JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT

2023, VOL. 43, NO. 1, 64–89

https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2022.2089436

Performance Feedback in Organizations: Understanding

the Functions, Forms, and Important Features
a
Douglas A. Johnson , C. Merle Johnsonb, and Priyanka Davea
a
Western Michigan University, Department of Psychology, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA; bCentral Michigan
University, Department of Psychology, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Feedback surrounds our personal and professional worlds, Feedback; component
informing us about what worked and what did not. Within analyses; organizational
workplace settings, it is important to understand how feedback behavior management
operates in order to deliberately and carefully craft performance
information that, when delivered, generates desirable organiza­
tional outcomes. The current paper examines the many poten­
tial functions of feedback, including details on how such
functions might be established. Behavioral investigations into
how to best structure and deliver feedback are detailed, along
with considerations of factors that may impact the reception of
feedback. Finally, using the current literature as a blueprint,
several possible research directions are suggested that would
fit well within a behavior analytic perspective.

Feedback for performance has long been important, if not foundational, for
improvements and adaptations, as noted by scholars in general, including the
founders of our field. Consider the following quote by B. F. Skinner:
Reflexes, conditioned or otherwise, are mainly concerned with the internal physiology of
the organism. We are most often interested, however, in behavior which has some effect
upon the surrounding world. Such behavior raises most of the practical problems in
human affairs and is also of particular theoretical interest because of its special char­
acteristics. The consequences of behavior may “feed back” into the organism. When they
do so, they may change the probability that the behavior which produced them will occur
again. The English language contains many words, such as “reward” or “punishment,”
which refer to this effect, but we can get a clear picture of it only through experimental
analysis. (Skinner, 1953, p. 59)

Skinner introduces readers to the concept of operant conditioning, in which

organisms are more than poor creatures at the mercy of the surrounding
environment. Instead, our behavior operates to change the environment, just
as much as we are changed by that same environment, in a reciprocal dance of
control. Feedback is intrinsic to the successful adaptation of our repertoire to
the world around us. Performance feedback is built-in during the delivery of

CONTACT Douglas A. Johnson behavioranalyst@gmail.com Department of Psychology, Western Michigan

University, P.O. Box 1295, Portage, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49081, USA
© 2022 Taylor & Francis
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 65

immediate consequences. This is evidenced across many aspects of our lives,

including social behaviors (e.g., does our audience laugh or scowl at our
attempt at humor?), cooking (e.g., do our seasonings repulse or please taste
buds?), gaming (e.g., avatars perish or triumph following our button press
combinations), sporting (e.g., free throw made or missed; golf shot hits the
green or goes out-of-bounds), document editing (e.g., software indicates mis­
spelling of our typing behaviors or accepts words without judgment), and
a seemingly endless list of examples. Feedback used in organizational settings
would be included in this list and can be expanded to include non-immediate
consequences, although formal attempts to implement feedback are often
lacking due to issues related to immediacy, frequency, objectivity, and efficacy
(Daniels, 2016; Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985). Unlike many natural sources of
feedback, performance feedback in organizations is defined as the provision of
information specifically given to change or maintain performance.
This paper is intended to serve several purposes centered on a behavioral
understanding of the effects of feedback within organizational settings. First,
this paper will cover the potential functions of feedback, adding to and
elaborating upon earlier conceptual analyses (Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985).
Fully understanding such potential functions is important to ensure our field is
conceptually coherent rather than a simple roster of procedural recipes (Baer
et al., 1968) indistinguishable from other performance change disciplines.
A comprehensive understanding of multiple functions can suggest potential
evocative effects and stimulus transformations to be attentive toward.
Furthermore, there may be important implications for prediction and control
by understanding how different histories with feedback may result in different
functional relations (Michael, 2004). As such, this paper will tend to focus on
the usage of feedback within the conceptual framework of organizational
behavior management (OBM), although it will not be exclusively restricted.
Beyond functional and theoretical considerations, practitioners and research­
ers need guidance on how to best utilize feedback to maximize performance.
Furthermore, this paper will outline feedback strategies in terms of how to
craft feedback, how to deliver feedback, and how to receive feedback through
an informal review of the OBM literature. As always, more research needs to
be conducted, and this paper will highlight some of the paths forward. Lastly,
this paper is meant to complement the other contributions in this series of
articles (Johnson & Johnson, 2022) by highlighting one of the most commonly
used and studied independent variables within OBM.

The history of feedback

Performance feedback has a long and diverse history in both OBM and beyond
and was one of the earliest variables investigated by experimental psycholo­
gists (Ammons, 1956). For example, Thorndike’s (1927) classic study helping
66 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

to establish the law of effect was a feedback study. Participants estimated

lengths of lines and within 2 seconds were told “right,” “wrong,” or given no
announcement at all. Practice with feedback improved greater than practice
alone. That is, practice does not make perfect, practice with feedback makes
perfect. A systematic replication (Trowbridge & Cason, 1932) found blind­
folded subjects given specific objective feedback after drawing lines improved
more than when told “right” or “wrong.” Both groups performed better than
no feedback or nonsense-syllables control groups. Such “knowledge of results”
research (Travers, 1977) in early experimental psychology evolved into the
present terminology of “feedback.”
Probably the first comprehensive feedback system informed by behavioral
principles in a corporate environment was guided by Edward J. Feeney and
implemented at Emery Air Freight (Emery Air Freight Corporation, 1971;
Feeney, 1982) during the 1970s. The extensive use of feedback and reinforce­
ment saved Emery millions of dollars over just a few years (At Emery Air
Freight: Positive reinforcement boosts performance, 1973). As Feeney liked to
describe it, problem finding was much more important to performance
improvement than problem solving (Feeney, 1972). Often, managers and
employees were unaware of gaps between assumed and actual performance.
Once discrepancies were brought to light by feedback, dozens of solutions
could easily be proposed. The approach was successful enough that Emery was
featured in a film titled Business, Behaviorism, and the Bottom Line, along with
B. F. Skinner and Edward Feeney (Jordan, 1972).
Since early demonstrations, such as Feeney’s work at Emery, feedback
became one of the most extensively used and studied variables within OBM
(Van Stelle et al., 2012). Numerous articles examined the usage of feedback in
applied settings, some of which used visual inspection and some of which
quantified changes through effect sizes (Alvero et al., 2001; Balcazar et al.,
1985; Sleiman, Sigurjonsdottir et al., 2020). Overall, feedback was shown to be
effective, although these effects were inconsistent, which suggests the need for
careful control of potential confounds during implementation or identifica­
tion of which variables are most effective in specific contexts. Publication
trends of research within the Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management show that feedback is the most frequently used independent
variable across studies (Van Stelle et al., 2012).
There are several reasons to better understand performance feedback
beyond the mere commonality of its usage. All things being equal, behavior
naturally varies and tends toward the response of least effort (Timberlake,
1977). To put this in organizationally relevant terms, in the absence of either
natural or programmed consequences, employee performance might gravitate
toward off-task, sloppy, and substandard levels. Feedback is one type of
consequence that can maintain behavior when natural outcomes are insuffi­
cient, which should be important for daily on-the-job tasks (Johnson &
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 67

Akpapuna, 2018). Feedback helps develop new behaviors when individuals

cannot self-evaluate so that employees are not “flying blind” while waiting for
a formal performance appraisal (Grote, 2002). Improvements in supervisor-
subordinate communication made possible by feedback benefit performance
by directing employee focus and effort but also show positive effects on job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Aguinis et al., 2012; Ashford &
Cummings, 1983; Jawahar, 2006; Kuchinke, 2000; O’Reilly & Anderson, 1980;
Pearce & Porter, 1986)

Understanding the function of feedback

Despite the many reasons to better understand the function of feedback, this is
not a simple proposal. Part of the complexity and confusion lies in the fact that
feedback can be classified as an antecedent, consequence, or both
(Mangiapanello & Hemmes, 2015; Peterson, 1982). It may be useful not to
lose track of what is probably the only consistent behavioral classification for
feedback: it is a stimulus. As every teaching textbook on behavior analysis
demonstrates, stimuli can take on any number of functions, some of which
may be occurring simultaneously. This suggests that efforts to discover any
single function of feedback would be pointless, as it can serve several functions
and there is no reason to expect its function to be ubiquitous. This possibility
of diverse functions in application means it may be of value to review the
potential functions feedback likely acquires, including functions related to
pairing history, discriminative functions, evocative effects as a motivating
operation, and potential status as a contingency specifying stimulus.

