total 10 9 3 6 1 0
66
67

The findings provided by participants show how all three high-quality factors were used
in combination only one time during feedback interactions, indicating a knowledge gap. Other
elements noted by participants that influence feedback interactions include relationship building,
motivation, metacognition, and elements of self-regulation. Each of these elements will be
examined further in the chapter.
Metacognition
Metacognition refers to the learning process where thinking skills help enable improved
learning (Elliot et al., 2017). 12 participants shared several metacognitive strategies.
When asked about their own approaches using metacognitive strategy interviewees noted five
strategies: self-monitoring, teaching others self-monitoring, collaboration, debriefing, and
assessment. Table 6 lists the use of these strategies in interview answers. The two most used
strategies, self-monitoring (7), and teaching others self-monitoring (4) will be discussed.

Table 6
Metacognitive Strategy Use
Metacognitive strategies Participant use
Self-monitoring 7
Teaching others self-monitoring 4
Collaboration 2
Debriefing 1
Assessment 1

68

Seven participants discussed their personal use of self-monitoring during the feedback
process. Laurence shared that he often reflects on what happened in a feedback conversation and
how he can make it better. For example,
Sometimes I’m very self-critical. Whenever I come out of feedback conversations, the
rest of the day, yes, mulling over in my head, just going and repeating. It’s just really
building off of what I think I could have done better or how I can change for next time.
Howard added, “I’m always checking myself when I’m having these conversations and seeing
what I could have done better first.” Miguel added detail around how he questioned his process.
He examined, “Is this legitimate? Is this something I should act on? Recognizing when people
are trying to give me feedback, then not putting up defensive shields, write it down, or synthesize
it or go back to be clarified.” Ellen described her effort to adjust her feedback practice from what
she learned during her self-monitoring. She shared, “I’m already preparing myself of how I’m
going to answer, instead of being present and listening to what they’re going to say because I
might change my mind of what I’m going to say if I listened.” Participants were able to describe
how self-monitoring in their thought process or self-questioning helped them reflect on and
examine their practice. The common use by the majority of participants and reflections of their
own self-monitoring indicates this factor is an asset of Company A managers.
Participants described their engagements with teaching other providers to improve their
feedback practice through self-monitoring. Participants utilized questioning, prior knowledge,
and reflection to help train new providers to engage in feedback interactions. Anna described
how she uses self-monitoring questioning when training a new provider when she said,
Asking new managers, “If you saw this and you didn’t correct it, would you feel good
about that at the end of the day? Or if you saw someone doing something really good and
69

you want them to emulate that, how are you going to get them to do that again? What are
you going to say to them to inspire them to keep up that good behavior?”
Isabel added that engaging a provider’s prior knowledge in self-monitoring is a key practice. She
stated, “I would first have trainees think about how they’ve been given feedback, and what they
liked about it, what they didn’t like about it.” Ellen added that classes would help establish
reflective frameworks, saying, “Classes will make you think of certain things like, ‘Is there a
logical way of looking at this? Is there a form that you can fill out to make you think about it
logically? How do you prepare?” Participants shared practices of questioning, prior knowledge,
and reflection to help train new providers to engage in feedback interactions. Teaching self-
monitoring was not a widely mentioned training tool by participants, suggesting a knowledge
opportunity for participants.
In sum, 12 out of 13 were able to discuss metacognition strategies. The most common
strategies were self-monitoring and teaching self-monitoring.
Self-Regulation Behaviors
Self-regulation is the ability of individuals to control their behavior in response to
reflection on that behavior (Bandura, 1986). During the interviews, participants were asked if
they were familiar with the concept of self-regulation. Only one participant was able to articulate
the concept, saying, “My current thought of self-regulation is the ability to be aware and make
judgments on what we will and will not do in a situation.” Participants were then made aware of
the six self-regulation behaviors described by Dembo and Seli (2016) and asked to provide
examples when they have engaged in those behaviors with feedback recipients to promote
behavior change. Monitoring performance (4) and motivation (5) and were the most frequently
described behaviors. Participants overall inability to define self-regulation, coupled with the
70

limited examples provided of the behaviors after being provided an explanation indicates a
knowledge opportunity. Table 7 shows the frequency of each behavior mentioned in participant
interview responses.

Table 7
Frequency of Self-Regulation Behaviors
Self-regulation behaviors Examples used
Monitoring performance 4
Motivation 5
Learning strategies 1
Physical environment 1
Social environment 2
Use of time 1

71

When asked for examples of self-regulation behavior, four of the participants shared
stories highlighting their use of monitoring feedback recipient performance. Grace explained,
I think it’s when you see that person who is doing what you’ve asked them to do. When
you see them actively trying to [make that change], you need to encourage them and
make sure that they know that you’re noticing. It’s not just that you have one [feedback]
session. You have to pay attention to if they’re doing what you’re requesting.
Grace pointed out that monitoring performance feedback helped to see if a recipient was
changing their behavior. She also noted how engaging with a recipient’s progress can encourage
the recipient. Byron also engaged in monitoring performance, saying, “Monitoring performance
is most often the biggest one that I’ll employ, and can we see over time how this employee has
grown?”. Francis added, “If you’re not monitoring and keeping [an employee] in check, you
could [miss an opportunity to] redirect and address what’s going on. Participants indirectly
brought up monitoring performance outside of the specified self-regulation question a total of 17
times, making it the most described self-regulation behavior shared by participants. Overall
knowledge and the discussion of monitoring performance practice indicated the factor was an
asset of participants.
Participants noted motivation as a tool for behavior change that inspires a feedback
recipient’s drive. Byron shared his role for motivation in feedback by saying,
The inspiration piece is motivation, tying it back to the person’s reason for why they’re
here, which helps me most in feedback conversation. This usually comes from knowing
and having a relationship with that individual to help them tie their growth or feedback
back to whatever it is that inspires them.
72

Charles expanded on engaging motivation when he said, “Motivation is making them want to do
those things because you’ve given them a reason that benefits them, and then they will more
likely want to change.” Miguel echoed that statement when he shared, “If I know what’s
important to them, how can I translate that into the behavior that they’re exhibiting and what
behavior we would like for them to be doing instead.” While participant knowledge of
motivation as a self-regulation behavior was described in these examples, the low number of
participants able to identify this factor suggests a knowledge opportunity. Motivation was
discussed in much greater detail in the interview, with the results examined further in this
chapter.
In sum, providers were able to provide examples for two of the six main behaviors,
monitoring performance and motivation. When provided an explanation to each behavior,
providers were not able to address the remaining four self-regulation behaviors or describe how
they would be used in the feedback process, indicating a growth opportunity.
Engaging Intrinsic Motivation in Others
One component of knowledge that is important for providers to understand in feedback
provision is engaging a recipient’s intrinsic motivation to facilitate behavior change. All thirteen
participants were able to provide examples of engaging recipients intrinsic motivation during the
feedback process, suggesting this was an asset among participants. Byron provided the following
description when asked how he defines intrinsic motivation:
Intrinsic motivation, to me, is the process of something that has innate value to an
individual being used to push action outwardly. It is when you tap into something that
already has innate value. My mentor taught me that the root word of motivation is
motive, and motive is always attached to someone’s individual value. I value something,
73

which creates a motive, and then now that motive attaches power to behavior that could
do something externally.
Participants provided examples of intrinsic motivation that centered on the benefits of
change for the recipient. Miguel detailed, “I feel it can be kind of a Jedi mind trick, but an
effective one. Convincing someone to do something because of the benefit that it will have for
themselves.” Charles added, “I find that we live, what’s in it for me society. I tell them to find a
way to have those interactions with employees where you’re not telling them what to do but
making them want to do those things.” Francis added, “I think it’s about getting to know them.
Knowing what gets them excited, knowing what their passionate about.”
In addition to engaging a recipient’s intrinsic motivation through understanding what is
important to the individual, several participants noted that recipients at Company A tend to work
for the organization due to personal attachment. Laurence described this connection by saying,
I think we benefit from Company A because it is one of those companies that our history
and heritage are what our brand is about. So, for most of our employees, it’s a reason they
had to apply to work here. [I will ask the recipient], “What made you come here?” and
trying to tailor the feedback to that. For many of our employees, it’s about the nostalgia
of remembering what employees did for them on previous experiences with the
organization when the employee was a child, and they want to pay it forward for other
families. It’s reminding [recipients] of the reasons why you’re here in the first place.
Grace noted that the experiences recipients had as part of being an employee at Company A
contributed to their intrinsic motivation to do well at their job or respond to feedback. She
shared, “I tell them, ‘You know how it makes you feel when you have done something really
good for our customers?’ I don’t think we take advantage of it often enough. However, it’s how
74

it makes you feel afterward.” Anna added the following, “I think specifically at Company A, it
comes back to why do you work for this company? Is it because it was an easy hiring
opportunity, or is it because it’s something that you have passion around?” Participants’
descriptions included the ability to identify personal motivating factors for recipients, as well as
use the influence of why individuals worked for Company A to inspire feedback action.
In sum, the overall knowledge factors that participants indicated as assets to their
feedback provision included clear communication, influences on growth, and intrinsic
motivation. Interviews indicated areas of opportunity to address knowledge gaps in feedback
provision included knowledge of understanding confirmation, action planning, metacognition,
and self-regulation.
Research Question 2
The second research question addresses the motivation factors that influence a manager’s
ability to provide high-quality feedback. Following the conceptual model, participants engaged
in questioning regarding their self-motivation, deterrents to their motivation, and self-efficacy.
Participant self-motivation was limited to extrinsic factors. All participants were able to identify
what deterred their feedback practice and what confidence triggers bolstered personal feelings of
self-efficacy.
Self-Motivation
Each participant was able to describe what motivated them to provide feedback. When
participants considered their motivation to provide feedback to recipients in the workplace, three
themes were described: team development, good workplace environment, and job role. Each
theme was extrinsically focused, indicating an opportunity for growth in participants intrinsic
self-motivation.
75

