specific examples to work with and avoids the feedback being received as a personal attack, general opinion or hearsay. If you have not directly observed a behaviour but have received a report from another individual then you could say have received a so that you still own “I report about…” the feedback and you are therefore not passing on somebody else’s opinion. Facilitators should choose their language carefully and avoid generalisations such as always do or never do This “you this” “you that”. will maintain the focus on the behaviour or performance that is being discussed, as opposed to the This can be supported individual’s character. further by the facilitator providing specific examples of good or poor practice to contextualise any message and highlight expected standards to the recipient. Feedback should conclude with agreed solutions and action plans that are identified by the recipient or negotiated by the facilitator, with some guidance offered as a strategy for improvement, especially for negative feedback. This can be achieved by could you do differently asking: “What or you thought about doing it this next time?” “Have way?” Additionally, checking understanding reinforces that the session is about the development. Seeking clarification of their understanding recipient’s gives the recipient the opportunity to inform you of their planned behaviour. This can be encouraged by asking open-ended questions such as the next time you are faced with [a similar situation], what will you “So do differently?” Feedback models Several feedback models, such as the sandwich method, Pendleton’s rules and BOOST, are described in literature, although no single approach is considered most effective. The approach that is adopted is likely to be dependent on the facilitator-recipient relationship and the situation, emphasising the need for flexibility and a culture of trust and respect. The sandwich model consists of negative feedback ‘sandwiched’ positive feedback, with the facilitator outlining what went well, what can be improved and then closing with what went well. While this is constructive, it does not always lend itself to two-way communication, meaning that there is a risk that the feedback becomes facilitator-led.
specific examples to work with and avoids the feedback being received as a personal attack, general opinion or hearsay. If you have not directly observed a behaviour but have received a report from another individual then you could say “I have received a report about…” so that you still own the feedback and you are therefore not passing on somebody else’s opinion. Facilitators should choose their language carefully and avoid generalisations such as “you always do this” or “you never do that”. This will maintain the focus on the behaviour or performance that is being discussed, as opposed to the individual’s character. This can be supported further by the facilitator providing specific examples of good or poor practice to contextualise any message and highlight expected standards to the recipient. Feedback should conclude with agreed solutions and action plans that are identified by the recipient or negotiated by the facilitator, with some guidance offered as a strategy for improvement, especially for negative feedback. This can be achieved by asking: “What could you do differently next time?” or “Have you thought about doing it this way?” Additionally, checking understanding reinforces that the session is about the recipient’s development. Seeking clarification of their understanding gives the recipient the opportunity to inform you of their planned behaviour. This can be encouraged by asking open-ended questions such as “So the next time you are faced with [a similar situation], what will you do differently?” Feedback models Several feedback models, such as the sandwich method, Pendleton’s rules and BOOST, are described in literature, although no single approach is considered most effective. The approach that is adopted is likely to be dependent on the facilitator-recipient relationship and the situation, emphasising the need for flexibility and a culture of trust and respect. The sandwich model consists of negative feedback ‘sandwiched’ positive feedback, with the facilitator outlining what went well, what can be improved and then closing with what went well. While this is constructive, it does not always lend itself to two-way communication, meaning that there is a risk that the feedback becomes facilitator-led.
How%20to%20give%20and%20receive%20constructive%20feedback.docx