Simple functions based on pairing

One possible function feedback can serve as a respondent conditioned

stimulus. When supervisors deliver feedback, it is likely they utilize emo­
tionally laden words (e.g., impressive, great, excellent, failure, disappointed,
substandard). Although humans do not have a genetic predisposition to
have a positive or negative reaction to such words, common cultural con­
tingencies mean such words are likely to be paired with other stimuli that
elicit emotional reactions from most members of a social community (Choi
et al., 2018; Kuykendall & Keating, 1990; Staats & Staats, 1958). In other
words, most verbally sophisticated individuals will have positive or negative
reactions to such words (Critchfield & Doepke, 2018; Critchfield et al.,
2017). Depending on the context, the resulting physiological reactions are
tacted (i.e, labeled) differentially with terms such as nervous, pride, shame,
satisfaction, anger, and more. As such, the emotional learning underlying
feedback should not be neglected and has potential to impact other beha­
viors. For example, the stimuli resulting from physiological changes (e.g.,
68 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

anxiety) could generate tacts (accurate or otherwise) about self, world, and
future (“I’m a walking disaster,” “everyone is against me,” “I’ll never
succeed”) that then interfere with other behaviors (e.g., employees become
inattentive to training because they are upset or they miss an important
customer interaction because they are ruminating about a harsh
evaluation).
Feedback also has the possibility to function as a conditioned reinforcer
or conditioned punisher (Bucklin et al., 2003; Duncan & Bruwelheide,
1985; Johnson et al., 2008). For example, supervisors may provide on-the-
job immediate feedback, including evaluative statements such as praise or
criticisms, which will likely have behavior-altering effects on performance.
The consequences do not necessarily have to be spoken by the supervisors;
stimuli such as gestures or mannerisms indicating approval or disappoint­
ment during feedback could function as reinforcers or punishers for
behavior preceding feedback sessions. Even feedback devoid of explicit
evaluative indicators from supervisors can function as a conditioned rein­
forcer or punisher if the information from feedback is reliably paired with
other reinforcers or punishers within the organization. Furthermore,
objective statements about performance improvements or deterioration
are culturally typical reinforcers and punishers, even prior to any pairing
procedures within the organization. One advantage of such on-the-spot
feedback sessions is the potential to be delivered more frequently and at
lower costs than other organizational rewards and disciplinary stimuli.

Discriminative functions
Feedback also has the potential to serve different discriminative functions,
depending on how it is implemented (Balcazar et al., 1985). Feedback can
function as an SD if the presence of feedback is positively correlated with
the availability of reinforcement for performance. For example, feedback
from a supervisor may not only provide details regarding the employee’s
previous performance, but it may also provide notification that the super­
visor is monitoring subsequent performance, which could have a powerful
impact (Komaki, 1986). As a result, the employee’s efforts to engage in
valued performance are more likely to be rewarded following such notifi­
cation and will therefore evoke improvements. Notifications can also have
an abative effect on performance if feedback is positively correlated with
the availability of punishment. Notifications of monitoring may simulta­
neously indicate that undesired behaviors will now likely be punished, such
as taking extended breaks, completing work in a manner against regula­
tions, excessive socialization. Under these conditions feedback will begin
functioning as an SDp for unacceptable performances.
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 69

Feedback can also be negatively correlated with the availability of conse­

quences. In regard to reinforcing consequences, vague or inaccurate feedback
indicating little or no monitoring may extinguish performance improvements
(i.e., “no one is paying attention, so why bother trying?”). Such feedback is
functioning as an S∆ and may hinder organizational improvements. The
organization could also be hindered by an S∆p in which previously punished
behavior begins to recover. The same vague or inaccurate feedback could also
evoke harmful behaviors (i.e., “no one is paying attention, so now I’ll do
whatever I want”). The preceding examples involve discriminative functions
related only to performance monitoring, which does not exhaust all possible
discriminative functions related to feedback.

Functions as motivating operation

Discriminative stimuli are not the only type of operant antecedent; feedback
can also play a role as a conditioned motivating operation (CMO) if it
establishes other events as reinforcing (Agnew, 1998; Johnson et al., 2015;
Michael, 2004; Palmer et al., 2015). Any feedback correlated with the onset of
some form of worsening has the potential to serve as a reflexive CMO (CMO-
R) if the removal of the conditions generated by the feedback function as
reinforcement. For example, feedback may consist of some warning about
a forthcoming social worsening or loss of privilege and income (e.g., “I better
not have to come back and have this conversation again,” “if you don’t resolve
this problem by next week, you’ll be suspended,” “if your performance stays in
this range, we might have to talk about your future in our company.”).
Threatening conditions generated by such feedback may now function as
a CMO-R and evoke behaviors to remove implied or explicit threats. From
the organization’s perspective, the evoked behavior would ideally be improve­
ments in performance relevant to the organization’s goals. Such aversive
control may not go as planned, especially if targeted performance is unclear,
if demands are beyond the skills or control of the performer, or if alternative
behaviors require less response effort to be successful. For example, the
employee may attempt to remove threats established from performance feed­
back by directing the manager’s attention to another employee’s poor perfor­
mance (or falsely describing that employee’s performance), hiding evidence of
insufficient performance, flattering that manager or superiors higher in the
hierarchy, pleading excessively until the situation becomes aversive for the
manager, or by making appeals for pity.
Feedback could also potentially function as a transitive CMO (CMO-T) if it
alters the value of some other stimulus and evokes responding that will
produce that other stimulus. For example, the provision of objective feedback
regarding performance may establish evaluations as suddenly more reinfor­
cing (such as an employee starts asking others, “hey, do my numbers look
70 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

good to you or not?”). The objective feedback was a CMO-T that established
evaluation as more reinforcing and evoked evaluation-seeking behaviors.
Evaluative feedback from a supervisor could establish multiple consequences
as reinforcing and evoke a variety of behaviors if the evaluation was multi-
faceted. For example, suppose a manager completed a feedback session with an
employee stating that they lost a promotion because a) they lacked some skills
the manager was looking for, b) that their numbers had been looking bad
lately, c) that their colleague had been making a better impression, and that d)
their equipment usage had not been up-to-standards recently. This feedback
session may establish a) training workshops (“I need this certification to rise in
the company”), b) information related to self (“what are my numbers lately?”),
c) information to others (“what is the person who ranked above me doing
different?”), and tools (“where’s that screwdriver that my supervisor keeps
criticizing me for not having?”) as more valuable and evoke behaviors to
produce such stimuli. Evaluative feedback could even come from outside the
organization, such as when customer praise as a CMO-T makes the sight of an
observing manager more reinforcing (or more aversive in the case of customer
complaints).

