Skip to main content

feedback-frameworks

Use when designing feedback rituals or training managers on giving and receiving feedback — covers SBI, Radical Candor, conditions for effective feedback.

Zur Installation springen

Quellinformationen

Repository
ccashwell/agentic-hr
Letzte Quellaktivität
25. April 2026 um 23:49
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
0
Forks
0

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
feedback-frameworks
description
Use when designing feedback rituals or training managers on giving and receiving feedback — covers SBI, Radical Candor, conditions for effective feedback.
# Feedback Frameworks ## When Feedback Helps and When It Hurts Kluger & DeNisi's 1996 meta-analysis is foundational: feedback improves performance about ⅔ of the time and *hurts* performance about ⅓ of the time. The conditions for effective feedback: - **Specific behavior**, not general character - **Sincere**, from someone who cares about the outcome - **Timely**, close to the event - **Low-stakes**, separated from rating and pay - **Skilled delivery** When these are missing, feedback can backfire. The fix is not "more feedback" — it's better conditions. ## SBI (Situation-Behavior-Impact) The most usable framework for everyday feedback: - **Situation**: where, when, what context - **Behavior**: what specifically did they do - **Impact**: what was the effect Example: > "In yesterday's design review (S), when you cut Maya off three times in a row (B), I noticed she stopped contributing for the rest of the meeting (I). Was that the outcome you wanted?" The closing question is optional but powerful — it invites reflection rather than defensiveness. ## Radical Candor (Kim Scott) Two axes: - **Care personally**: do they know I have their back? - **Challenge directly**: am I willing to say what I see? The four quadrants: - **Radical Candor**: high care + high challenge - **Ruinous Empathy**: high care + low challenge (most common; nice but unhelpful) - **Manipulative Insincerity**: low care + low challenge (passive-aggressive, gossip) - **Obnoxious Aggression**: low care + high challenge (effective short-term, corrosive long-term) Most managers err toward ruinous empathy. Train for both axes. ## Specific Praise Praise is feedback too. Same rules: Bad: "Great job on the launch!" Good: "The way you sequenced the launch — handling the partner objections first, then the comms team — meant we hit the date without surprises. That sequencing was the move." The second is replicable, repeatable, motivating. The first is forgettable. ## Receiving Feedback A separate skill (Stone & Heen, *Thanks for the Feedback*). Three triggers that derail receiving: - **Truth triggers**: "this is wrong" — focus on what's right rather than processing - **Relationship triggers**: "consider the source" — dismissing based on who's giving - **Identity triggers**: "this means I'm bad" — defending self rather than considering Counter: - Distinguish appreciation, coaching, evaluation feedback - Notice the trigger; pause before responding - Ask for one specific example - "Thank you" is the only required response in the moment; processing happens after Train managers on receiving as well as giving. ## Cadence - **Real-time**: SBI in the moment when behavior is fresh — primary - **Weekly 1:1s**: standing time for feedback exchange — both directions - **Quarterly**: development conversation; broader patterns - **Cycle / formal**: confirmation of patterns; no surprises The annual review should contain zero new information. If it does, the manager has failed in the year-round. ## Upward Feedback The kind managers receive least. Engineer for it: - Direct invitation in 1:1s ("what should I start, stop, continue?") - Anonymous channels (skip-level, surveys) - Manager scorecards on cadence - Cultural permission to push back (modeled by senior leaders) Without upward feedback, managers operate on filtered information. ## Peer Feedback For development: useful, asynchronous prompts (3–5 questions tied to competencies). For evaluation: cautious. Use as input to manager assessment, not as a vote. Watch for sycophancy and retaliation. ## 360s Use with care. For development: well-suited. Aggregate input from manager, peers, reports, partners. Recipient owns the action plan. For evaluation: high risk. Easily a popularity contest. If used: - Anchored to specific competencies - n ≥ 5–8 raters - One input, not the rating - Not used alone for pay or termination decisions ## Common Failures - Vague praise / vague criticism — both information-free - Sandwich feedback (positive-negative-positive) — recipients learn to brace for the middle - Hoarding feedback for the annual - Manager-only-down feedback (no upward) - 360s used punitively - Feedback culture as code for harshness or for niceness — both miss the point ## Manager Training Module Suggested content: 1. Why feedback fails (Kluger & DeNisi) 2. SBI in practice (recorded examples) 3. Radical Candor framework 4. Specific praise practice 5. Receiving feedback 6. Role-plays with peers 7. Calibration on what "specific" looks like Allow 3 hours minimum; role-play heavy. ## Cross-References - `feedback-systems-designer` agent - `manager-enablement-coach` agent - `one-on-ones` skill - `difficult-conversations` skill ## Key References - Scott, K. (2017). *Radical Candor*. - Stone, D., & Heen, S. (2014). *Thanks for the Feedback*. - Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance. - Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2019). "The Feedback Fallacy." *HBR*.
Auf GitHub ansehen