Journal of Organizational Behavior Management

ISSN: 0160-8061 (Print) 1540-8604 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/worg20

Teaching Employees How to Receive Feedback: A

Preliminary Investigation

Rachel J. Ehrlich, Melissa R. Nosik, James E. Carr & Byron Wine

To cite this article: Rachel J. Ehrlich, Melissa R. Nosik, James E. Carr & Byron Wine (2020):
Teaching Employees How to Receive Feedback: A Preliminary Investigation, Journal of
Organizational Behavior Management, DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2020.1746470

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1746470

Published online: 26 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=worg20
JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2020.1746470

Teaching Employees How to Receive Feedback: A

Preliminary Investigation
Rachel J. Ehrlicha, Melissa R. Nosikb, James E. Carrb, and Byron Winea
a
School of Behavior Analysis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA; bBehavior Analyst
Certification Board, Littleton, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
There is a substantial literature on how to deliver feedback to Behavioral skills training;
change performance. However, to date no research has been receiving feedback; verbal
conducted on teaching employees how to effectively receive feedback
feedback, even though employee behavior during a feedback
session could moderate the effects of feedback. Thus, we
developed a list of skills that should be exhibited by an
employee while receiving verbal feedback. We then evaluated
their acquisition after behavioral skills training using
a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across participants.
The results showed that participants were able to acquire and
maintain appropriate feedback receiving behavior.

Feedback is a common strategy for changing behavior in the workplace and when
implemented correctly it can be very effective (Gravina et al., 2018). Feedback is
generally defined as “information about a performance that allows the individual
to change his or her behavior” (Daniels & Daniels, 2006, p. 171). Gravina et al.
(2018) found that feedback was the second most common intervention in the
organizational behavior management literature in human-service settings (after
“training and/or antecedent intervention”). In their extensive review of the feed-
back literature, Alvero, Bucklin, Austin (2001) found that verbal feedback deliv-
ered privately to the employee was the most studied feedback type from 1985 to
1998. This form of feedback – verbal feedback delivered personally and privately
by a supervisor – is likely the way in which corrective feedback is delivered to many
employees. Corrective feedback is the delivery of information to an individual in
a manner that changes or reduces a specific response or response class, and is the
type of feedback addressed in the present article.
Although the behavioral mechanisms underlying the effects of feedback have
not yet been fully determined (Duncan & Bruwelheide, 1985-1986;
Mangiapanello & Hemmes, 2015; Peterson, 1982), it is likely that the effects

CONTACT Rachel J. Ehrlich rachel@bacb.com Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 7950 Shaffer Parkway,
Littleton, CO 80127
Author Notes
This study is based on the first author’s capstone project submitted in partial fulfillment of the MA degree in
Professional Behavior Analysis at Florida Institute of Technology.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis
2 R. J. EHRLICH ET AL.

of verbal feedback are achieved via verbal processes. That is, feedback might
function as a motivating operation and establish instructional rules about
discriminated-operant performance or alter the effects of certain environmental
variables (Michael, 1993; Schlinger & Blakely, 1987). Given these possible verbal
mechanisms, the verbal behavior of the employee during and after a feedback
session could theoretically neutralize the effects of feedback. Anecdotally, one
response to receiving verbal feedback is to act defensively by attributing subpar
performance to environmental factors. In such a scenario, the feedback would
likely be ineffective in the face of the employee’s verbal behavior, which might
disincentivize the supervisor from providing feedback to the employee in the
future and also would not likely result in a change in the employee’s perfor-
mance. Matey, Gravina, Rajagopal, and Betz (2019) found that when partici-
pants had to deliver feedback, their accuracy of data collection decreased,
possibly because they found that providing corrective feedback was aversive.
Employee behavior that is receptive to receiving feedback might reinforce
feedback delivery and contribute to improved performance in the future.
Teaching individuals how to receive verbal feedback might mitigate the
problem described above and enhance the effectiveness of feedback. To our
knowledge, there has been no empirical behavior-analytic research on receiv-
ing feedback; the literature has focused on delivering feedback. However,
a few nonempirical sources have provided some guidance on receiving feed-
back, which include never arguing, active listening, receiving the feedback
without emotion, among others (e.g., Algiraigri, 2014; Kruse, 2014;
Rodriguez, 2016). The purpose of the present study was two-fold. First, we
developed a set of skills for the employee that could facilitate the delivery of
verbal feedback. Second, we used a behavioral skills training approach to
determine whether those skills could be taught to feedback recipients.

