COM 140 Module 3 Feedback and Coaching Example

Feedback That Helps and Feedback That Hurts: Coaching a New Packing Lead

Student Name

Business Administration Program, Aspen University

COM 140: Managing Performance and Developing Teams

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Feedback That Helps and Feedback That Hurts: Coaching a New Packing Lead

Three weeks ago, Ridgeline Outdoor Supply promoted Dana Ortiz from picker to lead of the packing line at its Aurora distribution center. Dana was the obvious choice: four years without a serious error and a reputation for knowing every product in the building. Since the promotion, however, packing errors have risen from two to five per thousand orders, and two of the eight packers have asked the supervisor, Marcus Webb, to move them to another shift. Both said Dana corrects them loudly in front of others. Marcus needs to give Dana feedback and help Dana grow into the role. This paper plans how.

Getting the Facts Straight

Before speaking to Dana, Marcus gathered specifics. Error reports show that most new errors involve missing packing slips and wrong box sizes, tasks Dana changed in the first week by introducing a faster packing sequence. Marcus also watched the line for two afternoons and saw Dana stop a packer mid-task twice to redo a box while others watched. These are behaviors and results, not personality traits, and they give the conversation something concrete to discuss.

When Feedback Helps and When It Hurts

Kluger and DeNisi (1996) conducted a meta-analysis of 607 effect sizes from studies of feedback interventions involving more than 23,000 observations. Feedback improved performance on average, but in over a third of cases it reduced performance. Their feedback intervention theory proposes that feedback directs attention to one of three levels: the details of the task, the process of learning the task or the self. Feedback that draws attention to the self, such as praise or criticism of the person, tends to pull attention away from the task and can reduce performance. Feedback that focuses on the task and on how to improve it is more likely to help.

How Dana Is Likely to Receive Feedback

London and Smither (2002) argued that whether feedback leads to improvement depends partly on the person's feedback orientation, their overall receptivity to feedback, including liking it, believing it is useful, feeling accountable to act on it and being aware of how others see them. It also depends on the organization's feedback culture, whether feedback is frequent, high quality and supported by managers. Dana has received little feedback in four years as a picker, because Dana rarely made errors, and Aurora's culture has been to give feedback only once a year. Dana may therefore hear the conversation as a sign of failure. Marcus will make clear that new leads are expected to struggle and that feedback is a normal part of the role.

The First Conversation

Marcus will meet Dana privately at the start of a shift. He will begin by asking how the first three weeks have gone and what Dana finds hardest, which lets Dana raise problems first. He will then share the two specific observations and the error data, ask Dana what might explain the rise in errors, and listen. Finally, he will ask Dana to choose two goals for the next six weeks.

Coaching Rather Than Telling

Theeboom et al. (2014) statistically combined studies of coaching at work and reported that coached employees improved in job skills and results, felt better, coped with pressure more effectively, held more positive attitudes and steered themselves toward goals more deliberately. Coaching differs from instruction in that the coach helps the person set goals, reflect on experience and find their own solutions. This suits Dana, who knows the work well but has not led people before.

The Six-Week Plan

Dana's likely goals, based on the conversation, are to correct packers privately and to bring errors back to two per thousand. Marcus will meet Dana for twenty minutes each week. Each meeting asks three questions: what happened this week, what Dana tried and what Dana will try next. In week two, Marcus will arrange for Dana to shadow an experienced lead on another shift. In week four, Marcus will ask two packers, with their agreement, for brief comments on how Dana's corrections feel now.

Building a Feedback Culture on the Line

London and Smither's point about culture applies beyond Dana. If the packing line is a place where feedback is rare and arrives only when something goes wrong, every correction will feel like an accusation. Marcus will model a different pattern: during his weekly walk of the line, he will give at least as much specific positive feedback as corrective feedback, and he will ask the packers for feedback on the new packing sequence. Over time, Dana is likely to copy the way Marcus gives feedback more than any advice he offers, so his own behavior is part of the coaching plan.

What Marcus Will Avoid

Three common mistakes would undo the plan. Giving feedback in front of the team would repeat the behavior Dana is being coached to change. Delivering a "feedback sandwich," praise followed by criticism followed by praise, would blur the message and teach Dana to distrust praise. And taking over the line to fix errors himself would signal that Marcus does not trust Dana to lead.

Checking Progress

Error rates are reviewed weekly, and Marcus keeps brief notes after each coaching meeting so that he and Dana can see change over the six weeks rather than relying on memory. The test of the coaching is whether errors fall, whether the two packers stay on the shift and whether Dana begins to give task-focused feedback to the team.

Conclusion

Kluger and DeNisi explain why Marcus's feedback must focus on tasks rather than on Dana as a person, London and Smither explain why Dana may find feedback hard to hear and Theeboom, Beersma and van Vianen support coaching as the way to build a new lead. Specific observations, Dana's own goals and weekly coaching give Dana a fair chance to succeed in the role.

References

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

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499