Role as rules: function-altering contingency specifying stimulus

Beyond potential direct evocative effects of feedback, there lies the possibility
of feedback having several indirect effects by changing the function of other
events. Feedback can operate as a contingency specifying stimulus (Agnew &
Redmon, 1992; Blakely & Schlinger, 1987). The feedback might describe the
relation between workplace antecedents, employee performance, and conse­
quences for performance. Such descriptions of the organizational contingen­
cies could alter the function of other stimuli – both verbal and non-verbal –
without immediately evoking behavior and may aid in the development of
rule-governed behavior (Malott, 1992; Weatherly & Malott, 2008). For exam­
ple, a manager may give subordinates feedback such as, “when you are dealing
with a hostile call from a customer, I want to see you follow the new corporate
script rather than just ending the call or transferring to another department.”
Such feedback may not have any immediate evocative effect (especially if
a hostile call is not encountered for some time) but will still likely alter the
function of certain antecedents and consequences. Previously, an angry phone
call would have evoked behaviors to end or transfer it, but now evokes
a recitation of the corporate script. The sight of one’s finger on the transfer
call button may now, for the first time, have aversive properties. The sound of
one’s own voice saying the script may, for the first time have reinforcing
properties. The employee may emit covert verbal behavior (“I’m following
protocol”) and resulting response products (i.e., covert verbal stimuli) may
have reinforcing aspects. The ultimate outcome is that several environmental
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 71

products may now have reinforcing and punishing aspects due to the feed­
back. Even if the manager does not explicate the contingencies during feed­
back, employees may still describe the contingencies based on feedback. For
example, if an employee receives critical feedback every time their perfor­
mance is within a certain range, they may derive expected performance
standards even without the supervisor stating the expectations explicitly.
Such feedback may lead to self-generated rules that then alter future instances
of behavior (“if I keep my closing percentages above this number, then the
boss will leave me alone”).
The effects of feedback can be subtle and the function(s) it serves may
depend on the particular learning history of the individual. This may be part
of why presenting feedback alone does not consistently improve perfor­
mance (Johnson, 2013). To be clear, feedback alone does have the potential
to improve performance, but it likely requires that feedback brings the
performer into contact with naturally occurring sources of reinforcement
or requires idiosyncratic learning histories. Absent such preexisting provi­
sions, feedback will likely need to be combined with some other maintaining
variable. Pairing feedback with goal setting, consequences (praise, repri­
mands, tangible rewards & reinforcers), or both increases efficacy (Alvero
et al., 2001; Balcazar et al., 1985; Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985; Sleiman,
Sigurjonsdottir et al., 2020). Coupling feedback with goal setting and con­
sequences, however, makes performance feedback multifaceted. Moreover,
the type, schedule, mode, source, and content are just some parameters that
potentially confound the efficacy of performance feedback (Prue &
Fairbank, 1981). Clearly performance feedback is multiply-controlled and
usually has multiple effects on the behavior of individuals and groups; thus,
managers and supervisors need to develop efficacious feedback systems to
create maximal organizational impact. We believe most managers and
practitioners are not aware of this and do not comprehend these concerns.
They believe they provide feedback to employees and cannot understand
why performance is not improving. We hope the contents of this article
provide useful information to improve performance feedback systems for
readers.

How to craft feedback: components and elements

Despite many aforementioned successes, feedback has not been uniformly
successful, likely because it is not uniformly implemented in either research
or practice (Alvero et al., 2001). Just as there are many potential functions of
feedback, the components and formal elements that constitute feedback also
vary widely and can pose a challenge for understanding from both a research
and practice perspective (Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985; Ford, 1980; Johnson,
2013). In fact, given the robust literature demonstrating feedback can improve
72 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

performance, there is probably little need for more of this type of general
research. Instead, research is needed on specific components and elements that
modulate success of feedback interventions.

Type of feedback appraisal

Daniels and Bailey (2014) point out that feedback should provide objective
information about past performance. Objective feedback is essential as it
directs people toward factors that contribute to performance and provides
clear measures for improvement. However, simply providing such informa­
tion by itself may not have performance enhancing effects (Johnson et al.,
2008; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Instead, several considerations must be taken
into account. One consideration is whether the feedback contains any evalua­
tive components. Supervisors rarely just state the performance data of their
subordinates – they also incorporate appreciative or critical statements into
their delivery. Research by Johnson (2013) recommended that evaluation of
performance and objective details are essential components for performance
feedback. In this study, participants completed an experiment modeled after
a check processor job in a bank. Participants received objective feedback alone,
evaluative feedback alone, combined, or no feedback. Results demonstrated
that all three feedback groups performed considerably better than the no-
feedback group. The author noted that, though it takes a few more minutes to
administer, a combination of evaluative and objective feedback produced
significant improvements in performance than general and objective evalua­
tion alone.

Specificity of feedback

Another important consideration involves specificity. An early demonstration

(Frederiksen et al., 1982) involved recordkeeping in a university psychology
clinic and the experiment was conducted in two phases. Chart maintenance by
therapists was the object of intervention; four types of charting errors (status
error, error of completeness, format error, and signature error) were tracked
and experimenters controlled the delivery of feedback. In the first part of the
study, two charting errors (status and completeness) were specifically targeted
using an ABA design, while the other two (format and signature) were only
measured. The second part was an AB replication of the first using a second
group of employees, this time targeting two different charting errors (format
and signature) while the other two (status and completeness) were tracked but
untargeted. In both phases during staff meetings, supervisors described indi­
viduals’ specific information about the number and type of errors, along with
praise when appropriate. Overall, only the behaviors receiving specific feed­
back during intervention phases improved (and reverted to baseline levels
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 73

during withdrawal), while performance for untargeted behavior remained

largely unchanged throughout the study. This showed that simply delivering
feedback alone was insufficient, rather feedback needed to be tailored to the
performance of interest.
Similarly, Goodman and Wood (2004) investigated specificity using a work
simulation called Furniture Factory, in which participants served as depart­
ment managers. The simulation required managers to complete four trials
involving a sequence of decisions related to job allocation, goals set, feedback
given, and the distribution of rewards. Based upon relevant literature for those
areas, participants received feedback on each trial on their decision according
to three levels of specificity. Low specificity simply provided participants
details on how their employees performed after decisions, with no information
on whether their decision was correct or not (thus requiring inference of their
performance). Moderate specificity added details in which participants were
told whether their decisions were correct for each worker. High specificity
added more detail, informing participants on how their decisions with each
worker were correct or incorrect, thus requiring almost no inference by
participants.
How specificity influenced performance depended upon the type of perfor­
mance. When correct, highly specific feedback was superior. When partici­
pants made errors, low feedback specificity was best for learning. Thus, when
participants needed to learn from their mistakes, it was best to require them to
figure out what went wrong. The opposite was true for learning from one’s
successes. Thus, the simple rule of “more specific feedback is always best” may
not hold true across all contexts and demands (i.e., learning versus mainte­
nance, positive versus corrective).
K. Lee et al. (2014) looked at the relative and generalization effects of global
and specific feedback on safety performance and safety items at a road con­
struction site in South Korea. Findings indicated that specific feedback is not
always effective as global feedback. Global feedback could compel recipients to
analyze their own behavior afterward. For feedback interventions in applied
settings, cost and time are important variables and they argued that global
feedback could be easy, quick, and cost-effective compared to specific feed­
back. The researchers found that both global and specific feedback produced
comparable performance and furthermore global feedback demonstrated
a greater degree of generalization for non-targeted items.
Finally, Park et al. (2019) explored the effects between feedback specificity
(specific vs. global) and frequency of feedback (frequent vs. infrequent) on the
quality of work performance. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
four feedback groups (specific and frequent, global and frequent, global and
infrequent, and specific and infrequent) and asked to complete a simulation of
stocking at a distribution center. One variable examined was how global (e.g.,
average overall rate of errors) or specific (e.g., error rates in the following
74 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

