John Naman wrote....
>Over the holidays, Fred said, "The term "feedback" is in general use as a
>catch-all term for just about any kind of information. ... Technically
>speaking, feedback is information about actual conditions with respect to
some
>goal or reference condition. Information about how we are perceived by
others
>isn't really feedback, then, unless we have goals regarding those
perceptions."
>and Phil then replied, "I agree that feedback only achieves its aim when
it
>is for a purpose and is against some measurable criteria." Charles argues
that
>it should "reflect performance dimensions that are important to the
>organization"
John continues...
>Folks, Feedback is 1. The return of a portion of the output of a process
or
>system to the input or 2. The return of information about the result of a
>process or activity.
The first kind of feedback John cites is the kind found in signal
processing amplifiers. However, it is a wee bit inaccurate to say that a
"portion" of the output is fed back. Assume an amplifier with a gain of 10
(i.e., for one volt in you get 10 volts out). Assume a feedback loop that
provides a signal equal to one percent of the output. One volt in produces
10 volts out and a feedback signal equal to one-tenth of a volt (10 x .01).
The signal out is still 10 volts, not 9.9 volts.
What this kind of feedback loop does is send back a signal that is much
smaller than the output (hence the use of the word "portion") and, more
important, of a polarity that is the same (+) or opposite (-) as the
original input signal. When the signal being fed back is the same polarity
as the original input signal, we have positive feedback; when it
is the opposite polarity, we have negative feedback.
In these kinds of circuits, negative feedback is used to enhance the
stability of the circuit; positive feedback is used to enhance its
responsiveness. Too much negative feedback makes the circuit sluggish, too
much positive feedback makes it jittery.
There is another kind of feedback, the second kind that John cites. It
deals with intended and actual. A computer on board a Navy ship sends out
a signal representing a position to be taken by a gun mount or a missile
launcher. Devices in the gun mount or missile launcher receive that signal
and compare it with the gun mount or launcher's actual position. A
discrepancy represents an error condition and other devices (amplifiers,
motors and drive trains) move the gun mount or launcher until the error
signal is zero, at which point the actual position matches the intended
position. This is feedback in a control system sense (of which the signal
processing kind cited above also occurs).
John continues regarding feedback...
It is NOT perceptions and is very much NOT related to goals.
I disagree and I think I've demonstrated why above. But let's move away
from gun mounts and launchers and signal processing equipment to human
beings (another kind of signal processing system).
John continues...
>Feedback is directly related to ACTION. You put your finger on a hot
>stove and the feedback is pain.
The "feedback" as John calls it is sensory input; it is very much a
perception, whether or not we label it "pain." I cannot agree with the
statement that feedback is directly related to action. Its relationship is
indirect. The perceived consequences of our actions consitute the feedback,
not the actions themselves.
>It doesn't matter WHY (or goal) you put your finger where you did.
Sure it does, John. If I put my finger there out of curiosity, I've
learned something. If I put it there thinking the burner was off and it
wasn't, I've also learned something. "WHY" always matters.
>Customers similarly give unsolicited (often painful) feedback, without
regard
>to your goals. People and organizations DO learn from such "uninvited"
feedback.
Customers often tell us things we don't expect to hear, sometimes
surprising us, sometimes dismaying us, and sometimes angering us among
other reactions. But that kind of "uninvited" informational input isn't
"feedback" except in the rather sloppy way that term is often used in the
social sciences--which was my original point. Do I need to pay attention
to what my customers are telling me? Of course I do. But what they're
telling me isn't "feedback" to me unless it's information that relates to
my goals and objectives. (They are not, by the way, feeding back to me a
portion of my "output" as it were. At best, they are expressing their
perceptions to me and all I can know of these is through my own
perceptions. At worst, they're trying to chivvy me into doing something to
satisfy their goals, in which case their perceptions of my actions would
constitute feedback for them.)
>360 feedback, to me, is designed to systematically (rather than
spontaneously)
>gather information with regard to ones ACTIONS (or lack thereof) this
year. The
>key point is obviously to listen to the responses of a whole set of people
>other than ones immediate superior. Evaluations (perceptions, opinions,
>judgments) of ones performance is another story, although cooped by some
who
>tout 360. In short, feedback is a theater audience clapping or booing,
whereas
>evauation/perception is the theater critic writing an article about it the
next
>day.
I have an entirely different view of what "360 feedback" is all about. If I
am charitable, it is a useful device for people with an interest in doing
so to obtain information about how others see and react to them. If I am
cynical, "360 feedback" is a device by which management can bring peer
pressure to bear for the sake of ensuring social conformity in the
workplace. Its connection to work and performance (except as these are
perceived by others) is a mystery to me and I have yet to see any
convincing evidence that it improves job performance.
For those who are interested, several years ago I wrote and published a
paper about the kinds of issues John and I are debating. It is titled
"Feedback About Feedback" and it appeared in the Human Resources
Development Quarterly. You can find a copy of it on my personal web site
at
http://home.att.net/~nickols/articles.htm
Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service [01-D]
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077 Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail =
fnickols@ets.org
Views expressed are the author's, not ETS's.