Eight participants found motivation for providing feedback from the desire to develop
others to meet personal and team goals, indicating motivation for team development was an
asset. Miguel described his motivation, saying,
I think probably the biggest reason is in a team. It is so that the team or the organization
can improve and work well together or achieve our goals more completely. Be better for
ourselves, be better for our peers, and be better for our business or organization. It’s hard
for me to answer because how could you not get feedback? That would mean stagnation.
Jackie and Anna agreed, saying, “My motivation is always for the situation, the team, the
employees involved” and “I think a reflection of someone on my team is a reflection of myself.”
Each participant tied their motivation to provide feedback as a component of their connection to
their work team.
The second theme participants expressed when describing their motivation to provide
feedback was to create a good working environment. Byron explained,
I draw upon a lot of my experience at Company A and at church where I served.
Organizations where there’s no feedback tend to be the more toxic ones. Tend to be more
where there’s not a lot of accountability, where there’s not a lot of morale, trust. There’s
not a lot of progression where things go unchecked. And then they just sort of snowball
into larger things. I give feedback for the health of the organization. And then, of course,
I give feedback because you love and care for individuals.
Ellen added the following, “I like honesty. I like people to know where they stand. The reason I
do want to give feedback is to clear the air. I don’t like people talking about people behind their
backs, whether it’s managers or anybody else.” Anna concluded, “I genuinely want people on
my team to want to do a good job because then I feel like I fostered a good environment.” A
76

good environment through feedback provision described by participants entailed trust, honest
communication, and accountability.
The third theme in participants’ responses related to personal motivation to provide
feedback was that it was part of their job. When asked about his motivation to provide feedback,
Howard put it succinctly, “It’s my job.” Darius was able to elaborate on why his motivation to
provide feedback was tied to his job when he said,
I think one of the main reasons is because I like a good working relationship with people.
I like to be in an area where everyone is working well together. Everything is going good,
and everybody is happy in a sense. When you are upset, angry, you do not want to be at
work, whatever that is. I feel my job, the reason why I am here, is to be a manager. If that
is happening, then I am not doing my job well.
Byron also shared his motivation to provide feedback was connected to his role as a manager. He
explained, “I give feedback because I’m continuing to grow in my understanding that that’s my
responsibility to the people I lead. The quickest way to create distrust is to be a leader who
people don’t know what you think.” Isabel added, “In the environment I’m in now, it’s because it
has been requested.”
In sum, all 13 participants described their self-motivation for feedback provision. Each
participant was able to describe extrinsic personal motivation for delivering feedback, indicating
participants’ self-motivation had the opportunity to expand on intrinsic motivation.
Deterrents of Participant Feedback
In considering what motivational factors influence feedback provision, participants were
asked what deters them from giving feedback. All 13 participants were able to describe their
personal feedback provision deterrents. Two main opportunities emerged: the receptiveness of
77

recipients to receive feedback and emotional triggers. While participants were able to share what
they felt was a deterrent, they also did not share how they worked to overcome these feelings,
indicating a motivational opportunity.
The main factor mentioned by seven participants that deterred them from providing
feedback was unreceptive recipients. Charles shared,
Fear. Fear maybe isn’t the right word, but you try to put a lot of effort into somebody
who doesn’t want it, who doesn’t want to be saved. There’s an employee who has been
here for a long time. She’s got good energy, but she rubs people the wrong way, and hers
is one of those approaches that would turn me off. Do you reach out to a person and try to
save somebody who isn’t worth saving in the eyes of many? At the same time, you also
know she’s not going to get to where she ultimately wants to be because she’s burned too
many bridges with the other people that she would need the support of.
Kelly shared, “If someone shuts me out. The minute they signal that they don’t care to hear you,
then it’s kind of like you turn off, and I turn off.” Grace agreed, sharing, “If I feel like it’s not
going to do any good or difference. That’s when I’ve had that millionth conversation with this
person, and I’m just like, I can’t do that again.”
Interviews indicated that unreceptive feedback recipients made providers feel their effort
would not go anywhere or make a difference for the recipient. This indicates a gap in providers’
motivation to overcome their feelings of being deterred and continue the effort to provide high-
quality feedback. Participants also shared those unreceptive recipients could create a fear of
interaction due to past negative reactions, suggesting an opportunity in provider ability to
manage their fear.
78

Emotional triggers shared by three providers included the discomfort of creating an
emotional response in another person or the emotional response they felt in wanting to be
accepted or liked. Miguel explained his feelings of being deterred when sharing,
I don’t like to make people feel bad about themselves. Feedback sometimes has the
unfortunate consequence of eliciting emotional responses from people, especially if it’s
personal. No one wants to make someone cry because they hit close to home, and they hit
close to the heart. Feedback, in my opinion, is the easiest to give when it is the most tied
to objective facts. However, if it’s interpersonal, behavioral, or an attitude thing, that’s a
lot more difficult because now we’re not talking about hard facts. We’re talking about
you as a person. Your soul was involved. That can be very difficult.
Miguel differentiates the level of difficulty and emotion between objective feedback and
interpersonal or behavioral feedback, which he shared can be much more emotional for the
recipient.
Emotional triggers were described as a salient deterrent to the feedback provider. Byron
shared that he was a conflict avoider growing up. He said, “It is this idea that to be the person to
deliver hard news might mean the sacrifice of a relationship. That has certainly kept me from
giving feedback. The fear of being rejected for having delivered hard feedback.” Anna echoed,
“Fear. I like to be liked.”
In sum, all participants were able to cite what deters them from providing feedback, with
two themes: recipient receptiveness and emotional triggers. Opportunities immerged from both
themes when participants could describe what deterred their feedback provision, but participants
could not tie that deterrent with how they work to overcome their issue.
Self-Efficacy of Managers
79

Participants were asked two questions specifically to learn about their self-efficacy and
how they use this concept in feedback provision. Two themes emerged regarding self-efficacy.
First, participants shared their use of social persuasion when engaging the self-efficacy of their
recipients. Participants’ stories were limited, indicating an opportunity. Second, all participants
shared what self-efficacy triggers were common in their ability to feel confident while engaging
in feedback provision, indicating an asset.
Participants were asked about how they responded to recipient setbacks in the feedback
process. Six of the participants responded by providing stories of engaging recipients through
social persuasion. Limited stories of participants’ ability to engage recipients in feedback
through social persuasion indicated a motivational opportunity. Grace explained her influence in
feedback best by sharing the following story:
I had an hourly supervisor who was a really good lead, but I think they didn’t get the
attention that they deserved or that sort of feedback that they deserve, such as telling
them, “Yes, you’re doing an amazing job.” I would tell them that I trust them to be out
there and run the location while I’m putting out the fires to help build their confidence.
It’s important to give positive and encouraging feedback to the ones who deserve that.
Jackie had a similar feedback provision conversation where her social persuasion would bring an
employee out of a bad mentality. Her employee would acknowledge by saying, “I knew you
would spot that. I knew you were going to come to me. Thank you.” Jackie concluded that she
always wanted her employee to know that she would check on them and be supportive.
Each participant examined their own self-efficacy when asked if they felt confident
providing feedback and what enabled their confidence. Helping others (3), relationships (4),
knowledge (2), and experience (2) were the self-described triggers that allowed participants to
80

feel self-efficacious when providing feedback. Table 8 shows participant examples of the four
self-efficacy triggers.

Table 8
Self-Efficacy Triggers
Self-efficacy
triggers
Example
Helping others I think what drives that and builds my confidence in those moments is that I
know I’m coming from a place of wanting to help. (Laurence)

When someone thanks me for feedback, it feels good. It feels successful.
When someone comes back for more feedback, that feels good. When I can
uncover that the behavior that was being exhibited was from a
misunderstanding and I can clarify. Again, there’s gratitude in that from the
recipient. That feels good. (Francis)

And then I think just because I appreciate when feedback is given to me, so I
assume everyone’s like me, and I would want to know if I made a mistake
or if I’m doing well, I would want the feedback. So thus, I will give it to
others. (Howard)
Relationships If I know things about them, I have a good working relationship with them
already. No matter what the topic is, I will already feel a lot more confident.
If I don’t know who they are or just an acquaintance relationship, I will not
go into that with a lot of confidence. (Miguel)

My confidence depends on how comfortable I feel with that employee and
the conversations that we may have had in the past. Sometimes it’s a little
bit harder with a new person because you just don’t know how they’re
going to react until you’ve had that first session with them. And then you
can kind of gauge how they’re doing it, how they handle things. (Grace)
Relationships The biggest factor of influence is how I feel about my relationship with that
individual. So, do I feel like that person sees me as an adversary? Is that
person seeing me as a pushover? What is my perception of myself through
the eyes of that other person? (Darius)

I’m most confident when I know the person and when I know the goal.
That’s when I feel most confident. If I know the person, a little bit about
them, then I engage relationally. (Byron)
Knowledge I’m confident that I feel the most confident when I am the most informed. If
there was something that I am an expert in or very well-versed in or very
passionate about or just well-versed or have a good understanding of, and
that can be like I said, technical or soft skills, whatever it is, I will feel
much more confident in delivering them. (Miguel)
81