Method
Participants and setting
After being informed about pertinent aspects of the study, including risks
to and benefits of participating, the participants signed a consent form that
was approved by the first author’s university institutional review board.
Participants were three female entry-level administrative staff members at
a small company. Naomi was 23 years old and had a bachelor’s degree; Eva
was 27 years old and had completed some college; and Frances was
23 years old and had a master’s degree. The participants were all admin-
istrative assistants whose job duties included providing customer support
via phone and e-mail. E-Mail was selected as a target as it was a job area
that was performed daily and provided an easily obtained permanent
product for review. Naomi had one direct supervisor from whom she
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 3

received informal verbal feedback several times a week via drop-ins at at

her desk or in the supervisor’s office. Formal feedback meetings occurred
monthly in her supervisor’s office during which she received performance
scores in addition to verbal feedback. Eva and Frances both had a direct
supervisor and a manager, received informal feedback from their super-
visor several times a week via drop-ins at their desks or in their super-
visor’s office, and had individual formal feedback meetings with their
supervisor and manager once per month in the manager’s office where
they were provided performance scores in addition to verbal feedback. All
participants had received training on proper e-mail etiquette approxi-
mately 2 to 6 months prior to the study, and all had continued to receive
supplemental training on an ongoing basis from their supervisor.
The setting where participants received feedback during the study was
a medium-sized office containing a desk, chairs, a computer, and typical
office furnishings. The participants were seated at a desk facing the experi-
menter. A computer webcam discreetly recorded the session. Materials con-
sisted of printed copies of participants’ e-mails when applicable. Training
occurred in a different but similar office than the one in which feedback
sessions were conducted.

Dependent variables and measurement

The primary dependent measure was the percentage of eight target skills
demonstrated by the participant during each feedback session. Target skills
were identified through a review of several nonempirical publications on
how to receive feedback (Algiraigri, 2014; Kruse, 2014; Rodriguez, 2016).
In addition, the first author conducted phone interviews with six senior-
level behavior analysis practitioners and company owners about the topo-
graphies of behavior that they preferred their staff exhibit during feedback
sessions. After synthesizing the article guidance and interview recommen-
dations, eight target skills were identified and operationally defined. Each
skill was assigned weighted point values (e.g., 1, ½, 0) after consulting with
the participants’ supervisors. Half-points were used in some cases for
approximations of a target skill, and negative points were used in some
cases for critical skill deficits (see Appendix for definitions and point
values). The checklist of each skill and their associated point values was
calibrated using two pilot participants’ performance of the e-mail task. The
eight target skills included: preparation, eye contact, appropriate follow-up
questions, acknowledging the mistake, active listening, committing to the
behavior change, making an appreciative statement, and overall demeanor
(see Table 1 for the rationales for each skill).
All sessions were video recorded and scored after they occurred. The first
author served as a secondary data collector for IOA purposes and the second
4 R. J. EHRLICH ET AL.

Table 1. Target behaviors and their rationales.

Target Behaviors Rationales
Arrives prepared for the Being prepared (e.g., having a writing utensil and notepad) enables
meeting a written record of the feedback and ability to document specific steps
for correction.
Maintains eye contact during Eye contact is an important social cue to indicate to the person giving
the meeting feedback whether the feedback is being heard.
Asks appropriate follow-up Allows employee to obtain additional or clarifying information; enhances
questions quality of feedback
Acknowledges corrective Ensures time in feedback session is spent appropriately discussing how to
feedback correct mistakes
Engages in active listening Demonstrates feedback was attended to; allows feedback-giver to review
the information they’ve provided
Commits to behavior change Demonstrates that the recipient of the feedback is willing to make the
necessary changes to correct the issue
Indicates appreciation for the Increases the future probability that the feedback giver will provide
feedback corrective feedback again when it is necessary
Demonstrates appropriate Reduces the overall aversive aspects of meetings that include the delivery
overall demeanor of corrective feedback

author served as the primary data collector. Sessions were scored using
a checklist, and the second author’s checklists were delivered in an envelope
to the first author after each session for data entry. Point-by-point inter-
observer agreement (IOA) on the primary dependent variable was calculated
for 100% of baseline and intervention sessions for each participant.
Agreements were defined as both data collectors identically scoring a skill.
For each session, the number of agreements were divided by the number of
agreements and disagreements and the resulting ratio was converted to
a percentage score. Mean IOA for each participant was 100%.
E-Mails. The secondary dependent measure was the percentage of correct
e-mail behaviors, which was the basis of the feedback sessions. The partici-
pants had been previously trained on the organization’s procedures, which
specified specific structural and content elements of external company
e-mails (e.g., signature line, greeting, structure, font size and type). Prior to
each session, the primary investigator would review four e-mails that the
participant sent as a part of their work on a given day. Each e-mail was
reviewed to identify areas for feedback, one area for providing corrective
feedback and one area for providing praise (e.g., “You did a nice job on the
structure of your email.”) during the session that day.