performance areas) feedback influence the average rate of errors. Specific

feedback was more effective than global when feedback was infrequent.
However, no differences were found in terms of specificity when feedback
was provided frequently. Thus, the theme of research on specificity seems to be
that more specific feedback is generally more effective, but this relationship is
not so consistent that one can blindly follow a simple heuristic.

Comparative feedback

The basis for comparisons is another important element for feedback –

whether the evaluation involves a comparison to standards or goals, the
performance of others, or one’s individual prior performance. Hartwell and
Campion (2016) examined a way to reduce rating errors that increased the
reliability and validity of structured interview ratings using normative perfor­
mance feedback. The experimenters provided feedback reports to over 100
experienced full-time interviewers which anonymously listed each interviewer
rating and the average rating across all interviewers (individuals could identify
their specific scores using an identification code). Such normative feedback
reduced deviations from the average ratings (beyond what could be expected
from regression to the mean), with lenient interviewers being more impacted
than severe interviewers. Therefore, normative interviewer feedback shared by
organizations made interview ratings more reliable and normative feedback
was found to be effective (at least for predicting ratings, although it may be
important to note that these measures were not tied to any objective
measures).
In a related line of research, Goltz et al. (1989) examined the effects of
adding individualized feedback after performers were already receiving feed­
back based on average group performance. This study was carried out with
employees at a Midwestern microelectronics plant and assessed performance
using an ABCB design (A = baseline, B = group feedback, C = group and
individual feedback). The addition of individual feedback exerted a clear
improvement upon performance, although the reversal to group only feedback
showed a more ambiguous loss of performance (mean was lower but not to
a significant degree). This outcome strongly suggests that group feedback will
not maximize performance; other means of feedback should be added or used
in place of group feedback. This aligned well with the findings of Newby and
Robinson (1983), who found individual feedback (with and without reinforce­
ment) positively impacted multiple measures of cashier performance, but
group feedback was ineffective.
Moon et al. (2017) directly compared normative feedback (i.e., social
comparison) to objective feedback using high and low performers.
Undergraduate students at a large university were in three computer labora­
tories simulating an online bank money transfer. Social comparison feedback
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 75

was more effective for high performers than objective feedback, while objective
feedback was more effective than social comparison feedback for low perfor­
mers. In this scenario, it can be presumed that social feedback could work as
a powerful reinforcer to increase performance in organizational settings.
However, for those whose performance is low, social comparison feedback
might function as a punisher. In these cases, the effects of feedback might
depend on performance levels and the basis of comparison.
A similar lesson of how performance levels might matter with normative
feedback was found by Mesch et al. (1994), but with different outcomes in
regard to positive versus negative normative feedback. In their study, 59 three-
person groups were randomly assigned to positive or negative feedback fol­
lowing performance on a word recognition task. Participants were given
a sheet with feedback indicating the number of correct words, the number
of total words attempted, and the mean score of other groups (mean scores
were contrived to indicate team performance was either above or below
average group performance, depending on random assignment). Unlike
Moon et al. (2017), “low” performers did better during a subsequent session
than “high” performers. It is difficult to account for the experimental differ­
ences that might be responsible for the differences between studies (e.g.,
cultural differences, individual versus group data, tasks, genuine versus fake
normative comparisons). Mesch et al. pointed out that teams in their study
were able to communicate and set self-goals between performance sessions
and performers would reliably set higher goals for themselves after getting
negative feedback. In essence, negative normative feedback implies higher
performance standards are necessitated, thus blurring the lines between feed­
back and goal setting interventions. Mesch et al. also cautioned against regular
use of negative feedback, as negative feedback performers showed higher levels
of dissatisfaction and extensive exposure to signs of failure could result in
learned helplessness.
In general, there appear to be many important qualifiers for feedback based
on group performance. A general rule of thumb is to provide feedback to
recipients with all the essential information to precisely identify instances of
appropriate and inappropriate goal-directed behavior (Prue & Fairbank,
1981). If aggregated feedback is sufficient to enable performers to identify
how to improve their individual performance, then group or normative feed­
back is likely to be effective (how effective may depend on the extent to which
performers can accurately pinpoint strengths and deficits).
As mentioned above, negative feedback could potentially harm perfor­
mance. However, there are times when such appraisal may be warranted, if
not necessary. Unfortunately, feedback procedures describing substandard
performance often involve multiple terms, such as constructive, negative, or
corrective feedback, that often conflate subtle but important distinctions
among these labels (Simonian & Brand, 2022). Many of the differences depend
76 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

upon whether the feedback procedures contain objective or subjective ele­

ments (Johnson, 2013). For the sake of clarity, this paper will use “corrective
feedback” to refer to objective descriptions of substandard or erroneous
performance (e.g., “you achieved 85% of the expected performance” or “you
did not include the third step of the protocol”) and “negative feedback” to refer
to subjective descriptions of substandard or erroneous performance (e.g., “you
performed poorly during your last shift”) or a mixture of objective and
subjective (e.g., “you keep forgetting the closing statement and I expect to
see you do better next time”).

Feedback combinations
To avoid or minimize any harmful effects of subpar evaluations, some advo­
cate that corrective or negative feedback be couched in the context of positive
feedback. For example, delivering one positive comment, followed by the
negative comment, and concluding with a second positive comment (some­
times labeled as a “feedback sandwich”). There are multiple sequences possi­
ble, such as one negative followed by one positive (or vice-versa), multiple
negatives followed by multiple positives (or vice-versa), or a variety of inter­
spersed combinations. Supporters of these various feedback sandwiches claim
the method is more effective and preferred because it makes corrective feed­
back more acceptable to the receiver and reduces discomfort between recipient
and deliverer (Berger, 2013). Whereas critics claim it obscures the message and
devalues the corrective feedback because employees receive more positive
statements overall than negative statements (Daniels, 2009).
Several studies investigated these various feedback sequences (Bottini &
Gillis, 2021; Choi et al., 2018; Henley & DiGennaro Reed, 2015) across
numerous settings and skills. Overall, the consensus seems to be there is no
beneficial effect of mixing negative with positive appraisals, at least for per­
formance (although this consensus may not hold for nonperformance mea­
sures such as emotional reactions). Interestingly, one study (Choi et al., 2018)
that compared congruent feedback (all positive or all negative comments) to
blended feedback (mixture of positive and negative) showed congruent feed­
back was superior. In other words, if an employee needs a critique or dis­
ciplinary action, it may be best to simply deliver negative feedback by itself and
not confuse the evaluation with positive feedback before or after the negative
message.