Self-efficacy
triggers
Example

If it’s feedback regarding a task or safety-related, even though I’ve been in
this environment for two years, I’m not necessarily always 100% confident.
I’m always a little bit nervous that they’re going to say, “Oh, but this is how
we trained it,” because we’ve made many changes over the years. However,
if it’s regarding behavior, like how they treated a guest, how they treated
fellow employees, I’m extremely confident. (Isabel)
Experience They should come out of it thinking that at least I’m the one that said
something or I’m the one that’s giving them the feedback. I’ve had, “Why
are you telling me this?” I think this experience like I said, goes down to
security specialist services, or just the times I’ve been in labor relations and
listening, or I’ve been in the office where somebody is getting somebody
else feedback and listening to them kind of picking up on it. (Ellen)
I think just drawing on my own experiences helps with that confidence. If it’s
something that I feel like I have a background in and being able to talk
through, I feel a lot more comfortable, but I’m like, I don’t know. I don’t
think that’s right, but let’s find out together. It’s something that gives me
credibility or gives a situation credibility. (Anna)

The ability of participants to understand what makes them feel confident in providing
feedback suggests a motivational asset, as it allowed the participants to know how they can
bolster their own feedback provision confidence.
In sum, all participants were able to share extrinsic examples of self-motivation, but no
intrinsic examples were delivered. Participants were able to identify deterrents to their feedback
process, but unable to add how they overcame their deterrents in the examples provided.
Participants were able to identify confidence triggers that could bolster their own self-efficacy.
Research Question 3
The third research question of this dissertation focused on what organizational factors
influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback. The themes discovered in the
data analysis process detailed a manager’s training and education, organizational cultural
82

influence, technology, resources, and workflow. Overall findings showed opportunities for
improvement in each theme, with a noted gap in technology.
Training and Education
Interview participants were asked to describe what training they had received from the
organization on providing feedback. Personal experience, classroom learning, and mentors were
the findings participants described when asked about their own experience with training and
education at Company A. Participants many examples indicated personal experience was an
asset, while classroom learning, and mentorship presented as organizational opportunities due to
lack of participant examples.
Personal experience was the most frequent response, with seven participants noting this
as a training and education method, indicating an asset. Personal experience was shared both
from the participants’ perspective and from learning from other’s personal experiences and
reflected the answers shared under the personal growth section. Byron shared,
The company factored in my ability to provide feedback by providing many opportunities
to practice. Never before being at Company A did I have this many opportunities to
practice. Not just to practice but to practice in several different contexts. Because our
teams at Company A are multiethnic, multiracial, multi-generational, they are a balance
of different genders and gender expressions. There were so many different layers of
things to think about and contexts to apply feedback because there were so many
different ways that people were getting information. The opportunities to provide
feedback are so vast. The contexts in which you’d have to provide those elements of
feedback operationally are very vast, the people you’re giving them to and all of that.
83

Kelly described, “This business has taught me everything I know; it was all through experience. I
think you learn by doing and not by studying.” Anna added, “I think trial and error has been the
biggest thing that has helped me over the years. It’s learning how to gauge an audience and
knowing how far I can go before I get myself in trouble or lose an audience altogether.” Miguel
shared, “Seeing real-world scenarios play out is where I think I have learned the most.” Miguel
noted that seeing feedback occur in addition to his practice was influential in his training.
Participants’ descriptions indicated personal experience was an asset, leveraging their learnings
for feedback growth.
When asked about the training received from the organization, six participants noted their
experience with internal training programs or initiatives, indicating an opportunity due to less
than half of participants sharing positive examples. The main classroom learning experience
participants said they received that had elements of feedback provision training was a leadership
development program that was compulsory for new salaried managers. Charles began by saying,
“Classes that Company A has put out through internal training. My leadership development
program was in 1991. It was a long time ago, but I’m sure we had some delivering feedback
class then.” Francis shared a similar account, adding, “The thing that really stands out for me,
because it was foundational, was the very first model that I learned as an hourly supervisor back
when I first hired in, and that was simply called ‘The Coaching Model.’” Grace also noted,
“When we went through the leadership development program, I want to say there was something
on the internal training website that I watched as well.” The answer provided by Francis noted
that a model was a valuable tool that stood out to her, but she was also unable to identify all of
the model’s steps. Classroom learning, though mandatory, did not provide detailed answers
regarding what participants learned, indicating an organizational opportunity.
84

Participants noted the influence of mentors in their training and education on feedback
provision. Specifically, three of the participants noted mentorship as a method of their learning,
indicating an opportunity. Byron explained,
It’s been through mentorship. Mentorship has provided the most value for me because it
has allowed someone to observe me in real-time. Mentorship has been the biggest thing
that has changed me in terms of feedback within Company A and outside the company.
Anna also noted the presence of mentors in their learning experience by saying, “I’m really lucky
that I’ve had peers, bosses, especially at Company A who have encouraged [learning feedback
provision]. Jackie agreed, “I would say I’m very successful because [leaders] model. I’m trying
to model what my leaders do, how they hold me accountable. I endeavor to give to others what
they’ve given to me.” Mentorship remained an infrequently mentioned factor of training and
provision, indicating an opportunity.
In sum, seven participants shared examples of personal experience at Company A
providing feedback training, suggesting an organizational asset. Classroom experience and
mentor were mentioned six and three times respectively, indicating an organizational
opportunity.
Organization
The influence of the organization on feedback provision was another finding provided by
participants. Two findings emerged, focusing on support structure and the ability to practice
feedback interactions at work. Findings related to participant practice reflected the findings
described in training and education. Company A was found to have existing structures, detailed
by four participants, that provided a supportive environment for feedback provision. Due to the
few examples provided by participants, this indicated an opportunity. Ellen shared how both
85

support teams and the organization’s documentation process allowed for structural feedback
support. She shared,
Having Human Resources at your fingertips to call and ask, “How can we approach
this?” Or, “What can we say? What can we have to say?” Just the structure of certain
things that we have to do forces us to give feedback. The disciplinary structure that we
have, the [deliberate progressive levels], sets us up for feedback to ensure that if we’re
truly disciplining somebody, we’re following proper procedure. We’re giving that
feedback at each stage.
Laurence added that the operating guidelines provided by the company were helpful in the
feedback process. He stated, “One thing that I think that we’re fantastic at is our guidelines. It
makes it very clear, precise, the do’s and the don’ts, what you should do, what you should not
do.” Isabel agreed that the support teams, such as human resources, were helpful in feedback
provision. Isabel said, “Most recently, I spoke with an employee with PTSD. I had to go to our
business partner and ask what legal considerations I need to be careful of. Just a wonderful
resource.” Finally, Darius summarized, “The company way: It establishes moments and
establishes parameters that limit you, but also protect you from providing that feedback. I think
having those limits helps maintain that professionalism, maintain that relationship the way it
needs to be.” The existing organizational support structure described participants examples of
both clear guidelines and support networks to reach out to when participants needed assistance.
In sum, four out of thirteen participants identified support structure as an organizational
influence. The limited number of participant examples on organizational influences, indicated
this was an opportunity.

86

Culture of Feedback at Company A
When asked about their experience of feedback culture at Company A, participants
shared two themes: culture impacted participants’ feedback provision through Company A’s
brand and Company A’s cultural expectation influenced managerial feedback provision. Both
themes described by participants were noted as organizational opportunities due to the few
examples that were provided.
Three interview participants noted the influence of the company’s brand on feedback
provision. Charles positioned the influence of the brand and feedback provision by stating:
I think Company A recognizes that we’re a people company. We’re a big company, but
we still try to lead with heart, and we still try to run our business with heart. We try to
emphasize those good communication skills where we can talk openly to one another but
not in a way where we destroy people’s egos or sense of self. I think the company is very
supportive of trying to make people the best version of themselves. I think they also
recognize again that not everybody wants that necessarily, but for those that do, I think
it’s very safe to ask for feedback, to receive feedback, to give feedback.
Miguel referenced organizational values, saying, “I think [feedback] is intrinsic with the brand of
Company A. It starts from a desire for openness and sharing of ideas and rich diversity that
comes with different ages, cultures, demographics, and embracing of those things.” Laurence
added, “I know that [our founder] was extremely critical. He had high expectations, and because
of that structure of giving harsh feedback, it’s reflected in what we do.” Participants shared that
the organizational brand of Company A was a benefit to feedback provision, creating an
environment that valued feedback and the development of its employees.
87

Six participants noted concepts such as an open-door policy and feedback provision as an
expectation of the job. Francis explained how feedback was entrenched in the cultural behavior
of managers. She shared,
Feedback is almost like a way of life. You get feedback every step of the way. Your
managers are giving you feedback. Your hourly supervisors are giving you feedback.
When you want to move into another position, if it’s a trainer or an entry-level position,
you’re going to get feedback and coaching before you apply. As you apply, and whether
you move into the position or not, we foster positive and reinforcing behavior every step
of the way.
Byron continued, “I will say that one of the ways we support a culture of feedback is by having
certain elements of feedback scheduled. One example is the probation period for new hire
employees. Another is the annual birthday check-in.” Miguel added, “I think one thing that
comes to mind is the open-door policy and come talk to me anytime, about anything. I think that
is established on those kinds of guiding principles that go from the top down.” Participants
detailed the cultural expectation of feedback provision and the standardized practice
opportunities as benefit to their feedback provision.
In sum, limited participant examples on Company A’s brand and expectations influencing
feedback provision indicated a cultural opportunity. Providers shared that the brand and cultural
expectation to provide feedback were built into their workday and job expectation, yet
opportunity exists in its expanding influence.

