Creating a Training Feedback Loop

Remember that bad survey you wrote? The one that resulted in responses filled with blatant bias and caused you to doubt whether your respondents even understood the questions? Creating a survey may seem like a simple task, but even minor errors can result in biased results and unreliable data. If this has happened to you before, it's likely due to one or more of these common mistakes in your survey design: 1. Ambiguous Questions: Vague wording like “often” or “regularly” leads to varied interpretations among respondents. Be specific—use clear options like “daily,” “weekly,” or “monthly” to ensure consistent and accurate responses. 2. Double-Barreled Questions: Combining two questions into one, such as “Do you find our website attractive and easy to navigate?” can confuse respondents and lead to unclear answers. Break these into separate questions to get precise, actionable feedback. 3. Leading/Loaded Questions: Questions that push respondents toward a specific answer, like “Do you agree that responsible citizens should support local businesses?” can introduce bias. Keep your questions neutral to gather unbiased, genuine opinions. 4. Assumptions: Assuming respondents have certain knowledge or opinions can skew results. For example, “Are you in favor of a balanced budget?” assumes understanding of its implications. Provide necessary context to ensure respondents fully grasp the question. 5. Burdensome Questions: Asking complex or detail-heavy questions, such as “How many times have you dined out in the last six months?” can overwhelm respondents and lead to inaccurate answers. Simplify these questions or offer multiple-choice options to make them easier to answer. 6. Handling Sensitive Topics: Sensitive questions, like those about personal habits or finances, need to be phrased carefully to avoid discomfort. Use neutral language, provide options to skip or anonymize answers, or employ tactics like Randomized Response Survey (RRS) to encourage honest, accurate responses. By being aware of and avoiding these potential mistakes, you can create surveys that produce precise, dependable, and useful information. Art+Science Analytics Institute | University of Notre Dame | University of Notre Dame - Mendoza College of Business | University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign | University of Chicago | D'Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University | ELVTR | Grow with Google - Data Analytics #Analytics #DataStorytelling

After 30 years and $billions in feedback training, we finally know why it doesn't work. This week I did something I have not done in a while. I printed out a big review paper, grabbed a highlighter, and wrote it up. Et voila. A new systematic review in the Journal of Organisational Behaviour analysed 173 studies on performance feedback. The finding is clear: Your managers don't need better feedback techniques. They need better relationships. Positive feedback works consistently. Negative feedback? Only when there's a high-quality supervisor-subordinate relationship. Without it, even "perfect" delivery fails. We've all felt it. The research also reveals: → The feedback sandwich doesn't affect performance (i.e., sequence doesn't matter) → Women systematically receive lower ratings across studies → Supervisors avoid negative feedback—because they lack relational capital → Face-to-face delivery beats email and Slack for developmental conversations We've been solving the wrong problem: training technique after technique, whilst ignoring the relational foundation that makes technique work. My latest piece breaks down the evidence and gives you the Monday-morning playbook: how to audit relationship quality, front-load positive feedback, and redesign systems that actually move performance. And its unashamedly longer-form than a regular post. If you must, get AI to summarise it. Question for people leaders: Are you measuring feedback frequency, or the giver-receiver relationship quality that makes feedback effective at change and performance? Subscribe for my new fortnightly evidence-based series on turning behavioural science into organisational capability: The Behavioural Activation Brief.

"We brought in a trainer for two days and nothing changed." Of course it didn't. You treated training like a checkbox activity. Sales leaders constantly make this mistake: → Hire external trainer for 2-day workshop → Everyone gets excited during sessions → 30 days later, zero behavior change → "Training doesn't work" Wrong. Your approach to training doesn't work. Here's what actually happens: Day 1: Reps are pumped. Taking notes. Asking questions. Day 2: Still engaged. Ready to implement everything. Day 30: Back to old habits. Zero retention. Why? Because you treated symptoms, not the disease. You didn't change their daily habits. You didn't provide ongoing reinforcement. You didn't build systems for accountability. Real training that creates lasting change looks different: #1 It's diagnostic first. Before any training, you identify specific skill gaps through call reviews, deal analysis, and performance data. Not generic "they need better discovery" but specific "they ask surface level pain questions but never uncover business impact." #2 It's delivered in sprints. Six weeks of twice-weekly sessions beats a 2-day workshop every time. Reps can practice between sessions, get feedback, and build muscle memory. #3 It includes reinforcement systems. Weekly coaching calls, peer practice sessions, and manager check-ins. The learning doesn't stop when the trainer leaves. #4 It measures behavior change, not satisfaction scores. "Did you like the training?" is worthless. "Are you now asking better discovery questions?" matters. #5 It provides job aids and frameworks. Reps need cheat sheets, email templates, and conversation guides they can reference in real situations. Most importantly: It's customized to your specific challenges, not generic sales advice. The companies that see 40%+ improvement in performance don't do one-off training events. They build learning into their culture. They have weekly skill-building sessions. They do call reviews with specific feedback. They practice objection handling until it's automatic. Stop buying training like it's a magic pill. Start building capability like it's a muscle that needs consistent exercise. Your reps deserve better than motivational speeches that wear off in a week. — Tired of wasted training budgets? I'll design a performance improvement system that actually creates lasting behavior change. Book a diagnostic: https://lnkd.in/ghh8VCaf