Experimental design
In the present study, a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across parti-
cipants was used to demonstrate experimental control over the behavioral
skills training. The general condition structure was as follows: Baseline
probes were first conducted to evaluate how participants responded to feed-
back delivery. This was followed by a training on how to appropriately
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 5

respond to feedback during its delivery. After the training concluded, parti-
cipants were again assessed on how they responded to feedback delivery.
Descriptions of the experimental conditions are provided below.

Procedures
Baseline, posttraining, and follow-up probes
Assessment probes consisted of a participant meeting with the primary
investigator approximately every other weekday for feedback sessions on
their e-mail performance. Participants were provided with corrective feed-
back at least two times per week until they completed the study which took
no longer than six weeks in total. A feedback session lasted approximately 2
to 4 min. A follow-up probe was conducted two weeks after the conclusion of
the study with Naomi and Eva.

Feedback delivery
Participants received performance feedback on e-mails sent following the
previous feedback session. The feedback was delivered in a systematic man-
ner to ensure the participant was presented opportunities to perform the
target skills for receiving feedback. Sessions began with the investigator
providing a positive evaluative feedback statement (e.g., “You did a good
job with the structure of your email.”) on some aspect of the participant’s
recent e-mail performance. Vague corrective feedback was then delivered
(e.g., “I did not like the way you responded to X question”), followed by
a pause to allow the participant to ask a follow-up question. If a follow-up
question was asked, specific and objective feedback was provided.1 Corrective
performance feedback was provided, followed by a prompt for active listen-
ing (e.g. “Does that make sense?” or “Okay?”). The sequence of the feedback
delivery was positive-corrective and, although there has not been specific
research conducted on this particular sequence, it was most important that
the participant have the opportunity to engage in each of the behaviors
taught during training since that was the primary dependent variable
(Henley & DiGennaro Reed, 2015). The second author scored these seven
behaviors every session to assess procedural integrity (the number of beha-
viors performed correctly divided by 7). Mean procedural integrity for
Naomi was 98.4%, and was 100% for Eva and Frances.

Behavioral skills training

Behavioral skills training (Parsons, Rollyson, & Reid, 2012) was delivered by
the second author in a one-on-one session that lasted approximately one hr.
During the training, participants were shown a PowerPoint presentation that
contained background information on the purpose of performance feedback,
instructions on how to perform the eight target skills, and seven video
6 R. J. EHRLICH ET AL.

models of correct demonstrations of the skills. In the video models, the eight
skills were demonstrated at varying degrees of accuracy. Participants were
asked to score each of the videos as they watched them. After watching and
scoring each video, the trainer would discuss the video with the participant
and provide specific information about the target skills depicted. If the
participant made errors in their scoring of any of the videos, the participant
would watch the video again and score it again until they scored all of the
videos with 100% accuracy. The trainer and participant then completed two
roleplay scenarios where each would take a turn being the feedback giver and
receiver; there was no mastery criterion for this experience. Any remaining
questions were answered at the conclusion of the training and the partici-
pants were provided with a copy of the training slides.

Follow-up feedback training

Participants met one-on-one with the first author for approximately 5 min.
During the session, they were presented with graphic feedback of their
performance of the target skills, a summary of the skills that needed improve-
ment, and a review of all eight target skills.

Results and discussion

Figure 1 shows the percentage of target skills performed correctly per session
by each participant across conditions. The mean percentage correct score for
Naomi’s target skills was 31.8% during baseline, 81.3% during posttraining (a
156% increase from baseline), and 93.8% after the additional feedback train-
ing session. Naomi’s e-mail accuracy increased from 74% in the initial base-
line session to 82% accuracy by the last posttraining session. The mean
percentage correct score for Eva’s target skills was 62.5% during baseline,
81.3% during posttraining (a 30% increase from baseline), and maintained at
81.3% after the additional feedback training session. Eva’s e-mail accuracy
increased from 73% in the initial baseline session to 82% accuracy by the last
posttraining session. The mean percentage correct score for Frances’s target
skills was 54.7% during baseline and 78.1% during posttraining (a 42.8%
increase from baseline). Frances’s participation in the study ended before
a follow-up feedback training session could be conducted. Frances’s e-mail
accuracy increased from 78% in the initial baseline session to 87% accuracy
by the last posttraining session. A two-week follow-up probe was conducted
for Naomi and Eva, who scored 93.8% and 81.3% correct, respectively. In
addition, Naomi and Eva maintained their e-mail performance during the
posttreatment probes at 76% and 90% correct, respectively. In a poststudy
survey delivered to participants, both Naomi and Eva reported that they
found the feedback training helpful in knowing how to respond to feedback
and that they would continue to use this model to receive feedback. Both
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 7