88

Technology Use at Company A
Manager’s use of technology was explored when participants were asked how technology
factored into their feedback provision process. Participants noted two themes: documentation use
and aversion to technology at Company A. Both themes suggested an organizational gap.
Technology was found to be useful for some participants as a tool for documentation
during the feedback process. Six participants mentioned their use of technology for
documentation purposes. Miguel shared,
If it’s about a technical proficiency or a performance factor in their role, it is definitely
important to help set the stage or set the facts. Display whatever tools, facts, or data you
need to establish the motivation for this conversation. Being able to pull out information
or pull up resources quickly is fantastic if needed during feedback.
Francis also agreed that reporting was a key benefit to technology use in feedback provision. She
said, “if I need to look at attendance or previous documentation. I think that’s the extent that I
use [technology].” Darius agreed, saying, “I guess it depends on the information that I’m getting
from technology. It tends to be more informational. If I’m doing research, like looking up the
record card, or attendance, or it might be a communication document.” Howard concluded,
“With things like attendance when it’s very tangible, it’s a big part of [feedback] because you
can just pull it up and show it to them. It’s difficult to argue with that.” Participants’ technology
use as a method of documenting and record retention suggested an organizational opportunity
due to less than half of participants providing examples on this theme.
Participants shared that feedback interactions are interpersonal, and that technology was a
hindrance or distraction in those interactions. Ten participants shared that they do not use this
tool, indicating a gap. Anna described her approach to technology, saying, “I make it a point to
89

not have a cell phone when I have to provide in-depth feedback. I want to make sure when I’m
having those in-depth conversations that the person knows that they have my full attention.”
Kelly added, “I make sure that I don’t rely on it. Because sometimes we lose the individual to
technology.” Ellen summarized, “[Technology] has very little to do with feedback from my
perspective because it’s personal, it’s you talking to somebody. I think it’s too personal to have
technology. You can use technology to set it up or to get the situation.”
Participants found their feedback practice changed because of the behavioral restrictions
and social distancing measures from the COVID-19 pandemic. Four participants identified the
need for social distance during feedback and that technology was a tool to continue their
feedback conversations at a safe distance. Participants noted that while technology made it
possible to provide socially distant feedback, it was not the best way to engage in a feedback
conversation. Laurence said, “In the world of Covid, everything is via Zoom, and having those
tough conversations with, let’s say an HR representative, with the employees here, I find in terms
of Zoom calls, it’s a lot more difficult.” Isabel admitted to not engaging in this method, saying “I
have not done Zoom feedback yet. I’m still a bit old-fashioned. Maybe I should do that.”
In sum, six of 13 participants shared examples of technology’s use for documentation,
indicating an opportunity. 10 of 13 participants shared their disuse of technology in feedback
provision indicating a gap.
Resources at Company A
Participants noted seven Company A resources that influenced the feedback provision
process. When asked about the resources each participant used that aided in their feedback
practice, participants identified seven resources: peers and mentors, documentation, external
welfare support, Human Resources, internal education content, external education content, and
90

company guidelines. Each participant was able to identify at least one resource. Table 9 lists the
organizational resource trends detailed by participants and how many participants mentioned
each resource.

Table 9
Participant Use of Company Resources
Company guidelines
Participant use
Peers/Mentors 9
Documentation 6
External welfare support 4
Human resources/support 4
Internal education content 4
External education content 3
Company guidelines 2

91

Each of the resource categories participants cited in their answers were also discussed in
previous sections of this chapter. Peers and mentors were referenced as an asset in organization.
Documentation was referenced as an asset in technology use. Support group systems were
mentioned as an asset in organization. Finally, internal education content was described as an
opportunity in training and education.
Work Process and Taking Action
The final question on organizational factors asked participants how they adapt the work
process to conduct new ways of doing business for feedback recipients. Ten participants shared
examples of taking action in order to help a recipient in a feedback conversation, indicating an
asset. Work process adaptations included making the work environment more effective for
recipients through process change or finding adaptations for the individual to succeed. Ellen
shared,
I rely on the frontline employees that are doing the job every day to tell us what’s
working, what’s not working. Just asking, “This isn’t working. Explain to me exactly
why it’s not working. Is it taking up too much time, or what can we do? What can we not
do?” I will listen to the employees that are doing the job and then [present the feedback]
to whoever’s in charge of the function.
Isabel shared an example of helping an employee meet their work expectations by rearranging
responsibilities to meet their cognitive needs. She said, “My peer had an employee with a
cognitive disability and worked with them on letting them kind of move work tasks around.”
Miguel summed up the ability to adjust the work process by adding, “I value and appreciate the
fact that I feel our leaders are willing to find workarounds and ask, ‘Where in the rule box does it
say that this is the only way that you can do something?’” In sum, participants showed that
92

organizational feedback goals could be met when they could adjust the work process to meet the
needs of feedback recipients.
Additional Insights
Two additional themes were present from the interview data. All 13 participants shared
how relationship building related to their feedback practice. In addition, all 13 participants
shared the influences that affected their personal growth in feedback provision.
Relationship building was an element of participant feedback provision and was
mentioned at least once by each interview participant. In total, relationship building was
referenced 41 separate times by participants, indicating an organizational asset. A key theme
shared by participants was using relationship-building to tailor feedback to a recipient to provide
a clear message and engage their motivation.
Participants used their knowledge of recipients through relationship-building to adjust
timing, messaging, or make adjustments in feedback to help make a recipient successful. Jackie
shared, “I think it’s really important to consider whom you’re talking to. And look at who they
are, how they receive feedback.” Isabel shared adjusting feedback based on her knowledge of the
recipient through relationship building. She said, “I have an employee with post-traumatic stress
disorder that sometimes is so bad that it impacts the whole operation. I had to study up on
making sure not to exacerbate that, but also to not make it the crutch.”
Relationship building was a way to build trust and relate to feedback recipients on a
personal level in order to build trust. Byron shared a story where his knowledge of the individual
and personal connection led to a successful feedback interaction. He explained,
Because of my relationship with this employee, I remember pulling her aside, and
unfortunately, some of [the feedback] had gotten linked with her racial background. I
93

opted to have that conversation with her because I understood and connected with her in
a way that some of the other leaders didn’t. I didn’t feel like some of the other leaders
should bring up the racial information, not understanding the context that it came from. I
was also closer to her in age. I was able to speak in a language that was not 1,000%
company language. Our socio-economic background provided us with a different lens of
seeing things. I think if someone had gone in the feedback saying to her, you’re coming
across as arrogant for these reasons, [the feedback] would have missed. That comes with
being someone who is of a minority culture, which can affect how people view
information and references that you say in real-time. Then I was able to cast a vision for
how she should move forward.
Byron’s example described the connection that shared social, racial, and economic similarities
offered him when providing feedback. In sum, relationship building was a provider asset that
enabled participants to discover information about their recipients and tailor feedback to meet
their needs.
Participants were asked about the influences that provided growth in their feedback
provision. Several themes emerged: experience receiving feedback, experience giving feedback,
and observation. Internal training content and mentorship were also mentioned by participants as
growth influences but were discussed in detail earlier in the chapter. Providing feedback was
mentioned by ten participants suggesting that a majority of participants are learning more about
the feedback process by engaging in feedback provision. Limited examples of growth from
receiving feedback and observation suggest an opportunity for providers.
For three providers, the experience of receiving feedback was a main factor of their
personal growth in providing feedback to recipients. Both positive and negative feedback
94

interactions allowed participants to examine approaches to adapt or avoid in their feedback
provision. Byron shared a personal story of growth for his feedback practice by learning from the
poor feedback given to him. He articulated,
I was receiving feedback and being negatively impacted by it. I approach my giving
feedback through the lens of the lessons I’ve learned from bad experiences. I had a
negative experience where I was given feedback after a job interview. I remember that
[the feedback] was not only vague and not clear, but it also felt like the interviewer had
done no preparation to try to figure out who I was outside of that job interview. It was
solely a dissemination of how he felt. I don’t want anyone to feel this way coming after
feedback.
Francis voiced a similar lesson, sharing, “I think for me was feedback that I received. How I
responded to it, or how much care the person has put in. Reflecting on my reactions helps me
know how to tailor what message I’m giving.” Darius concluded his growth experience in
feedback provision by sharing, “I think probably just getting really bad feedback honestly.”
Providers noted that their success or failure over time was a proponent of growth in
feedback provision. Ten of the participants referenced growth from providing feedback. Charles
reflected,
Time and experience. I think I’m much better at it, nearly 30 years into being a manager
than I was when I was a 23-year-old manager. When you’re young and new and don’t
have much relative experience yourself, it’s difficult to provide relevant feedback to other
people. I think if you haven’t lifted yourself, how can you expect to give some accurate
guidance.
95