Accuracy of feedback
Accuracy of feedback is another important consideration. There may be many
reasons feedback is inaccurate, such as inconsistent data collection, imprecise or
indirect measurement of performance, inattention by supervisors to collected
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 77

data, avoidance by supervisors when delivering potentially uncomfortable eva­

luations, or even intentional distortion to boost performance (such as a manager
making normative standards look higher than they are in reality). However, it
has been suggested that trust in feedback is critical to both employer-employee
relations and the effect feedback will have on performance (O’Reilly &
Anderson, 1980). In general, the empirical relationship seems clear, feedback
that is accurate is more effective than inaccurate across numerous settings and
tasks (Brand et al., 2020; Hirst & DiGennaro Reed, 2015; Johnson et al., 2015).
Although some research suggested that inaccuracy may not be a problem if
performers are unaware of the inaccuracy (Palmer et al., 2015), the inaccuracy
can become problematic and harm performance once performers become aware
that feedback cannot be trusted (Brett & Atwater, 2001; J. Lee et al., 2020).

How to give feedback: important practices and procedures

Private versus public delivery
Just as it is important to understand components and elements that constitute
effective feedback, it is also important to understand the important practices and
procedures for delivery of feedback. When specific performer information needs
to be shared with a recipient, it is generally recommended feedback be provided
privately and confidentially (Daniels, 2016). This is despite some research that
suggested public feedback may have a greater effect than private (Welsch et al.,
1973). However, whether performance information should be provided publicly
or privately is determined by variety of factors in addition to just performance.
For example, when individuals are performing low, public display of perfor­
mance data may adversely affect employees as a form of punishment.

Frequency of feedback delivery

The frequency of feedback delivery is another crucial component. Authors
such as DeNisi and Pritchard (2006) suggested performance feedback be
a regular part of any appraisal system. This assertion has been borne out by
both laboratory and field research; more frequent feedback improves perfor­
mance than infrequent (Kang et al., 2005; Pampino et al., 2004; So et al., 2013).
Although practical constraints will probably impose limits on how frequently
managers can personally deliver feedback, the general rule appears to be the
more frequent, the better, especially for workers learning new jobs compared
to seasoned employees.
78 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

Timing of feedback

Another temporal consideration involves timing feedback. According to

Lechermeier and Fassnacht (2018), feedback varies across two broad cate­
gories: immediate and delayed. However, the conceptualization of immediate
versus delayed may be problematic for the typical workplace. In most settings,
it is probably quite rare that a task would occur only once (at least rare for any
performance for which we would bother to provide feedback). Instead, it is
typical that behavior will be repeated by employees and such repetition means
that as feedback becomes more distal from previous performance, it also
becomes more proximal to subsequent performance. Therefore, it may be
more important to look at the categories of after-session and before-session
feedback. The importance of this distinction becomes clearer when examining
research on feedback timing.
For example, Mason & Redmon, 1993) reported a comparison of immediate
and delayed feedback upon performance. Participants completed a quality
control task and received feedback either less than a second after a response
or at the end of each session, about 10–15 minutes long. Although one of the
experimental conditions was labeled as immediate, it is probably better con­
ceptualized as frequent and ongoing, since feedback was not delivered imme­
diately after finishing a complete session but instead delivered after each
response throughout the session. Since participants engaged in continuous
performance, feedback both followed and preceded responding. Furthermore,
the delayed feedback was based on a summary of several responses and was
not specific to particular responses. Finally, the experimental arrangements
meant several instances of behavior were each followed by feedback in the
immediate condition, whereas a single instance of feedback followed several
behaviors in delayed conditions. Although the authors correctly concluded
that immediate was more effective than delayed feedback, the study compared
ongoing, specific, and repeated feedback against delayed, global, and singular
feedback. Qualitative and quantitative confounds make it difficult to separate
controlling variables and confuse underlying conceptual issues.
Later researchers pinpointed feedback timing characteristics more precisely.
For example, Bechtel et al. (2015) compared feedback placed immediately after
or immediately before sessions when completing a medical data entry task. No
performance differences were found between the different feedback timings.
This in contrast to Aljadeff-Abergel et al. (2017), who found feedback imme­
diately preceding was superior to feedback following sessions for the perfor­
mance of implementing a teaching protocol. Wine et al. (2019) reached
a different conclusion than Aljadeff-Abergel et al., finding no performance
differences between feedback following or preceding performance for staff
operating a locking mechanism at a private school. These authors suggested
simple tasks (such as data entry or lock operation) may not depend on
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 79

a particular timing of feedback, whereas complex performance (such as

implementing a teaching protocol) may benefit from antecedent feedback as
a form of task clarification. Brand et al. (2020) used a fairly simple task
(matching-to-sample with names of shapes) and also found no differences
between after-session and before-session feedback.
A conceptual analysis may explain some of the inconsistency across studies.
The aforementioned results suggest feedback for complex behaviors may rely
quite heavily on rule control since feedback was not superior as an immediate
consequence but was effective as an antecedent, even before it could be
correlated with differential outcomes (thus precluding simple discriminative
functions). Verbal mediation generated by feedback right before performance
may be similar to verbal mediation generated right after performance. The
critical question is whether repetition of the verbal rules persist over time. If
not, then feedback right before performance may be necessary. If so, then no
differences may be seen with before- or after-session feedback. It may be
telling that studies with typical durations of a day or less between sessions
found no performance differences (Bechtel et al., 2015; Brand et al., 2020;
Wine et al., 2019), whereas the study in which a duration of multiple days
between sessions (Aljadeff-Abergel et al., 2017) found improved performance
with before-session feedback. That is, if one performs a task again in 10 min, it
probably does not matter if you receive feedback 1 min after previous perfor­
mance or 1 min before subsequent performance (any verbal self-statements
are likely to persist during the duration and thus maintain any behavior
strengthening aspects). However, if one performs the task again in 10 weeks,
it is possible verbal self-statements may dissipate over time and therefore
placing feedback right before performance may be beneficial. To our knowl­
edge, this consideration has yet to be examined in the research (e.g., explicit
control of differing durations between sessions for various behaviors with
differing feedback timings). Meanwhile, there appears to be no drawbacks to
providing feedback right before performance, at least for well-learned skills
(skills being acquired may still benefit from ongoing corrections during
performance; Bacotti et al., 2021). Further, there is some evidence that people
may prefer feedback placed right before their next performance (Bacotti et al.,
2021; Bechtel et al., 2015).

Feedback source
Another importance feature of performance feedback is the source. For exam­
ple, does the impact of praise for performance improvement alter if delivered
by a high-ranking authority figure, low-ranking authority figure, peer, friend,
enemy, family member, stranger, automated computer program, or self?
Differences in social histories and relationship dynamics could plausibly
make similar forms of feedback effective, neutral, or even counterproductive.
80 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

In one of the few studies explicitly examining these possibilities, Chae et al.
(2020) compared how college students completing an assembly task responded
to feedback from an established authority figure (an experimenter who pre­
viously or currently was the professor for one of their classes) or a non-
authority figure (an experimenter that the participants had not previously
met). The results showed that feedback from an authority figure was more
consistently effective than feedback from a non-authority figure. When pro­
vided by an authority figure, their feedback was effective when delivered either
face-to-face or via e-mail. However, Chae et al. (2020) found non-authority
figures could also be effective, but only when delivering feedback face-to-face.

