We’d like to see the ongoing cyclical nature of the feedback loop more explicitly highlighted here or perhaps in another principle. Acting on the results of feedback and sharing those actions with participants isn’t the end of the feedback process, it’s just the completion of a single loop. Ideally, it would kick off another round of feedback collection, analysis, dialogue, and adaptation.
We weren’t entirely sure which stakeholders were included in this principle. Ideally, the feedback participants would be included and “external learning” should be “mutual learning” among participants and stakeholders.
The design process isn’t explicitly mentioned here, but it is critical to create that safe space. The design process should be inclusive and participatory, making it possible to create spaces for safe and deliberate conversations that foster mutual understanding.
Our team was torn about this. But many agreed that we should specify “should not harm,” otherwise we imply that all feedback processes are inherently not harmful, which we know is unfortunately not true.
Our team agreed with the sentiment that “Feedback facilitates their agency” but was slightly concerned that this wording still comes across as paternalistic.
An alternative might be “Feedback acknowledges the agency that participants have in their own lives and provides a forum to express it.”
We agree wholeheartedly. If we were interested in making the principles more aspirational, we could consider expanding principle 2 to say:
“…to shift power to people we seek to help through shared decision-making authority and mutual accountability.”
“Interventions” implies a short-term engagement carried out by an external actor. Alternatives might be programs, organizations, and/or partnerships.
Consider qualifying “harm” – e.g. physical, emotional, economic, etc. Important that costs and risks of providing feedback are clear to people offering their perspectives, and that these do not outweigh the benefits of providing that feedback. Much to draw from ethical research principles.
At a quick glance, each of these principles should be declarative statements. Adding a value statement – “must” – gives it a lot more power.
As it is written now, principle 8 is simply untrue. Many times people are harmed by providing their input/feedback/stories. (Think of sexual assault survivors!) Add the ‘must.’
Combine Principles 6 & 7 into one principles.
What do these principles accomplish? Are they supposed to set ground rules? Or is it a declaration of goals?
…but they are not treated like that.
= clear expectations about what feedback can and can’t influence/ ($ focused accordingly)
to ‘relevant stakeholders’ add ‘(including the people themselves)’
People are experts when it comes to their situation and needs, but it takes help to develop solution options or pathways to approach the issues. Feedback and listening facilitates lasting and more meaningful assistance.
I agree with the “feedback” given by others in this section!
I agree with the comments above. Also, the use of “people” feels distant and ambiguous. In the PI, we used “constituents” and “participants” to avoid “beneficiaries”, which some felt was too presumptive.
I agree with Laura and this idea has been nagging in reading all of this…almost need a disclaimer to state that there are real constraints to certain program design and delivery possibilities! Calls for the feedback we ask for to be within the realm of making changes – the alternative is the potential for deeper frustration…”why did you ask me if I wanted the moon if you couldn’t provide me with the moon!?”
5, 6, and 7 seem like shades of the same
I agree with Garrett.
Listening but not acting leads to cynicism on the part of those surveyed, making it less likely they will provide input the next time. So it is critical to report back on what you did with their input – hopefully including the action you took, but if you didn’t or couldn’t take action, you should also explain that, too.
Service providers and funding partners rely on their expertise to inform our work and learning.
…, because they are key actors and partners in creating change in their own lives.
“not about them” is awkward wording. I am inferring the intention is to recommend feedback is delivered/shared directly to/with people, not said about them out of context or behind their backs.
Recommending using “I/you” statements in the first/second person vs. “they/he/she” statements in the third-person could help clarify.
Additionally, “safe” is a designation that is earned and has many different definitions. For example, we might be inclined to label a meeting for feedback as a “safe” space, but we must qualify what “safe” means and some standards/values/past experiences must have validated for those engaging in feedback that the conversations or space are indeed safe…sometimes they’re not.
I don’t mean to over-complicate these concise guidelines, but one or two short qualifiers to define “safe” or how “safe” is achieved feel needed here.
Agreed, 6-7 feel like they can be combined.
General feedback on all of the above re: “how of feedback.” The guidelines are written in the passive voice and might benefit from rewording that begins each statement with a simple action verb in the present tense.
Additionally, absent from these guidelines are is any statement on feedback being balanced, reflecting both strengths and areas for growth/improvement, which I would highly recommend.
Hi Brad – I would suggest a more expansive view of the benefits of the feedback process. Feedback done expansively invites clients to become c0-partners in defining solutions. It not only facilitates their agency and empowers them (your #1& 2) it shifts some responsibility to them and thereby develops their skills and builds their confidence that they can solve their own problems. When client feedback is an input into the nonprofit, then the power still resides with the nonprofit which defines when and how to ask for feedback, and how to use the resulting info. When clients are entrusted as co-creators, then power and responsibility really shifts.
This might be slightly different from the point you’re making but it also feels important to me that people in the community and local providers get access to feedback data and monitoring data in a timely way so that they can use it themselves to improve their lives and their work, day in and day out. Measurement systems should be designed with this as a primary purpose – it empowers the community and the front line and helps them pioneer local innovation and adaptation, which is critical to networked systems change. Feedback and monitoring data doesn’t necessarily need to be abstracted or heavily interpreted before people can put it to use.
I would add the word “always” so that it reads “…but they are not always treated that way.” This makes it sound less absolute and leaves room to acknowledge the places/spaces where feedback is already working.
Should we be explicit that in the instances where feedback cannot be acted upon, it should at least be acknowledged?
Rather than “does not harm,” read as “should not harm” – more of a call to practice that way rather than a blanket statement?
Expert may be too strong, especially in health and human service interventions….perhaps something like “People are the most knowledgeable about their own lives..”
“shifting power” may be an over statement…”are working to be better by listening, respecting and responding to the people we seek to help”
Agree entirely. Ironically, from management gurus from Drucker to Peters to Collins have always prioritized the feedback of customers (those served) and considered this a natural act of good management. No change, just confirming importance.
Listening and acting on feedback *can* …. make interventions more effective. (when coupled with the right systems to listen to and take action on that feedback). Not all feedback systems work effectively as a couple of recent impact evaluations have shown. Emphasizing how feedback has to sit within broader systems both helps to manage expectations around feedback (feedback itself not a pancea) and compels actors to incorporate complementary system-wide interventions to act on feedback.
Excellent initiative to collate feedback from multiple stakeholders in a collaborative way (wouldn’t expect anything less from Feedback Labs!).
Selfish question: What tool are you using? Is it freely available?
Confidentiality is feasible and humored for those that wish it.
Feedback is socialized and operationalized across organizational culture.
I agree. Adding “always” would be useful.
This first sentence doesn’t make sense on initial reading. Do you mean that in certain systems, the premise is that people aren’t the experts?
“Facilitates their agency” is a bit jargon-y.
We and people may have a different idea on what is good for people. Continuous interaction and feedback help a better reciprocal understanding.
By listening and acting on feedback, we (providers and funders) can measure how much our efforts address people’s needs
From the “ how” section one could perceive a negative bias about feedback: especially in paragraph 4 and 8 it seems that gathering feedback may normally have a hidden agenda or a secondary effect on people.
Paragraph could be somehow more “technical”: feedback should be collected through direct conversation… Questionnaire should be structured so to …
January 29, 2019 at 3:36 pm
See in context
January 29, 2019 at 3:32 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:20 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:15 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:13 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:09 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:08 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:07 pm
January 29, 2019 at 3:06 pm
Website content © Feedback Principles 2019. All rights reserved.