Francis added that growth was from seeing “reactions that I’ve received from the feedback I’ve
given in the past.” Darius added that “my style has developed because of mistakes that I made.”
Lastly, Isabel learned, “I purposely do put myself in uncomfortable situations. If I don’t, I’m not
going to get better at it, and if no one does it, they’re not going to hear the feedback.”
Observing the feedback of others or having others observe the feedback provider was a
method of growth shared by six of the participants. Examples of feedback provision growth from
participants centered on watching experts and peers and being observed themselves. Francis
shared her experience, observing,
Watching others give feedback. I mentioned I worked in a bank, and we had a situation
where a serial robber was coming, but I watched my leader at the time kind of bark out
orders right after things had happened and coached through the procedures that weren’t
followed. It just set a terrible tone.
In addition to observing the feedback practice of others, Darius noted how involving observers to
provide feedback was a valuable growth opportunity. He verbalized, “If I’m providing feedback
and I have the opportunity to have somebody else there with me, [I will tell them] feel free to
bring [feedback] up. I’ll turn to that person, and I’ll say, “Where did I mess up?”
Aside from being able to observe peers’ feedback process, the observation of
knowledgeable leaders providing feedback interactions was mentioned by participants to
stimulate growth. Security Management is a specific division within Company A that is tasked
with investigations for the organization, and participants viewed the department as a
knowledgeable group of leaders. Ellen explained,
I listen to how they get people to respond or how they talk to them. I walked out going,
“That’s a good question that they had.” In security management, they make people
96

comfortable, and then they start asking the questions. I think that is probably the biggest
thing I’ve learned to have that time to make those people comfortable.
Laurence agreed, saying, “What’s helped me a lot is asking to sit in on conversations. From
security management conversations or separations. The dos and don’ts. I’ve seen a lot of good
practices. I’ve seen a lot of bad and just building off that.”
In sum, 10 of 13 providers shared their growth from being able to personally experience
feedback interactions. Providers shared limited examples of personal growth from receiving
feedback and observation, suggesting that actively engaging in giving other feedback was more
impactful than being a recipient or observer.
Summary
This chapter reviewed the main findings related to this dissertation’s guiding research
questions on the factors of knowledge, motivation, and organization and how they influence
managerial feedback provision. Interviews were used to collect data from 13 operations
managers from Company A. A summary of the findings connected to each research question
follows.
Research Question 1 explored how participants’ knowledge factors influenced feedback
provision. Clear communication strategies were mixed with participants’ knowledge assets
centering on personally witnessed examples, and direct communication, with opportunity
existing in timely and two-way communication. Opportunities for feedback growth were
discussed in understanding confirmation strategies, and a knowledge gap existing in action
planning. Metacognitive and self-regulation strategies were also described as unfamiliar concepts
by participants. Further knowledge assets were found in participants’ growth opportunities
through receiving feedback practice, with receiving and observing feedback as opportunities. A
97

final knowledge asset was the ability of participants to engage recipient intrinsic motivation
when providing feedback.
Research Question 2 centered on the motivational factors that influence provider
feedback provision. Opportunity existed in leveraging managers intrinsic motivation, since all
examples provided focused on extrinsic factors. Self-efficacy also presented opportunity in
expanding participants use of all self-efficacy behaviors. Managers were also able to describe
their own motivational deterrents of recipient receptiveness and emotional triggers.
Research Question 3 delved into the organizational factors that influence participants’
feedback provision. Participant data indicated training and educational provided an asset of
personal experience and an opportunity in classroom learning and mentorship. The data
described that participants’ saw existing structures and feedback culture to be opportunities in
the feedback provision process due to the few examples shared. Technology was shared as an
opportunity when used to document or track feedback recipient behavior. Otherwise, participants
discussed that technology was not useful in feedback provision due to its lack of personal
engagement, indicating a gap. The final organizational asset was the flexibility of Company A’s
work process that allowed for participants to take action in response to feedback recipient needs.
Participants identified relationship building as an additional factor not related to the
dissertation’s conceptual framework. Participants described relationship building to provide two
key assets of feedback provision. First, relationship building allowed them to gain key
information on recipients to help tailor the feedback message. Second, relationship building
allowed them to build trust with feedback recipients, which helped participants to show that their
messages came from a place of support.
98

The following chapter will provide a discussion of the findings presented in Chapter
Four. Recommendations for future practice at Company A will then be presented. The chapter
will conclude with a look at the dissertation’s limitations and recommendations for future
research.

99

Chapter Five: Recommendations
Chapter five provides the findings and recommendations resulting from this dissertation's
research inquiry. The problem of practice addressed the factors influencing managerial feedback
provision, specifically at Company A. Clark and Estes Gap Analysis (2008) was the guiding
theoretical framework, with the addition of clear communication, understanding confirmation,
and action planning used to define high-quality feedback behaviors. Data was generated from 13
interviews with frontline managers at Company A. Findings, recommendations for practice,
limitations and delimitations, recommendations for further research, and a conclusion follow.
Discussion of Findings
The following section will delve into the dissertation's findings concerning the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors of feedback practice. Data gathered from this
dissertation will be compared to the literature examined in chapter two and this dissertation's
conceptual framework. Findings will be presented in alignment with the respective knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors.
Knowledge Findings
Knowledge findings indicate an opportunity in the combination of clear communication,
understanding confirmation, and action planning. All but one of the participants failed to provide
examples of feedback interactions that used all three factors of high-quality feedback. In
addition, metacognition and self-regulation were areas of opportunity for managerial
improvement as participants relayed limited stories of each factor's use. The overall knowledge
findings align with Janshidian's (2019) study on feedback errors, where managers were not being
educated on feedback principles, indicating a need to address the education of managers at
Company A on feedback principles.
100

Participant data on high-quality feedback practice indicated clear communication was
primarily an asset, and opportunities for improvement in understanding confirmation and action
planning were suggested. Participants shared examples of clear communication strategies that
detailed personally witnessed examples, and direct communication, indicating an asset, aligning
with the literature (Esambe et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2019; Jug, 2019). Opportunity existed in
the provider's ability to set up timely communication with recipients as specified by Mathie et al.
(2018), allowing for clarity when establishing frequent and current communication.
Participant's understanding confirmation responses indicated an area of opportunity. The
only practice used by participants for understanding confirmation was open-ended questioning,
aligning with Suhoyo et al. (2017). Participants’ examples of sandwiching feedback led to a
mixed message and confusion, as seen in Palminteri's study in 2017, which shows recipients
often ignore negative aspects of a message. Participants' also shared examples of open and
closed-ended questions, while the literature shares that open-ended communication allows for
better understanding confirmation (Jug et al., 2019).
Action planning was shown to be a gap for participants who relayed that they did not
engage in the practice and noted a cultural barrier due to a history of use for employment
termination practices. A study by Allan et al. (2013) shows that action planning is only as good
as the provider's skill in administrating the plan. The data suggests managers need to be educated
on the benefits of action planning. In addition, education should provide clear instruction on the
creation and implementation recipient action plans.
Findings on participants' knowledge revealed examples of engaging metacognitive
processes when providing and reflecting on feedback experience. Participants provided limited
examples of this strategy for their peer's training and use in recipient's feedback. Provider's
101

ability to engage recipients in metacognitive reflection during the feedback process increases the
ability for recipients to adapt their behavior to meet feedback goals (Chawla et al., 2019; Li-Ju et
al., 2010). With only four participants engaging in teaching self-monitoring, two using
collaboration, one utilizing debriefing, and one utilizing assessment, this further highlights the
need to address practitioners' use of metacognition during the feedback process.
Findings on self-regulation provided another opportunity for improvement. Managers
were unable to explain the concept of self-regulation. In addition, providers could not provide
examples of all six behaviors; motivation, learning strategies, use of time, physical environment,
social environment, and monitoring performance (Dembo & Seli, 2019). This finding aligns with
Brown's (2016) work, noting the need to engage self-regulation during feedback since the
message alone is not indicative of behavioral change.
A final knowledge finding looked at managers ability to engage recipient intrinsic
motivation during the feedback process. Interview data revealed that 100% of interview
participants recognized and engaged recipient intrinsic motivation while providing feedback.
Participants were able to mirror the literature findings by acknowledging that a feedback
message must also factor in recipient motivation to facilitate behavior change (McGee &
Johnson, 2015).
Motivation Findings
Findings related to managers' self-motivation to provide feedback showed that their
reasoning was extrinsically focused. Participant examples detailed team dynamics and their job
role as a motivating factor. This finding indicates a need to engage intrinsic motivation for
managers working to provide feedback that engages recipient belonging and competence
building (Badami et al., 2011; Henry et al., 2018).
102

Participants shared limited examples of their ability to promote recipient self-efficacy
using social persuasion. This finding tied into the literature of Dimotakis et al. (2017), whose
work detailed the bolstering of an individual's self-efficacy through the manager's belief in and
support of recipients through social persuasion leading to positive feedback outcomes.
Opportunities arose when participant examples failed to provide stories relating to detailed
performance feedback and recipient perspective-taking (Beatie et al., 2016; Sherf et al., 2020).
Organizational Findings
Ten of 13 participants described their aversion to technology in the feedback process,
indicating a gap. These findings did not align with the literature that found technology necessary
to improve traditional practices (Balta & Tzafilkou, 2019; Crook et al., 2012; Mayhew, 2017).
The lack of technology adoption by providers creates a less accessible workplace and increases
time spent on tasks. These findings indicate a need for managers at company A to take a more
adaptive stance with new technology and for the organization to update tools to support the
growing technological environment better.
Literature notes that an organization's culture can influence the feedback process (Suhoyo
et al., 2017; Pruvli, 2014). Findings centered on two aspects of culture. First, participants shared
that the brand created a culture of feedback. Second, there was a top-down expectation from
leadership to provide feedback. This finding suggests that engaging culture can help to reshape
the practice of feedback at Company A when addressing gaps in practice, aligning with Hysong
et al.'s (2018) findings where managers with positive mental models who received feedback were
better able to provide transparency and strategically align work for improvement. This finding
indicates the potential to utilize organizational culture to drive change through the
recommendations discussed next.
103