Feedback modality
Thus, feedback modality appears important, especially as advancing technol­
ogy opens up a plethora of options for feedback delivery (in-person, virtual,
printed, e-mail, etc.). As Warrilow et al. (2020) point out, remote supervision
is on the rise and the health concerns related to COVID-19 will likely accel­
erate this preexisting trend. Therefore, it is important to identify benefits and
issues when supervision is provided remotely, especially when employees are
juggling office work, household chores, parenting responsibilities, and more.
Like Chae et al., Warrilow et al. examined the impact of different feedback
modalities on performance, specifically feedback delivered via computer mes­
sage, text message, and face-to-face. In alignment with Chae et al., these
researchers found face-to-face feedback the most effective medium, although
they noted the potential of unexplored modalities to approximate such control
(e.g., one-on-one video conferencing). It is important to discover the control­
ling features that make certain modalities effective and, if possible, replicate
those features across alternative situations.

The reception of feedback

These aforementioned studies largely focused on the elements of feedback and
how people (typically managers and other authority figures) should best
deliver feedback. Naturally, it would be of interest to also examine critical
practices for the reception of feedback (typically by employees and other
subordinates) and how the reactions of recipients might influence the delivery
of feedback. For example, Matey et al. (2019) investigated the latter issue when
participants were asked to deliver feedback classifying posture as “safe” or “at-
risk” to confederates who would periodically act safe or unsafe. The research­
ers noted that participants felt uncomfortable delivering corrective feedback in
particular and often classified “at-risk” behaviors as “safe.” In a follow-up
study, Matey et al. (2021) systematically evaluated the effect of differential
feedback reactions on data collection and subsequent feedback delivery.
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 81

Confederates receiving feedback from participants were instructed to react in

a negative, neutral, or positive manner. When confederates reacted to feedback
in a negative manner, feedback accuracy decreased by 13% (although
unchanged in the neutral or positive conditions). Furthermore, participants
greatly reduced their frequency of feedback deliveries in the negative and
neutral conditions as compared with the positive conditions. This suggests
that lack of reinforcement (or even punitive) aspects of feedback for people
assigned to observations and feedback delivery necessitates steps to either
support the accuracy of feedback, particularly non-positive forms, through
supplemental management efforts or by training recipients how to react
appropriately to feedback.
In a perhaps ironic twist, despite the fact that people may avoid delivering
corrective feedback, there is some evidence that recipients may prefer correc­
tive feedback over positive feedback, at least under some circumstances. For
example, Simonian and Brand (2022) allowed participants to select either
corrective or positive feedback while learning a new task. Not only did all
participants prefer corrective feedback over positive feedback, but their per­
formance also improved only after receiving corrective feedback. In order to
maintain the behaviors of people tasked with delivering feedback, it may be
critical to shape the reactions of those receiving feedback. Both Ehrlich et al.
(2020) and Walker and Sellers (2021) demonstrated that training could
increase behaviors believed to be associated with better receptive skills. More
research is needed to establish which feedback receptive skills have the best
effects on subsequent performance of employees or influence the willingness
of managers to continue delivering feedback. Furthermore, more research is
needed that examines how preference for feedback and motivation to seek out
feedback might be altered (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Sleiman, Gravina
et al., 2020).

Conclusion
Much research has been done investigating feedback, and given the complexity
involved with this seemingly simple concept, much research is still needed.
Table 1 summarizes the topics our field has investigated and the findings thus
far (undoubtedly, nuances will need to be added as more research is conducted).
This past information suggests several potential future research avenues. Table 1
also suggests a non-exhaustive list of feedback research questions still in need of
answering. Furthermore, all of the suggested directions could be further inves­
tigated by looking at how these variable factors might combine and interact,
both in controlled and applied settings, using tasks of differing levels of complex­
ity and work types. Each of the feedback variables could also be examined in
terms of effects across various demographics and cultures (Nastasi et al., 2022).
Most studies on feedback performance have largely focused on productivity or
82 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

Table 1. Summary of feedback findings and future directions.

Feedback Factor Current Findings and Understanding Relevant Areas of Future Research
Function of There is no definitive function of feedback; ● What is the most common function of
feedback rather, it is a stimulus that can acquire feedback in organizations?
a number of sometimes overlapping ● What are the best procedures to train indi­
functions viduals to establish or abolish certain
functions of feedback?
● What commonly seen organizational pro­
cedures tend to establish or abolish certain
feedback functions?
Objective and Combining objective information and ● How do explicit and implicit evaluations
evaluative subjective evaluations will enhance the compare?
elements of effects of feedback over objective or ● What are the critical features of evaluation
feedback evaluative components alone. (e.g., content of message, tone during
delivery, body language, etc.)?
● What is the impact when various evalua­
tions are in conflict with one another (e.g.,
self, peer, or managerial evaluations)?
● What effect does the degree or severity of
evaluation have (e.g., “your performance
was substandard/poor/awful/atrocious/
disgusting” or “I saw your data and it was
improved/good/excellent/amazing/
inspiring”)?
● Do rote statements undermine evalua­
tions? How much variance is necessary to
maintain enhancements?
Specificity of Feedback effects are enhanced as precision ● At what point, if any, does specificity
feedback increases, at least for correct performance become overwhelming for a performer
or infrequent feedback; reduced specificity (e.g., describing performance in terms of
might be preferable for the problem several dimensions of behavior or out­
solving of mistakes; specific feedback may come measures)?
be unnecessary in the context of frequent ● Do certain dimensions of performance
feedback (e.g., rate, accuracy, latency, creativity,
duration, quality, etc.) benefit differentially
from specificity?
● At what point during the learning process
should feedback change from general to
specific?
● What are guidelines for determining if
feedback for errors should only indicate
nonspecific results (e.g., correct or incor­
rect) to promote problem-solving or indi­
cate precise corrections (e.g., steps
omitted and how to fix) to foster immedi­
ate improvements?
Feedback based Group feedback, without an indication of an ● What are the mediating factors that deter­
on comparisons individual’s placing with the group, is mine the effectiveness of normative feed­
generally ineffective; the effects of social back (e.g., culture, individual position
comparison feedback is unclear within rankings, specificity of feedback
when above or below group average, are
the group members familiar with each
other)?
Combinations Performance is not enhanced by combining ● How much time must separate positive
feedback of feedbacks incongruent in nature (e.g., and negative feedback sessions?
different feedback sandwich); positive feedback and ● How to mitigate the emotional impact of
natures negative feedback should be delivered negative feedback while maintaining the
separately performance impact?
● Do positive-negative and positive-
corrective combinations of feedback have
the same effect?
(Continued)
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 83