When Good Training Fails: A Neuroscience Wake-Up Call I will never forget walking into that tech company’s sleek office. Awards lined the lobby, the energy was palpable. Their HR director welcomed me with a familiar mix of enthusiasm and frustration. "We have done everything," she said. "Leadership programmes, feedback training, even brought in the high-profile consultants. Our managers nod along, take notes… and then nothing changes." I smiled. I had heard this before. This was not a training issue. It was a brilliant team stuck in the oldest trap in organisational development: assuming that knowing better automatically leads to doing better. When I spoke with their team leaders, the real story emerged: - I know I should give more feedback, but by Thursday, I am drowning - It feels awkward to bring it up. - I tried, but it felt forced. Then one engineering lead said something I will never forget: "You are teaching us to swim, then dropping us back in the desert and wondering why we are not practising." This was not about willpower. The environment was not designed to support the behaviour. So we changed that. +  We embedded 7-minute "connection checkpoints" into Monday meetings. + Placed simple "feedback cards" on desks. + Blocked out sacred time in calendars labelled "Team Investment Time". + Created peer accountability with one powerful weekly question: + "What conversation did you have that made someone stronger?" Months later, I received a video of a wall filled with anonymous notes of meaningful feedback. 😊 One note simply read: "For the first time, I feel seen here." 💙 Behaviour change is not about what we teach. It is about what people return to. Our brains need environments that make the right behaviours the easy ones. 🧠 So I will leave you with this: What behaviour are you trying to change in your organisation? And what have you done to redesign the environment to support it? Start with what matters. Use neuroscience to uncover the barriers. Then reimagine and reinforce the environment around the behaviour. Because we cannot expect people to change if everything around them stays the same. 💡

When we ask employees for feedback, what we’re really saying is: “Your opinion matters.” 🤷♀️ But if nothing visibly happens after that, people quickly stop believing it. Many organizations collect feedback through surveys, suggestion boxes, or online tools. The intention is good. The problem is that the feedback often disappears into a system, a spreadsheet, or a meeting room...and people never see the outcome. 📉 Over time, people stop sharing ideas, stop speaking up, and engagement drops off. Preventing this requires closing the loop. And that is simply about showing people that you listened and that you acted. A “You Said / We Did” approach makes this very clear. It shows what employees raised, what the organization did in response, and sometimes even why something couldn’t be done right now. That visibility builds trust far more than another survey ever will. This doesn’t mean acting on everything. It means being honest. Some ideas are quick wins. Some need more thought or resources. Some aren’t possible at the moment. What matters is that people understand the decision and can see that their input was taken seriously. When employees see real issues being addressed, especially the everyday frustrations that make work harder, they’re far more likely to stay engaged. A few practical ideas: 💡 Run a short monthly pulse (5 questions max) and publish a simple You Said / We Did log 💡 Triage suggestions weekly: quick wins, needs more analysis, or not now and say why 💡 Link improvement time to real employee pain points so people see impact quickly Thoughts? Have you tried anything like this? Leave your comments below 🙏 Want an free Organizational Behaviour Assessment and recommendations- click here to access it via my website: https://lnkd.in/e27SkV4a Also- free info/training videos available on my YouTube channel. Click here to access and subscribe: https://lnkd.in/eC7a5uzA