Recommendations for Practice
The following section will discuss the practice recommendations. Five recommendations
were created to develop a feedback change initiative intended to address the opportunities
identified that will improve managerial feedback practice at Company A. Recommendations
align with the conceptual framework factors of knowledge, motivation, and organization. Each
recommendation is provided and then a section on each recommendations supporting literature
follows to provide backing on why structure of the recommendation.
Recommendation 1 (Knowledge): Create an Educational Program to Address Knowledge
Gaps
To address the knowledge gaps found in this study's findings, an educational program can
be created to provide critical training on high-quality feedback provision. The program could
align with the educational concepts in the best practices found in this dissertation. Clear
communication, understanding confirmation, action planning, self-regulation, and metacognition
would be taught both conceptually and with practical application for managers. Motivation
concepts, such as intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy, would also be taught. This educational
content could allow managers to both understand the concepts, utilize the concepts for themself
and allow for their implementation and use for recipients in feedback conversation. Classes
would be interactive to allow managers to participate and share learnings from a variety of
experiences. Educational content will begin by addressing the manager's prior knowledge,
correct misinformation, and then build on each concept gradually. The on-going nature of the
educational program would allow for complexity to be added over time and allow for a manager
to continually reassess their daily experience with the educational tools provided.
104

Accountability for the creation and execution for the educational program can be
provided by the training and educational department that currently exists at Company A. A
dedicated program manager could be assigned to partner with myself to create the appropriate
course content. The program manager would be responsible for monitoring, scheduling, and
long-term content distribution and updating. The manager would also co-ordinate
communication of ongoing content to mentors, which is discussed in recommendation two.
Finally, the program manager could also be responsible for ongoing assessment of the
educational program by creating a clear method of measuring the actualization of goals and how
successful the program is at reaching those goals (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). This could be
accomplished by following the established four-step evaluation provided by Clark and Estes
(2008), which accounts for participants’ reactions, impact during the program, monitoring
knowledge transfer and determining if the program has met the goal of improving high-quality
feedback provision by managers.
Improving educational and training programs relates directly to the health of an
organization. Aguinis and Kraiger (2009) detail that educational benefits include improved
individual performance, increased innovation, task coordination, and adaptive expertise. Those
acquiring new knowledge need to have the on-going opportunity to develop new skills and learn
from mistakes as they build their capacity. Training on metacognition will further help with
knowledge transfer. Educational providers must begin by identifying a manager's prior
knowledge and address incorrect or outdated information (Ambrose et al., 2010). The
educational process should then provide multiple opportunities for managers to reflect on their
learning and monitor improvement over time. Peer collaboration, debriefing, and on-going
discussion are all key to managerial development. Progress should be documented for
105

assessment purposes so that the educational program can continue to evolve with the manager's
needs (Clark & Estes, 2008). The process should remain cyclical, with evaluation design and
delivery being assessed at regular intervals. It is important to note that this educational program
should not be designed as a one-time event but an on-going development process.
Recommendation 2 (Knowledge): Create Localized Team-Based Mentorship to Promote
Knowledge Transfer
Managers could be identified to mentor their peers in a localized effort to build feedback
skills. Each business unit would select a manager mentor who is excited about facilitating
feedback knowledge to their peers and would help guide leaders in their daily work. The mentor
would have support through the education program, including updated training material,
communication channels to address questions, and additional training to help bolster their
teaching skills. Mentors could engage peers in discussion during team meetings, help direct
reflection on current feedback interactions and help to train new managers during their
onboarding experience. Mentors would focus on taking the lessons from the educational program
and facilitate knowledge transfer in the manager's real-life feedback practice. Mentors could be
held accountable to this work through clear expectations set in their yearly performance reviews,
and with monthly meetings with the educational program manager where they would
communicate their progress. The combined accountability focus from both localized and
education teams providing shared information for mentors allows for all parties involved to focus
their effort on what behavior is needed to meet goals (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Education must be expanded into daily practice to retain and expand on a manager's
skills. Clark and Estes (2008) note that "90% of training emphasizes only 10% of the knowledge
we need to learn, with skills learned in training needing to be transferred to the job". First, it is
106

important to identify the key players in an organization who will promote the desired change
message and represent the work moving forward (Meyerson, 2001). The individuals selected to
provide mentorship will provide legitimacy to the change, and support to those experiencing the
change process. Local mentors will also promote knowledge transfer in the manager's daily
workspace (Ambrose et al., 2010). Mentors can help take the information gained in the
educational program and help managers develop a practical understanding of the material in
various contexts relevant to individuals. Allowing local mentors to engage managers in actual
feedback process interactions can help make the educational recommendation more accessible,
tied to personal experience, and create a more sustainable outcome.
Recommendation 3 (Motivation): Engage Senior Leadership to Drive Change and
Motivation
Providing top-down leadership engagement to guide the feedback initiative can promote
lasting change. Senior leaders from the organization will provide communication to their
respective teams that will explain the feedback change initiative and the expectation to their
teams to engage in each step of the process. Senior leaders could model the feedback behaviors
from the educational program in their interactions, allowing managers to see their commitment.
Direct engagement from senior-level management will help provide social persuasion for
managers to advance their practice. In addition, senior leaders can provide accountability by
creating specific goals and expectations for their managers' development in feedback provision
and performance evaluation. Senior leaders can praise the manager's effort for engaging in
learning and developing their feedback provision skills. Finally, senior leaders can help course-
correct managers and teams that need additional assistance, knowledge, or motivation. Senior
leaders can be held accountable to the implementation and ongoing feedback work-effort through
107

multiple channels, including transparent disclosure, self-regulation and active participants in the
change effort with their direct reports (Ebrahim, 2010).
Leaders who directly model, teach and coach, can influence their followers, drive change
initiates, bolster employee motivation (Schein, 2004). Strategies to help individuals overcome
confidence barriers and build motivation include:
• Specific, challenging, and achievable short-term goals are assigned by leaders,
• managers progress acknowledged and praised,
• managers problematic interactions are corrected with a focus on strategy, and
• senior leaders communicate their expectations for the success of everyone (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 91).
Team confidence builders include clear communication on performance goal expectations, team
monitoring to ensure all managers are engaged, and providing confidence-based messages to the
team. In addition, building a manager's capacity for self-efficacy influences their job satisfaction
and commitment to the organization (Borgogni et al., 2011).
Recommendation 4 (Motivation): Recognizing Managers in Their Effort for Change
To help managers find value in building their feedback provision practice, senior leaders
can elevate manager’s intrinsic motivation. Senior leaders can engage managers in discussing
their personal standards and reasons for providing feedback to achieve this goal. These
conversations should direct managers to develop their feedback practice to benefit their personal
growth, focus manager improvement satisfaction, and the impact of a managers’ effort.
Evaluation of manager's feedback growth should be conducted in private meetings, focusing
solely on the manager. Evaluations of manager's feedback provision growth should address the
108

effort a manager has put into their development, in addition to the outcome of their feedback
interactions.
To promote intrinsic motivation in the workplace, Goal Orientation Theory shares that a
focus of mastery goals over performance goals is key (Elliot et al., 2017). Mastery goals help
elicit high achievement motivation and promote positive social behavior. Performance goals can
also promote achievement behavior but have been tied to anxiety, dissatisfaction, and the
provision of less accurate information. The implementation strategy from Goal Orientation to
promote mastery learning experiences for a manager includes recognizing an individual's efforts
to advance skills, evaluating achievement in private settings, and addressing incentive schemes
for employee development. In addition, addressing employee incentives for improvement should
look at how a manager's high-quality feedback provision is achieved, not solely the outcome of
their effort.
Recommendation 5 (Organization): Restructure Technology to Enhance User-Friendliness
and Adoption
Improvements and adoption of technology can be utilized to improve manager's feedback
provision. Information Technology (IT) services should be engaged to make applications user-
friendly and useful for manager's feedback interaction. A series of small group sessions
involving frontline managers could gather the needs and concerns of managers regarding
technology use in feedback interactions. Engagement sessions would allow for stakeholder input
in the improvement process and validate the needs of the technology users. The new technology
could expand the current practice of documentation by providing templates and consolidate
historical records for easy retrieval. New capacities could be added, such as scheduling
functions, resource support group information, and action planning tools in one easy-to-access
109

application. The application could allow feedback recipients to see documentation of their
learning plans or set up meetings with managers to request feedback sessions to aid in clear
communication and understanding confirmation. Training can be provided to help ease managers
into the use of the new technology. On-going monitoring from IT services could continue to
expand the functionality of feedback applications over time as managers' needs change. To
monitor progress on the IT change effort, lead discussion panels, and receive feedback from
managers who will utilize the new technology, the education project manager could be utilized to
coordinate the work and hold support teams accountable for progress.
Aligning support structures within an organization is necessary to create lasting change
that addresses the organization's needs. Clark and Estes (2008) identify the need to address an
organization's work process when considering organizational gaps. Material resources, such as
technology, are part of organizational factors affecting high-quality feedback provision.
Managers need to clarify how to adjust the use of technology to increase their feedback ability.
To do so, managers need to overcome their perceptions regarding technology and demonstrate a
willingness to examine alternative ways to operate (Garvin et al., 2008). In addition, Cox et al.
(2018) report that structure, or "the process by which roles and responsibilities are delegated,
managed and coordinated," is one of the contributing factors to building capacity.
Limitations and Delimitations
In any study, there are limitations to consider. Qualitative research and interviews are
prone to limitations due to participant self-reporting. Participants may feel they need to provide
answers the researcher wants to hear or are uncomfortable providing the full story if the
information may be perceived negatively. The study provided confidentiality for the interview
participants to build trust and safety to delimit this effect. The study also asked for data from a
110

