Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Feedback is the engine of professional growth and organizational improvement—but how you deliver that feedback often matters as much as what you say. You're being tested on your ability to match delivery methods to communication goals, audience needs, and situational constraints. Understanding the difference between synchronous and asynchronous feedback, formal and informal channels, and single-source versus multi-source input will help you navigate real workplace scenarios and ace exam questions that ask you to recommend appropriate feedback strategies.
Don't just memorize a list of methods—know what each approach accomplishes and when it's most effective. Can you explain why a manager might choose a one-on-one coaching session over an email? Can you identify which methods reduce bias through multiple perspectives? These are the analytical skills that separate strong answers from surface-level responses. Master the principles behind each method, and you'll be ready for any application question they throw at you.
These methods enable immediate back-and-forth communication, allowing for clarification, emotional reading, and dynamic conversation. The key advantage is responsiveness—feedback can be adjusted on the fly based on the recipient's reactions.
Compare: Face-to-face meetings vs. video conferencing—both enable real-time dialogue and non-verbal observation, but video conferencing sacrifices some interpersonal warmth for geographic flexibility. If an exam question involves remote teams, video conferencing is your go-to example.
These approaches separate the sending and receiving of feedback, allowing both parties time to compose thoughts carefully. The trade-off: you gain precision and permanence but lose immediacy and real-time emotional calibration.
Compare: Written reports vs. email—both create documentation, but reports signal formality and thoroughness while emails suggest routine communication. Choose reports for high-stakes evaluations; choose email for quick course corrections.
These formalized methods provide frameworks for comprehensive performance assessment. They're designed to reduce bias, ensure consistency, and create actionable development plans.
Compare: Performance reviews vs. 360-degree feedback—traditional reviews flow top-down from manager to employee, while 360-degree systems democratize input. Use 360-degree feedback when self-awareness and interpersonal skills are priorities; use standard reviews for clear hierarchical accountability.
These approaches leverage team dynamics and collective intelligence. The underlying principle: diverse perspectives often produce richer, more actionable feedback than any single evaluator could provide.
Compare: Peer feedback vs. group discussions—peer feedback typically involves individual-to-individual input, while group discussions create open forums. Peer feedback offers more candor; group discussions generate more ideas but may trigger groupthink.
Self-assessment places the individual at the center of the feedback process. This approach develops metacognitive skills—the ability to accurately evaluate one's own performance.
Compare: Self-assessment vs. 360-degree feedback—both aim to increase self-awareness, but self-assessment relies on internal perception while 360-degree feedback provides external reality checks. Combining both methods produces the most accurate picture.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Real-time interaction | Face-to-face meetings, video conferencing, one-on-one coaching |
| Documentation and permanence | Written reports, email communication |
| Formal evaluation systems | Performance reviews, 360-degree feedback |
| Multi-source perspectives | 360-degree feedback, peer feedback, group discussions |
| Skill development focus | One-on-one coaching, self-assessment |
| Remote team accessibility | Video conferencing, email, written reports |
| Bias reduction | 360-degree feedback, peer feedback |
| Personal reflection | Self-assessment |
Which two feedback methods both enable non-verbal communication, and what distinguishes their best use cases?
A manager needs to provide sensitive developmental feedback to an underperforming employee. Compare face-to-face meetings and email—which is more appropriate and why?
Identify three feedback methods that gather input from multiple sources. What common advantage do they share, and how might you use this in an FRQ about reducing evaluation bias?
How does self-assessment complement 360-degree feedback? Explain why organizations often use both together.
A company with offices in four time zones needs to conduct quarterly performance conversations. Which feedback methods would you recommend, and what trade-offs should leadership consider?