What makes feedback produce learning and change ? Feedback ! But what is it, then ? We take a closer look at the concept.
The origins: the theory of mechanical logics
The idea of feedback has its roots in the study of cause-effect mechanisms.
When Agent A takes an action that involves Agent B, Agent B reacts to that action. A blue ball hits a red ball, so the red ball moves. The first lesson is that our actions have an impact on other agents and on our environment.
But it happens that the action of A on B induces a return action of B on A. The blue ball hits the red ball. The red ball moves but it also modifies the trajectory of ball A. Second lesson : by impacting the other agents, I impact myself.
Now let's imagine that we have more than two balls : ball A touches ball B which has effects on ball C, ball D and infinity. In other words, acting on others means acting on the environment and acting on oneself. This is what we call systemics !
Causal loops
But let's not multiply the number of players just yet... Because we need to take a closer look at what happens when one agent interacts with another. Several scenarios are possible :
- By acting on agent B (for example, by commenting on his participation in the collective work), agent A observes in return an adaptation of B's behavior that goes in the direction desired by A. Agent A and Agent B are moving in the same direction.
- But it may be that the action of A on B produces a different effect on the latter. B adapts his behavior to A's action, but not necessarily in the way A had imagined. For example : A alerted B to the presence of spelling mistakes in his writings, waiting for B to read more carefully ; but B thinks that the best thing to do is to ask C to write under his dictation.
- The action of A on B can also be inhibiting. A's comments on B's spelling discourage B from writing the report, or even from participating in the collective work for fear of not being able to do a good job there.
- The action of A on B can still be counterproductive. Since A pointed out to B that he makes too many mistakes, B makes even more mistakes than before.
Reinforcement effects
What is at work in this diversity of possible scenarios? Reinforcement effects , behaviorist psychologists tell us. It's pretty simple : if an agent receives a reward for their actions, they understand and understand that the action is good and they're motivated to do it again.
But does this mean that when this same agent is punished, he understands that the action is bad and forbids himself to reproduce it? If it were that simple, the penalties would be enough to prevent the recurrence of criminal acts. This is not what studies of prison systems demonstrate so convincingly .
Self-esteem at the centre of the motif
In humans, there is something at the center of feedback that makes all the difference : self-esteem. As one of the favorite objects of behaviorism, self-esteem affects the individual's sense of value.
When this feeling is damaged, the individual is subjected to stress that leads to reactions of :
- defense/aggressiveness (justification of one's actions, including by using bad faith ; disqualification of the author of the feedback ; resentment and possibly desire for revenge ; jealousy...)
- submission (excessive or even blind obedience, feeling of guilt, imposture complex, overwork and perfectionism in the hope of limiting the risk of being caught at fault...)
These are usually not the expected reactions of feedback.
Preserve the ego without flattering it too much ?
Sparing the self-esteem of the other person is therefore a good idea when you want to obtain a change in the other's behavior. Except that we are always a little suspicious when it comes to caressing the ego of others, especially if it is a question of letting them know that there are things that are wrong. Isn't brushing one's self-esteem in the right direction a kind of counter-message when you want to tell them that their way of being and acting is a problem ?
The challenge is to succeed in motivating the change in behavior without hurting the other person's identity and sense of value. To do this, we can distinguish between self-esteem and self-satisfaction : the individual has value, he has the right to recognition ; But not everything he produces is necessarily up to this value. Not " working well" for a period of time says nothing about the individual's potential, abilities, and skills. It speaks above all of the need to put in place the conditions to " work better" : time, resources, support, motivation, confidence... And of course feedback !
And the self-esteem of the feedback giver, in this?
But one cannot conclude an article on feedback without looking at the reinforcement of the feedback giver.
Logically, when he obtains changes in behavior that he considers " positive ", he nurtures the feeling not only that he is right in substance but also that he has good abilities to give feedback. Let's not discourage him, but let's also remind him of the importance of supporting opinions contrary to his own and of the need to adapt to each individual with whom he interacts his ways of giving feedback. Because in the end, the first soft-skill to activate when giving feedback is empathy. Yes, yes, the same one that allows us to work from the self-esteem of the other and his or her motivational levers.