Most L&D teams measure the wrong thing after a training program. Here's what we track instead. For years, the default metric was simple: did people show up, and did they like it. -Attendance. -Satisfaction scores. -A feedback form with five smiley faces. None of that tells you if anything actually changed. We stopped relying on that a while ago. Instead, we built a triangulated approach around one client's reinforcement stage. Three months, three layers of evidence: → Month 1: written communication, tracked through structured manager check-ins → Month 2: meetings and professional interaction, tracked the same way → Month 3: sustained behaviour, confirmed through 30/60/90 day conversations logged by the manager, not self-reported by the participant The evidence didn't come from asking people how they felt about the training. It came from asking their managers what they were actually seeing on the job. That's the shift. -Stop measuring the room. -Start measuring the workplace. Most L&D functions can tell you exactly how many people completed a course. Very few can tell you what changed because of it. Curious if others are seeing the same thing, or if I am wrong here.

Your brain can't process praise and criticism simultaneously. That's why traditional feedback methods are harmful. But there's ONE discovery that creates growth, not resistance: Direct. Then Connect. Neuroscience shows our brains process praise and criticism through completely different neural pathways. That's why the "feedback sandwich" fails so spectacularly. When we buffer criticism with praise... The brain cannot process these mixed signals effectively. People see through it anyway. Studies show 74% of professionals detect sandwich feedback within seconds. Having directly managed 300+ people and coached over 100 founders on leadership and culture, I’ve seen the real impact of feedback. Here’s what works... Two simple steps: 1. DIRECT: First, get permission and deliver unfiltered feedback. "May I share some observations about your presentation?" Then state exactly what needs improvement. This activates voluntary participation, and increases receptivity greatly. 2. CONNECT: Then, separately reaffirm their value "Your contributions remain vital to our success." The key? Complete separation between these steps. Direct feedback gives a clean signal about what needs to change. Connection maintains psychological safety. They know their status isn't threatened. Getting permission isn’t a minor detail - it’s crucial. It fosters respect and trust before you give tough feedback. Setting the stage for it to land well. The neuroscience behind this is clear: A Gallup study shows regular feedback mechanisms result in 14.9% increase in employee engagement and a 21% increase in profitability. Companies implementing this see remarkable results: • Cisco saw 54% faster resolution of team conflicts • Adobe reported 30% reduction in employee turnover • Pixar found 22% higher willingness to challenge assumptions • Microsoft under Nadella accelerated deployment cycles by 31% The traditional sandwich approach can feel safer, but it creates distrust. Direct Then Connect can feel scarier, but it builds psychological safety. Humans are wired to prioritize belonging above almost everything. When feedback threatens our status, our brains go into protection mode. When feedback becomes clear and non-threatening, learning accelerates. Implementing this approach requires courage. You have to trust your relationship is strong enough to handle direct feedback. But that's the paradox: By being more direct, you actually build stronger relationships. Try it with your team this week. You might feel uncomfortable at first, but watch what happens to your culture. When feedback becomes clear and non-threatening, learning accelerates. And companies that learn faster win. - If you liked this post? Follow us for more insights on conscious leadership and building companies from the inside out. Proud to coach with Inside-Out Leadership: executive coaching by trained coaches who have founded, funded, scaled, & sold their own companies.

“Train-the-trainers” (TTT) is one of the most common methods used to scale up improvement & change capability across organisations, yet we often fail to set it up for success. A recent article, drawing on teacher professional development & transfer-of-training research, argues TTT should always be based on an “offer-and-use” model: OFFER: what the programme provides—facilitator expertise, session design, practice opportunities, feedback, follow-up support & evaluation. USE: what participants do with those opportunities—what they notice, how they make sense of it, how much they engage, what they learn, & whether they apply it in real work. How to design TTT that works & sticks: 1. Design for real-world use: Clarify the practical outcome - what trainers should do differently in their next sessions & what that should improve for the organisation. Plan beyond the classroom with post-course support so people can apply learning. Space learning over time rather than delivering it in one intensive block, because spacing & follow-ups support sustained use. 2. Use strong facilitators: Select facilitators who know the topic & how adults learn, how groups work & how to give useful feedback. Ensure they teach “how to make this stick at work” (apply & sustain practices), not only “how to deliver a session.” 3. Make practice central: Build the programme around realistic rehearsal: deliver, get feedback, & practise again until skills become automatic. Use participants’ real scenarios (especially change situations) to strengthen transfer. Include safe practice for difficult moments (challenge, unexpected questions) & treat mistakes as learning. Build peer learning so participants learn with & from each other, not just the facilitator. 4. Prepare participants to succeed: Assess what participants already know & can do, then tailor the learning. Build confidence to use skills at work (confidence predicts application). Help each person create a simple, specific plan for when & how they will use the approaches in their next training sessions. 5. Ensure workplace transfer support: Enable quick application (opportunities to deliver training soon after the course), plus time & resources to do it well. Provide ongoing support (feedback, coaching, & encouragement) from leaders, peers &/or the wider organisation. 6. Evaluate what matters: Go beyond satisfaction scores - assess whether trainers changed their practice & whether this improved outcomes for learners & the organisation. Use findings to improve the next iteration as a continuous improvement cycle, not a one-off event. https://lnkd.in/eJ-Xrxwm. By Prof. Dr. Susanne Wisshak & colleagues, sourced via John Whitfield MBA