Figure 1. Percentage of correct feedback responses per session across conditions.

participants also indicated that most of the skills they learned in training
8 R. J. EHRLICH ET AL.

were new to them (Naomi indicated 6 of the 8 skills were new to her, and Eva
4 of the 8), and that they would recommend new staff receive this training on
how to receive feedback.
We note that none of the participants reached and maintained perfor-
mance at 100% of the target skills over time, although there were clear
increases in the target behaviors. Behavior skills training was effective at
producing increases in performance, but there were a few aspects of the
training that consistently were missed during feedback sessions. Naomi and
Frances often missed points for not making an appreciative statement. For
example, they would say “see you later” at the end of the session but did not
indicate appreciation for the feedback. Frances and Eva also consistently
missed points in the area of preparation; they would forget to bring some-
thing to take notes with during feedback. However, it is likely that this
variable may have been affected by the brevity of the feedback meetings
that lent themselves to remembering any questions rather than needing to
write them down. One limitation of this study is that data were not collected
from the participants’ supervisors on the acceptability of the target behaviors.
These could be areas to be adjusted in future iterations of the target-behavior
list.
The purpose of this study was to develop a set of skills for individuals to
exhibit when receiving verbal feedback and then teach those skills using BST.
All participants acquired at least some of these skills and exhibited them well
above baseline levels. In addition, we observed modest improvements in the
behavior (e-mail performance) that served as the basis for feedback.
Although functional control was demonstrated over the behavioral skills
training, the brevity of the baseline phases prevented a stronger demonstra-
tion. The number of baseline sessions and the degree of staggering across
baselines was restricted out of concern for participant reactivity to feedback,
and to ensure they did not plateau on their e-mail performance too quickly,
which would limit the ability of the researcher to provide corrective feedback
during sessions.
Ultimately, it is unknown which, if any, of the eight target skills would be
necessary for facilitating successful feedback delivery and result in improved
performance in the future. We encourage future researchers to more care-
fully explore the impact of these skills, if any, with the ultimate goal of
developing an evidence-based skill set. Although we reported our partici-
pant’s e-mail performance at the beginning of baseline and at the end of the
study, the most important goal of subsequent research is to determine
whether the behavior of the employee mitigates the efficacy of verbal feed-
back. This is especially important since the ultimate goal of feedback is to
improve performance. An employee who is deflecting feedback may be less
likely to subsequently improve and could disincentize feedback delivery from
the supervisor. Other topics for future research include arranging
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 9

contingencies for engaging in the appropriate feedback behavior, systematic

replications in other settings, and evaluating how the behavior of the
employee during a feedback session impacts the feedback-giver.
The present study focused on personally delivered verbal feedback, but
feedback can also be delivered written or graphically via automated processes
(Alavosius, Houmanfar, Anbro, Burleigh, & Hebein, 2017; Killingsworth,
Miller, & Alavosius, 2016). How employees respond to more automated
feedback procedures is also worthy of study as their reactions may be critical
to team work. Thus, future research identifying target stills for receipt of
automated feedback is recommended.
In conclusion, the present study represents a modest starting point for the
exploration of how employees should behave while receiving verbal feedback.
Although future research is needed to refine the skills critical to receiving
such feedback, the current skills listed in Table 1 might be a reasonable
starting point for supervisors who wish to prepare their employees for future
feedback. Furthermore, the investigation of feedback-receiving behaviors
might be useful into ascertaining the behavior-change mechanisms under
certain feedback arrangements.

Note
1. If a follow-up question was not asked, corrective information was still provided at the
end of the session but the participant would not be scored as having asked an
appropriate follow-up question.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Alavosius, M. P., Houmanfar, R., Anbro, S., Burleigh, K., & Hebein, C. (2017). Leadership and
crew resource management in high reliability organizations: A competency framework for
measuring behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 37(2), 142–170.
doi:10.1080/01608061.2017.1325825
Algiraigri, A. H. (2014). Ten tips for receiving feedback effectively in clinical practice. Medical
Education Online, 19(1), 25141. doi:10.3402/meo.v19.25141
Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness
and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings
(1985-1998). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21(1), 3–29. doi:10.1300/
J075v21n01_02
Daniels, A. C., & Daniels, J. E. (2006). Performance management. Atlanta, GA: Performance
Management Publications.
10 R. J. EHRLICH ET AL.