Table 1. (Continued).
Feedback Factor Current Findings and Understanding Relevant Areas of Future Research
Accuracy in Feedback is more effective when steps are ● What factors will lead a performer to
feedback taking to ensure accuracy detect feedback inaccuracy?
delivery ● Are there factors that will make
a performer distrust accurate feedback?
● How to correct the general distrust of
feedback following a history of inaccurate
feedback?
● What is the effect when feedback starts
out accurate but slowly becomes inaccu­
rate and vice-versa?
Privacy of Generally, it has been cautioned to provide ● What are the contextual factors that will
feedback feedback privately when involved differentially impact the impact of public
individual and identifiable performance versus private feedback?
Frequency of Feedback becomes more effective as it ● When considering time, effort, and money,
feedback becomes more frequent is there a point of diminishing returns as
feedback frequency increases?
● What standards should be used to deter­
mine when new performers under fre­
quent feedback should be transitioned to
less frequent feedback?
Timing of Unclear whether after-session or before- ● Does the complexity of the task interact
feedback session feedback is more beneficial; slight with the effectiveness of feedback timing?
evidence for presenting feedback about ● Is verbal mediation an important consid­
prior performance immediately before eration to determining the effectiveness of
subsequent performance feedback timing?
● Does the size of the duration between
sessions differentially impact the effec­
tiveness of after-session or before-session
feedback?
Source of Feedback from authority figure more ● How do other feedback sources (e.g., self,
feedback effective than feedback from non- peer, enemy, stranger, etc.) compare to
authority one another?
● Is there an interaction effect with different
feedback sources and recipients (e.g.,
front-line employees and managers versus
knowledge workers and managers)?
Feedback Face-to-face feedback is most effective ● What elements make face-to-face feed­
modality back effective (and how might they be
recreated through other modalities)?
● What are strategies to enhance the effec­
tiveness of remote feedback?
Feedback People will distort data or avoid delivering ● What strategies can be used to ensure
reception non-positive feedback; recipients prefer regular and accurate feedback delivery,
corrective feedback when learning a new even in the face of negative reactions from
task recipients?
● What are the minimal elements necessary
to prevent feedback reactions from being
perceived as negative?

some closely related other measure, but additional dependent variables merit
investigation (e.g., quality, creativity, satisfaction, well-being, cost-benefit). Much
work remains to be done to understand functional properties and how to create
the best systems of feedback for both the people delivering and the people
receiving feedback (Balcazar et al., 1985; Johnson, 2013; Matey et al., 2021).
Just as consequences may provide feedback to the organism, the findings of our
research should continue to provide feedback to our practices and procedures.
84 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

Disclosure statement
We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

ORCID
Douglas A. Johnson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7802-3566

References
Agnew, J. L., & Redmon, W. K. (1992). Contingency specifying stimuli: The role of “rules” in
organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12
(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v12n02_04
Agnew, J. L. (1998). The establishing operation in organizational behavior management.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v18n01_02
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2012). Delivering effective performance feedback:
The strengths-based approach. Business Horizons, 55(2), 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2011.10.004
Aljadeff-Abergel, E., Peterson, S. M., Wiskirchen, R. R., Hagen, K. K., & Cole, M. L. (2017).
Evaluating the temporal location of feedback: Providing feedback following performance vs.
prior to performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(2), 171–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1309332
Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness and
essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985-1998).
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v21n01_02
Ammons, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey and tentative theoretical
formulation. The Journal of General Psychology, 54(2), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221309.1956.9920284
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal
strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32
(3), 370–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3
At Emery Air Freight: Positive reinforcement boosts performance. (1973). At emery air freight:
Positive reinforcement boosts performance. Organizational Dynamics, 1(3), 41–50. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(73)80017-8
Bacotti, J. K., Grauerholz-Fisher, E., Morris, S. L., & Vollmer, T. R. (2021). Identifying the
relation between feedback preferences and performance. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 54(2), 668–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.804
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1968.1-91
Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of performance
feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3–4), 65–89. https://doi.org/
10.1300/J075v07n03_05
Bechtel, N. T., McGee, H. M., Huitema, B. E., & Dickinson, A. M. (2015). The effects of the
temporal placement of feedback on performance. The Psychological Record, 65(3), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0117-4
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 85

Berger, J. (2013, June 25). INSTANT MBA: When giving feedback, give criticism between two
positives. The Business Insider. http://www.businessinsider.com/feedbackbetween-two-
positives-2013-6
Blakely, E., & Schlinger, H. (1987). Rules: Function-altering contingency-specifying stimuli.
The Behavior Analyst, 10(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392428
Bottini, S., & Gillis, J. (2021). A comparison of the feedback sandwich, constructive-positive
feedback, and within session feedback for training preference assessment implementation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 41(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2020.1862019
Brand, D., Novak, M. D., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Tortolero, S. A. (2020). Examining the
effects of feedback accuracy and timing on skill acquisition. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 40(1–2), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1715319
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of
usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.86.5.930
Bucklin, B. R., McGee, H. M., & Dickinson, A. M. (2003). The effects of individual monetary
incentives with and without feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23
(2/3), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v23n02_05
Chae, S., Eagle, L. M., Johnson, D. A., Moon, K., Choi, E., & Oah, S. (2020). The impact of
authority relations and feedback delivery method on performance. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 40(1–2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608061.2020.1746476
Choi, E., Johnson, D. A., Moon, K., & Oah, S. (2018). Effects of positive and negative feedback
sequence on work performance and emotional responses. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 38(2–3), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2017.1423151
Critchfield, T. S., Doepke, K. J., Epting, L. K., Becirevic, A., Reed, D. D., Fienup, D. M.,
Kremsreiter, J. L., & Ecott, C. L. (2017). Normative emotional responses to behavior analysis
jargon or how to use words to win friends and influence people. Behavior Analysis in
Practice, 10(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0161-9
Critchfield, T. S., & Doepke, K. J. (2018). Emotional overtones of behavior analysis terms in
English and five other languages. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(2), 97–105. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40617-018-0222–3
Daniels, A. C. (2009). Oops! 13 management practices that waste time and money (and what to
do instead). Performance Management.
Daniels, A. C., & Bailey, J. S. (2014). Performance management: Changing behavior that drives
organizational effectiveness. Performance Management Publication.
Daniels, A. C. (2016). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of
positive reinforcement (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
DeNisi, A. S., & Pritchard, R. D. (2006). Performance appraisal, performance management and
improving individual performance: A motivational framework. Management and
Organization Review, 2(2), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00042.x
Duncan, P. K., & Bruwelheide, L. R. (1985). Feedback: Use and possible behavioral functions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3–4), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J075v07n03_06
Ehrlich, R. J., Nosik, M. R., Carr, J. E., & Wine, B. (2020). Teaching employees how to receive
feedback: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40
(1–2), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1746470
Emery Air Freight Corporation. (1971). Feedback systems. System Performance Division.
Feeney, E. J. (1972). Performance audit, feedback and positive reinforcement. Training &
Development Journal, 26(11), 8–13.
86 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

Feeney, E. J. (1982). Performance standards, feedback, and rewards: A performance improve­

ment system. National Productivity Review, 2(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr.
4040020107
Ford, J. E. (1980). A classification system for feedback procedures. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 2(3), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v02n03_04
Frederiksen, L. W., Richter, W. T., Jr, Johnson, R. P., & Solomon, L. J. (1982). Specificity of
performance feedback in a professional service delivery setting. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 3(4), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v03n04_05
Goltz, S. M., Citera, M., Jensen, M., Favero, J., &., & Komaki, J. L. (1989). Individual feedback:
Does it enhance effects of group feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
10(2), 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v10n02_06
Goodman, J. S., & Wood, R. E. (2004). Feedback specificity, learning opportunities, and
learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 809–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
89.5.809
Grote, D. (2002). The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide for
managers. American Management Association.
Hartwell, C. J., & Campion, M. A. (2016). Getting on the same page: The effect of normative
feedback interventions on structured interview ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101
(6), 757–778. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000099
Henley, A. J., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2015). Should you order the feedback sandwich?
Efficacy of feedback sequence and timing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
35(3–4), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1093057
Hirst, J. M., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2015). An examination of the effects of feedback
accuracy on academic task acquisition in analogue settings. The Psychological Record, 65(1),
49–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0087-y
Jawahar, I. M. (2006). An investigation of potential consequences of satisfaction with appraisal
feedback. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(2), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.
1177/10717919070130020101
Johnson, D. A., Dickinson, A. M., & Huitema, B. E. (2008). The effects of objective feedback on
performance when individuals receive fixed and individual incentive pay. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 20(3/4), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20003
Johnson, D. A. (2013). A component analysis of the impact of evaluative and objective feedback
on performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33(2), 89–103. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2013.785879
Johnson, D. A., Rocheleau, J. M., & Tilka, R. E. (2015). Considerations in feedback delivery:
The role of accuracy and type of evaluation. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 35(3–4), 240–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1093055
Johnson, D. A., & Akpapuna, M. (2018). A pragmatic approach for building motivation to
promote employee creativity and organizational innovation. In B. Wine & J. K. Pritchard
(Eds.), Organizational Behavior Management: The Essentials (pp. 242-273). Hedgehog
Publishers .
Johnson, D. A., & Johnson, C. M. (2022). Foundations and advances: Revisiting the past and
selecting for the future. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Advance online
publication.1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2022.2029797
Jordan, P. (Director). (1972). Business, behaviorism and the bottom line [Film]. CRM
Productions.
Kang, K., Oah, S., & Dickinson, A. M. (2005). The relative effects of different frequencies of
feedback on work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(4),
21–53. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v23n04_02
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 87

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
Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of
managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.71.2.270
Kuchinke, K. P. (2000). The role of feedback in management training settings. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 11(4), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/1532-1096(200024)
11:4<381::AID-HRDQ5>3.0.CO;2-3
Kuykendall, D., & Keating, J. P. (1990). Altering thoughts and judgements through repeated
association. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8309.1990.tb00888.x
Lechermeier, J., & Fassnacht, M. (2018). How do performance feedback characteristics influ­
ence recipients ‘reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence
effects. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 145–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-
0136-8
Lee, K., Shon, D., & Oah, S. (2014). The relative effects of global and specific feedback on safety
behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 34(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01608061.2013.878264
Lee, J., Lim, S., & Oah, S. (2020). Effects of accurate and inaccurate feedback on work
performance: The role of the awareness of inaccuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 40(1–2), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1746472
Malott, R. W. (1992). A theory of rule-governed behavior and organizational behavior
management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 12(2), 45–65. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J075v12n02_03
Mangiapanello, K. A., & Hemmes, N. S. (2015). An analysis of feedback from a behavior
analytic perspective. The Behavior Analyst, 38(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-
014-0026-x
Mason, M. A., & Redmon, W. K. (1993). Effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on error
detection accuracy in a quality control simulation. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 13(1), 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v13n01_05
Matey, N., Gravina, N., Rajagopal, S., & Betz, A. (2019). Effects of feedback delivery require­
ments on accuracy of observations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39(3–
4), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.1666773
Matey, N., Sleiman, A., Nastasi, J., Richard, E., & Gravina, N. (2021). Varying reactions to
feedback and their effects on observer accuracy and feedback omission. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 1188–1198. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.840
Mesch, D. J., Farh, J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1994). Effects of feedback sign on group goal setting,
strategies, and performance. Group & Organization Management, 19(3), 309–333. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1059601194193006
Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Association for
Behavior Analysis International.
Moon, K., Lee, K., Lee, K., & Oah, S. (2017). The effects of social comparison and objective
feedback on work performance across different performance levels. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 37(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.
2016.1236059
Nastasi, J. A., Crowe, A., & Gravina, N. E. (2022). Reporting Demographic Variables in JOBM
and JAP: A Comparison and Call to Action. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, Advance online publication. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2022.
2082624
88 D. A. JOHNSON ET AL.

Newby, T. J., & Robinson, P. W. (1983). Effects of grouped and individual feedback and
reinforcement on retail employee performances. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 5(2), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v05n02_03
O’Reilly, C. A., & Anderson, J. C. (1980). Trust and the communication of performance
appraisal information: The effect of feedback on performance and job satisfaction. Human
Communication Research, 6(4), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1980.tb00150.x
Palmer, M. G., Johnson, C. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Objective performance feedback: Is
numerical accuracy necessary? Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(3–4),
206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1093059
Palmer, M. G., Johnson, C. M., & Johnson, D. A. (2015). Objective performance feedback: Is
numerical accuracy necessary? Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(3–4),
206–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2015.1093059
Pampino, R. N., MacDonald, J. E., Mullin, J. E., & Wilder, D. A. (2004). Weekly feedback vs.
daily feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 23(2–3), 21–43. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J075v23n02_03
Park, J. A., Johnson, D. A., Moon, K., & Lee, J. (2019). The interaction effects of frequency and
specificity of feedback on work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 39(3–4), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.1632242
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal
feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.
71.2.211
Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 5(1),
101–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393144
Prue, D. M., & Fairbank, J. A. (1981). Performance feedback in organizational behavior
management: A review. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v03n01_01
Simonian, M. J., & Brand, D. (2022). Assessing the efficacy of and preference for positive and
corrective feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.911
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
Sleiman, A. A., Sigurjonsdottir, S., Elnes, A., Gage, N. A., & Gravina, N. E. (2020).
A quantitative review of performance feedback in organizational settings (1998-2018).
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40(3–4), 303–332. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01608061.2020.1823300
Sleiman, A. A., Gravina, N. E., Robinson, T., & Podlesnik, C. A. (2020). The role of effort in
shifting preference for feedback stimuli. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40
(1–2), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1746471
So, Y., Lee, K., & Oah, S. (2013). Relative effects of daily feedback and weekly feedback on
customer service behavior at a gas station. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
33(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2013.785898
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57(1), 37–40. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/
h0042782
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212–222.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1415413
Timberlake, W. (1977). The application of the matching law to simple ratio schedules. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 27(1), 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1977.
27-215
Travers, R. M. W. (1977). Essentials of learning (4th ed.). Macmillan.
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 89

Trowbridge, M. H., & Cason, H. (1932). An experimental study of Thorndike’s theory of

learning. The Journal of General Psychology, 7(2), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221309.1932.9918465
Van Stelle, S. E., Vicars, S. M., Harr, V., Miguel, C. F., Koerber, J. L., Kazbour, R., & Austin, J.
(2012). The publication history of the journal of organizational behavior management: An
objective review and analysis: 1998–2009. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
32(2), 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2012.675864
Walker, S., & Sellers, T. (2021). Teaching appropriate feedback reception skills using
computer-based instruction: A systematic replication. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 41(3), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2021.1903647
Warrilow, G. D., Johnson, D. A., & Eagle, L. M. (2020). The effects of feedback modality on
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40(3–4), 233–248. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1784351
Weatherly, N. L., & Malott, R. W. (2008). An analysis of organizational behavior management
research in terms of the three-contingency model of performance management. Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, 28(4), 260–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01608060802454643
Welsch, W. V., Ludwig, C., Radiker, J. E., & Krapfl, J. E. (1973). Effects of feedback on daily
completion of behavior modification projects. Mental Retardation, 11(4), 24–46.
Wine, B., Lewis, K., Newcomb, E. T., Camblin, J. G., Chen, T., Liesfeld, J. E., Matthews, K. M.,
Morgan, C. A., & Newcomb, B. B. (2019). The effects of temporal placement of feedback on
performance with and without goals. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39
(3–4), 308–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2019.1632244