Ensuring Students Act on Feedback Feedback is only as valuable as the action students take in response to it. Too often, feedback becomes a passive exchange,teachers give comments, students glance at them, and then move on to the next task without making meaningful improvements. To truly accelerate progress, we need to create structures that ensure feedback leads to independent development. Here’s how: 1. Build Dedicated Feedback Lessons into Your Scheme of Work If feedback is to be effective, there must be time for students to engage with it properly. This means moving beyond a quick ‘read your comments’ approach and embedding dedicated feedback lessons into the scheme of work. By protecting this time within the curriculum, feedback becomes a continuous, structured process rather than an afterthought. 2. Use Targeted and Specific Feedback Vague comments like ‘be more analytical’ or ‘develop your explanation’ don’t give students a clear direction. Instead, feedback should be precise and actionable. For example: • Before: ‘Your analysis is weak.’ • After: ‘To strengthen your analysis, explain why this event was significant and link it to a wider consequence.’ Or Pose questions to help students develop their answer or guide them to the correct knowledge. Pairing feedback with examples or sentence starters can help students apply improvements more effectively. 3. Teach Students How to Use Feedback Students need to be explicitly taught how to engage with feedback. This includes: • Modelling the process – Show students how to act on feedback by walking them through a worked example. • Guiding self-reflection – Use prompts like, ‘How does my answer compare to the model? Where can I improve?’ • Encouraging peer support – Structured peer review can help students identify strengths and areas for development before teacher intervention. I often like to highlight a weak paragraph in a green box so students know what area to precisely improve/re-write, as you can see below. 4. Use Feedback Trackers to Monitor Progress Instead of feedback disappearing into exercise books, encourage students to keep a feedback tracker where they record teacher comments and their own reflections. They can then set targets for the next piece of work and review previous feedback to ensure they’re improving over time. Feedback is most powerful when it becomes part of the learning process, not just an add-on. By allocating time in the curriculum for feedback lessons, making guidance explicit, and encouraging students to take ownership, we can transform feedback from words on a page into meaningful improvement. The ultimate goal? Students who no longer just receive feedback, but actively use it to progress.

Feedback loops determine how fast organizations improve Improvement speed is rarely limited by talent. It is limited by feedback quality and timing. Research shows that organizations with tight, accurate feedback loops correct faster, make fewer repeated mistakes, and adapt more effectively than those relying on periodic reviews or delayed reporting. Slow feedback equals slow learning. What research shows Studies in organizational learning and performance management indicate that rapid feedback significantly improves accuracy and execution. Delayed or indirect feedback weakens cause-and-effect understanding, making it harder to know what actually worked. Research also shows that feedback loses effectiveness as time passes. The longer the gap between action and feedback, the lower the learning value. Study-based situations Situation 1: Product development Research found that teams receiving immediate user feedback iterated more effectively and avoided costly late-stage changes. Teams relying on quarterly reviews accumulated errors. Situation 2: Performance management Studies on employee performance show that real-time feedback improved outcomes more than annual or semiannual reviews. Frequent, specific feedback reduced repeated mistakes. Situation 3: Strategic execution Research on execution systems shows that organizations reviewing leading indicators weekly corrected course earlier than those reviewing lagging indicators monthly. How effective leaders strengthen feedback loops They shorten time between action and review They focus feedback on specific behaviors and metrics They prioritize leading indicators They remove intermediaries that distort information Organizations do not improve by intention. They improve by feedback.