long history of the participants’ work experience. A wide time range may limit a participant's
memory and not provide as rich detail as more recent feedback experiences. To account for the
potential lengthy-time range, interview questions aligned with probing questions to help
participants expand their answers with the most robust detail possible.
The boundaries of the research setting in this study were highly specific. The details of the work
environment and organizational culture were unique to Company A and may lead to low
transferability outside of the study setting. In order to delimit this effect, the researcher provided
full descriptions and an audit trail to provide a detailed account of the study, decisions made, and
analysis of the results.
This study took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The target population of
managers was reduced from several hundred to 41 actively working potential participants. Many
participants were transferred to temporary work locations, with an unfamiliar employee base.
Many interactions were limited due to social distance parameters set in place by the government
and health organization regulations. The participants involved in this study faced furlough due to
government restrictions on public gatherings and the limitation of business for organizations in
the entertainment sector. The pandemic and work furlough had the potential to change an
individual's perspective on their work experience and adjusted the overall managerial feedback
process.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was limited to the findings supported by the dissertation's conceptual
framework. As such, the opportunity for future study on improving high-quality managerial
feedback is extensive. The study provided additional findings on the impact of relationship
building during managerial feedback provision. The expansion of this intersection of study
111

would be a valuable addition to the subject. In addition, the study noted the organizations
cultural impact on action planning avoidance. This indicates an opportunity to further study
cultural impediments to implementing best practice behaviors. The study’s findings suggested a
negative reaction from participants towards technology, indicating an opportunity to further
understand how technology use can be used as a tool to bolster interpersonal interaction.
Company A would also benefit from future research on how corporate training divisions
could transition from training initiatives to providing on-going educational programs.
Participants noted the courses they took from the internal training were positive experiences, but
not memorable in the long term. The research could focus on how to address the knowledge of a
diverse range of individuals, since the demographic data showed that participants age range,
experience and education varied.
Conclusion
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational gaps that existed for managers at Company A providing high-quality feedback
provision. The literature review provided clarity on feedback factors relating to knowledge
motivation and organization. In addition, the literature detailed the elements of high-quality
feedback; clear communication, understanding confirmation, and action planning. Qualitative
data was analyzed and determined the dissertations findings and related recommendations for
organizational change. Final recommendations included: creating an educational program to
address knowledge gaps, creating localized team-based mentorship, engaging senior leadership
to drive change and motivation, recognition for managers engaging in the change process, and
restructuring technology to enhance user-friendliness and adoption.
112

The impact of high-quality managerial feedback on an organization cannot be
understated. This dissertation started with an angering meeting at work, where a young woman
was not being given the feedback she needed to impact her future. Her situation was not unique.
Gallup (2017) showed that managers failing to provide high-quality feedback was a problem on a
national level. This failure to provide high-quality feedback affects recipient’s growth. By
extension, poor-quality feedback can later affect an organization's retention and profitability.
This process has shown that through systematic inquiry, the feedback ability of mangers has the
potential to be enhanced by addressing the knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that
impact feedback provision. A quote attributed to Buddha states, "Whatever words we utter
should be chosen with care for people will hear them and be influenced by them for good or ill."
The ability to improve feedback provision at Company A will allow managers to choose their
words with care and hopefully influence the lives they lead for good.

113

References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 451–474.
Ahmed, F., Ali, S., & Rashid, A. S. (2019). Exploring variation in summative assessment:
Language teachers’ knowledge of students’ formative assessment and its effect on their
summative assessment. Bulletin of Education and Research, 41(2), 109.
Allan, J. L., Sniehotta, F. F., & Johnston, M. (2013). The best laid plans: Planning skill
determines the effectiveness of action plans and implementation intentions. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9483-9
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K.
(2010). How learning works. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Badami, R., VaezMousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2011). Feedback after good
versus poor trials affects intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
82(2), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2011.10599765
Baker, A., Perreault, D., Reid, A., & Blanchard, C. M. (2013). Feedback and organizations:
Feedback is good, feedback-friendly culture is better. Canadian Psychology, 54(4), 260–
268. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034691
Balta, N., & Tzafilkou, K. (2019). Using Socrative software for instant formative feedback in
physics courses. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 307–323.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9773-8
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
114

Beattie, S., Woodman, T., Fakehy, M., & Dempsey, C. (2016). The role of performance feedback
on the self-efficacy–performance relationship. Sport, Exercise, and Performance
Psychology, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000051
Borchert, P. S., & Rochford, L. (2017). Feedback valence during business idea development:
Predictor of performance, motivator of change, or both? Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, 29(5), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1336360
Borgogno, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360°
feedback. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice, 9(4), 761–794. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.93
Brown, G. T. L., Peterson, E. R., & Yao, E. S. (2016). Student conceptions of feedback: Impact
on self-regulation, self-efficacy, and academic achievement. The British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86(4), 606–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12126
Caemmerer, B., & Wilson, A. (2010). Customer feedback mechanisms and organizational
learning in service operations. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 30(3), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011024638
Chawla, N., Gabriel, A. S., da Motta Veiga, S. P., & Slaughter, J. E. (2019). Does feedback
matter for job search self‐regulation? It depends on feedback quality. Personnel
Psychology, 72(4), 513–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12320
115

Chen, X., Liao, J., Wu, W., & Zhang, W. (2017). Perceived insider status and feedback
reactions: A dual path of feedback motivation attribution. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,
668. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00668
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Cox, K., Jolly, S., Van Der Staaij, S., & Van Stolk, C., (2018). Understanding the Drivers of
Organizational Capacity. RAND Corporation: CA.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Crisan, A. N. (2017). Case study on the importance of formative assessment in stimulating
student motivation for learning and increasing the efficiency of the educational process.
Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Ii (lxix)(1)
Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P.,
Gomez, S., & Park, J. (2012). The use of video technology for providing feedback to
students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students? Computers &
Education, 58(1), 386–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.025
Davies, D., & Jacobs, A. (1985). “Sandwiching” complex interpersonal feedback. Small Group
Behavior, 16(3), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090552685163008
Dahling, J., Taylor, S., Chau, S., & Dwight, S. (2016). Does coaching matter? A multilevel
model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal attainment.
Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 863–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12123
116

Dahling, J. J., Gabriel, A. S., & MacGowan, R. (2017). Understanding typologies of feedback
environment perceptions: A latent profile investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
101, 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.05.007
Dembo, M., & Seli, H. (2016). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus on
self-regulated learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315724775
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be
improved? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 129–139.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2000.2909845
DePasque, S., & Tricomi, E. (2015). Effects of intrinsic motivation on feedback processing
during learning. NeuroImage, 119, 175–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.06.046
Dimotakis, N., Mitchell, D., & Maurer, T. (2017). Positive and negative assessment center
feedback in relation to development self-efficacy, feedback seeking, and promotion. The
Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(11), 1514–1527. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000228
Donato, A., Alweis, R., & Wenderoth, S. (2016). Design of a clinical competency committee to
maximize formative feedback. Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine
Perspectives, 6(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3402/jchimp.v6.33533
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). Ten things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9–22.
Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In D. O. Renz & associates
117

(Eds.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 101–
123) (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons/Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. J. (1995). Assessment beyond development: The linkage between
360- degree feedback, performance appraisal and pay. ACA Journal, 23, 2–13.
Eklöf, H., Pavesic, B. J., & Gronmo, L. S. (2014). A cross-national comparison of reported effort
and mathematics performance in TIMSS advanced. Applied Measurement in Education,
27(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2013.853070
Elliot, A., Dweck, C., & Yeager, D. (2017). Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory
and application. The Guildford Press.
Esambe, E., Mosito, C., & Pather, S. (2016). First-year students’ essay writing practices:
Formative feedback and interim literacies. Reading and Writing, 7(1), 1–11.
Fong, C. J., Williams, K. M., Williamson, Z. H., Lin, S., Kim, Y. W., & Schallert, D. L. (2018).
“Inside out”: Appraisals for achievement emotions from constructive, positive, and
negative feedback on writing. Motivation and Emotion, 42(2), 236–257.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9658-y
French, J. C., Colbert, C. Y., Pien, L. C., Dannefer, E. F., & Taylor, C. A. (2015). Targeted
feedback in the milestones era: Utilization of the ask-tell-ask feedback model to promote
reflection and self-assessment. Journal of Surgical Education, 72(6), e274–e279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.05.016
Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/
state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., & Gino, F. (March 2008). Is yours a learning organization?
Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109–134.
118

Geitz, G., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., & Kirschner, P. A. (2015). Goal Orientation, Deep Learning,
and Sustainable Feedback in Higher Business Education. Journal of Teaching in
International Business, 26(4), 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2015.1128375
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. Pearson Education.
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12-
26.
Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249–266.
Gregory, P. J., Robbins, B., Schwaitzberg, S. D., & Harmon, L. (2017). Leadership development
in a professional medical society using 360-degree survey feedback to assess emotional
intelligence. Surgical Endoscopy, 31(9), 3565–3573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-
5386-8
Harms, P. L., & Roebuck, D. B. (2010). Teaching the art and craft of giving and receiving
feedback. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 413–431.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569910385565
Henry, D., Vesel, T., Boscardin, C., & van Schaik, S. (2018). Motivation for feedback-seeking
among pediatric residents: A mixed methods study. BMC Medical Education, 18, 145.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1253-8
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
119