Duncan, P. K., & Bruwelheide, L. R. (1985-1986). Feedback: Use and possible behavioral
functions. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(34), 91–114. doi:10.1300/
J075v07n03_06
Gravina, N., Villacorta, J., Albert, K., Clark, R., Curry, S., & Wilder, D. (2018). A literature
review of organizational behavior management interventions in human service settings
from 1990 to 2016. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 38(23), 191–224.
doi:10.1080/01608061.2018.1454872
Henley, A. J., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2015). Should you order the feedback sandwich?
Efficacy of feedback sequence and timing. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,
35(34), 321–335. doi:10.1080/01608061.2015.1093057
Killingsworth, K., Miller, S., & Alavosius, M. P. (2016). A behavioral interpretation of
situational awareness and prospects for OBM. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 36(4), 301–321. doi:10.1080/01608061.2016.1236056
Kruse, K. (2014, August 12). How to receive feedback and criticism [Blog post]. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2014/08/12/how-to-receive-feedback-and-
criticism/#78cb6e5e7c3f
Mangiapanello, K. A., & Hemmes, N. S. (2015). An analysis of feedback from a behavior
analytic perspective. The Behavior Analyst, 38(1), 51–75. doi:10.1007/s40614-014-0026-x
Matey, N., Gravina, N., Rajagopal, S., & Betz, A. (2019). Effects of feedback delivery require-
ments on accuracy of abservations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39
(34), 247–256. doi:10.1080/01608061.2019.1666773
Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16(2), 191–206.
doi:10.1007/BF03392623
Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2012). Evidence-based staff training: A guide
for practitioners. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 2–11. doi:10.1007/BF03391819
Peterson, N. (1982). Feedback is not a new principle of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 5(1),
101–102. doi:10.1007/BF03393144
Rodriguez, M. (2016, December 22). Feedback hack: It’s not just about giving … receive [Blog
post]. Retrieved from https://bsci21.org/feedback-hack-its-not-just-about-givingreceive/
Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying
stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10(1), 41–45. doi:10.1007/BF03392405
 JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT 11

Appendix. Scoring and operational definitions of target behaviors

Point
Value Operational Definition
Preparation
1 Employee brings a notepad to the meeting and uses it if needed.
½ Employee brings a notepad but does not use it, or does not bring a notepad but asks for one
if needed.
0 Employee does not bring a notepad or asks for one.
Eye Contact
1 Employee maintains eye contact when listening to feedback.
½ Employee maintains eye contact only for one of the two portions of corrective feedback.
0 Employee does not maintain eye contact when listening to feedback.
Follow-Up Questions
1 Employee asks specific question for more information when given evaluative-only or
objective-only feedback.
½ Employee asks an unclear or unrelated follow-up question. Example: “You’ve been doing
better in some areas with email.” “Cool! What about phone calls?”
0 Employee does not ask for clarification after getting vague feedback. Example: “Your emails
could use a little improvement.” “Okay, I’ll try my best!” or no response.
Acknowledges Mistakes
1 Nods or makes affirmative statement. Example: “I see,” or “oh, okay.”
½ Employee is unresponsive or neutral.
0 Employee denies or tries to explain the mistake. Example:“I think this was just a database
error,” or “You never told me I needed to do that.”
Active Listening
1 Employee is able to repeat back information they have just received (summarize the
appropriate future behavior).
½ Summarizes, but is inaccurate in some way.
0 Employee says “Yes, I understand” but does not summarize the appropriate behavior or does
not provide any active listening statement.
Commits to Behavior Change
1 Employee indicates they’ve accepted the feedback and expresses a willingness to use it.
0 Employee only gives minimal or no indication they will use the feedback. Example: just says
“okay,” or expresses lack of faith in solution.
Appreciative Statements
1 Employee expresses specific appreciation of the feedback. Example:“Gosh, this was really
helpful.” Apologizes where appropriate.
½ Employee says a simple “Thanks!”
0 Employee does not indicate appreciation for the feedback.
Overall Demeanor
1 Employee speaks in a friendly tone, smiles or expresses interest, and maintains upright,
respectful posture.
0 Employee speaks in a neutral tone, maintains a neutral facial expression, and maintains
upright, respectful posture.
−1 Employee speaks in a resentful tone, frowns or scowls, crosses arms or slouches.