McKernan, J. F., & McPhail, K. (2012). Accountability and accounterability. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 23(3), 177–182.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. The American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–
Hysong, S. J., Smitham, K., SoRelle, R., Amspoker, A., Hughes, A. M., & Haidet, P. (2018).
Mental models of audit and feedback in primary care settings. Implementation Science :
IS, 13, 73. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0764-3
Jamshidian, S., Yamani, N., Sabri, M., & Haghani, F. (2019). Problems and challenges in
providing feedback to clinical teachers on their educational performance: A mixed-
methods study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 8(1), 8.
Johnson, C. E., Keating, J. L., Farlie, M. K., Kent, F., Leech, M., & Molloy, E. K. (2019).
Educators’ behaviors during feedback in authentic clinical practice settings: An
observational study and systematic analysis. BMC Medical Education, 19, 129. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1524-z
Jug, R., Jiang, X., & Bean, S. (2019). Giving and receiving effective feedback: A review article
and how-to guide. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 143(2), 244–250.
https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2018-0058-RA
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), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a
double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(3), 67–72.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772989
120

Korpi, S. (2019). Portfolio project as summative language assessment: Engaging learners online.
International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(2), 1–18.
Kotter, J. P. (2009). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. IEEE Engineering
Management Review, 37(3), 42–48.
LeBaron, S. W. (2000). Evaluation as a dynamic process. Family Medicine, 32(1).
Lee, H. (2016). Which feedback is more effective for pursuing multiple goals of differing
importance? The interaction effects of goal importance and performance feedback type
on self-regulation and task achievement. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 297–322.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.995596
Li-Ju, C., Ho, R., & Yung-Chin, Y. (2010). Marking strategies in metacognition-evaluated
computer-based testing. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 246–259.
Lookadoo, K. L., Bostwick, E. N., Ralston, R., Elizondo, F. J., Wilson, S., Shaw, T. J., & Jensen,
M. L. (2017). “I forgot I wasn’t saving the world”: The use of formative and summative
assessment in instructional video games for undergraduate biology. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 26(6), 597–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9701-5
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.
Mathie, E., Wythe, H., Munday, D., Millac, P., Rhodes, G., Roberts, N., Smeeton, N., Poland, F.,
& Jones, J. (2018). Reciprocal relationships and the importance of feedback in patient
and public involvement: A mixed methods study. Health Expectations, 21(5), 899–908.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12684
121

Mayhew, E. (2017). Playback feedback: The impact of screen-captured video feedback on
student satisfaction, learning and attainment. European Political Science, 16(2), 179–192.
https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.102
McGee, H. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it.
Performance Improvement, 54(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21472
Medina, M., Castleberry, A., & Persky, A. (2017). Strategies for Improving Learner
Metacognition in Health Professional Education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education, 81(4), 78–. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe81478
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Get looped in on feedback. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-
at-play/the-history-of-feedback
Meyerson, D. E. (2001, October). Radical change, the quiet way. Harvard Business Review,
79(9), 92–100.
Neher, J. O., Gordon, K. C., Meyer, B., & Stevens, N. (1992). A five-step “microskills” model of
clinical teaching. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 5(4), 419–424.
O’Leary, A. P., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2019). Components of metacognition can function
independently across development. Developmental Psychology, 55(2), 315–328.
https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000645
Olencevicius, S. (2019). Feedback intervention research historical review: From single to
multidimensional. Management, 24(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.30924/mjcmi.24.1.4
Palminteri, S., Lefebvre, G., Kilford, E. J., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2017). Confirmation bias in
human reinforcement learning: Evidence from counterfactual feedback processing. PLoS
122

Computational Biology, 13(8), e1005684. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005684
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P., & Havelock, P. (2003). The New Consultation:
Developing Doctor–Patient Communication (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780192632883.001.0001
Pruvli, E. (2014). Business communication of a persuasive nature style adaptation and
effectiveness during intercultural interactions. Journal of Intercultural Communication,
35, 46–55.
Rodriguez, E., Marquett, R., Hinton, L., McBride, M., & Gallagher-Thompson, D. (2010). The
impact of education on care practices: An exploratory study of the influence of “action
plans” on the behavior of health professionals. International Psychogeriatrics, 22(6),
897–908. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610210001031
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, 5/e. Pearson Education India.
Schein, E. (2004). How leaders embed and transmit culture. Organizational culture and
Leadership (3rd ed., Chapter 13, pp. 245-271 and Chapter 16). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Sherf, E. N., & Morrison, E. W. (2020). I do not need feedback! or do I? self-efficacy,
perspective taking, and feedback seeking. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(2),
146–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000432
123

Siddique, M., Said, N., & Butt, M. (2019). Perspectives of students’ and faculty on student
evaluation of teaching at institute of management sciences peshawar. FWU Journal of
Social Sciences, 13(3), 65–78.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors (pp. 1–7).
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved November 14, 2005, from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Suhoyo, Y., Van Hell, E. A., Kerdijk, W., Emilia, O., Schonrock-Adema, J., Kuks, J. B. M., &
Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2017). Influence of feedback characteristics on perceived learning
value of feedback in clerkships: Does culture matter? BMC Medical Education, 17, 17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0904-5
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39, (1/4), 212-222.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203585078
Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Task type as a moderator of positive/negative feedback
effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(8), 1084–1105.
Vidya, R., & Ambrose, S. (2017). Comprehensive 360-degree appraisal: Management
educational institutions. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 14(1), 87–97.
Voet, M., Gielen, M., Boelens, R., & De Wever, B. (2018). Using feedback requests to actively
involve assessees in peer assessment: Effects on the assessor’s feedback content and
124

assessee’s agreement with feedback. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
33(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0345-x
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004, January 1). Logic Model Development Guide. W.K. Kellogg
Foundation. https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resources/2004/01/logic-model-
development-guide.
Yurick, K. (2018, October 25). Yoh survey: Lack of respect, broken promises, and overworking
employees are top issues with managers that would make employed Americans consider
new jobs. https://www.yoh.com/press-room/yoh-survey-top-issues-with-managers-that-
would-make-employed-americans-consider-new-jobs
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2018, August 3). Your employees want the negative feedback you
hate to give. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2014/01/your-employees-want-
the-negative-feedback-you-hate-to-give#

125

Appendix A: Interview Protocol

Research Questions:

RQ1: What knowledge factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
RQ2: What motivation factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality feedback?
RQ3: What organizational factors influence a manager’s ability to provide high-quality
feedback?

Table A1
Interview Questions and Corresponding Concepts
Item
number
Interview question Concept
1 Tell me about your background. Background and
demographics
2 Tell me about your feedback style. Knowledge
3 How do you plan for a feedback conversation? Walk
me through your steps.
Knowledge: High-quality
4 What experiences have helped you improve your
ability to provide feedback?
Knowledge
5 How would you train a new manager to provide
feedback?
Knowledge
6 How do you approach your own growth in feedback
provision?
Knowledge:
metacognition
7 How would you define self-regulation? To what extent
do you have feedback recipients engage in self-
regulation?
Knowledge: Self-
regulation
8 Describe a recent feedback conversation that you think
was particularly successful. What made it successful?
Knowledge: High quality
9 Describe a recent feedback conversation that you think
was less successful. Why was it less successful?
What would have made it better?
Knowledge: High quality
10 How would you describe how you communicate your
feedback message? What are the components of your
message?
Knowledge: Clear
communication
11 Walk me through the key components of a feedback
conversation?
Knowledge
12 What happens after feedback is completed? To what
extent do you create an action plan with your
feedback recipients?
Knowledge: Action
planning
126

Item
number
Interview question Concept
13 To what extent do you include time to check for
understanding in your feedback conversations?
Knowledge:
Understanding
confirmation
14 What are the reasons you choose to provide feedback? Motivation: Intrinsic
motivation
15 How would you define intrinsic motivation from the
perspective of an employee? To what extent do you
engage a feedback recipients’ intrinsic motivation?
Knowledge: Intrinsic
motivation
16 What deters you from engaging in high-quality
feedback conversations?
Motivation
17 Tell me about your experience with recipient setbacks
during the feedback process.
Motivation: Self-efficacy
18 How confident do you feel in providing feedback?
What influences your confidence?
Motivation: Self-efficacy
19 What training have you had in providing feedback? Organizational barriers:
Work process
20 How has the company factored into your ability to
provide feedback?
Organizational barriers:
Culture
21 How does the organization support a culture of
feedback?
Organizational barriers:
Culture
22 What resources do you use in your feedback
conversations?
Organizational barriers:
Resources
23 How does technology factor into your interactions
when providing feedback?
Organizational barriers:
Technology
24 Walk me through how you adapt the work process to
create new ways to conduct business for feedback
recipients?
Organizational barriers:
Work process

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Brick by brick: exploring the influential factors on the capacity building of instructional coaches

PDF

Multi-source feedback in the U. S. Army: an improved assessment

PDF

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Examining technology obsolescence in music scoring studios

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

Preparing teachers to advance equity through deeper learning and antiracist practices

PDF

Workforce system collaboration

PDF

Training qualified rural area teachers in Malawi using synchronous virtual learning (SVL) information and communication technologies (ICTs) platforms

PDF

Creating a culture of connection: employee engagement at an academic medical system

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Women of color senior leaders: pathways to increasing representation in higher education

PDF

Developing partnerships between education providers and Fortune 500 companies to increase the utilization of tuition assistance and quality digital education: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Dunlap, Erin Anne (author)

Core Title Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 08/05/2021

Defense Date 07/15/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag feedback,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney (committee chair), Murazewski, Allison (committee member), Stowe, Kathy (committee member)

Creator Email edunlap@usc.edu,erin.anne.dunlap@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15709198

Unique identifier UC15709198

Legacy Identifier etd-DunlapErin-10002

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Dunlap, Erin Anne

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu