MBarq
The Crimson of Reformation: A Perspective on Feedback and Judgement.
Dr Mushtaque B Barq
Sigh. The crimson of agony spread across the canvas of my imagination to match my self-created protocols. “Shall I rely on my defined lines or erase them all?” whispered my wishful heart, trying to hold back conventions. Conventions usually rest on credentials crafted by champions devoid of challenges, much like how traditional academic recognition often favours those who conform to established norms rather than those who dare to challenge them. For instance, many innovators initially faced rejection before their ground breaking ideas were acknowledged. Seriously, these currents toss a man like me irrespective of mercy, leading the self-proclaimed prototypes to be discarded as outdated. However, from nowhere, the imagination falls back upon blankness, and an echo of reformation brings a new verve into the nerves, renaming my crimson as Confidence. As rightly put forth by Marcus Garvey “With confidence, you have won before you have started.”
Before dethroning preconceived ideas, one must search for tesserae in a mosaic to create a picture. A complete figure has a bit of vociferous elements and a tinge of delicacy fanned by verbosity. The combination repackages conventional alignments for a new age. For hard-core conventionalists, it may be a popularly ragged paperback of stagnation, but, on the other hand, it may certainly challenge the straw man’s argument. In both cases, at least a ripple is created; it either carries one to the shore or leaves the other to vanish with the fading wave. Those who are carried by the currents are always accompanied by the minutiae lying in the surroundings. And from those minute particles, one can definitely create a storehouse for future use. Learning from bits is more effective than taking chunks from everywhere because a minute detail of any chunk makes the heap appear to be somewhat easier to explore.
Sigh. The onlooker at the bay qualifies himself as a judge, enjoying grandmotherly airs. The process one undertakes to categorise things according to his own perception requires his judgement to be either rational or investigative. A thorough inductive process can either dismantle established verbal or perceptive structures or challenge habitual judgements that lack legal or logical grounding. The significance of being judgemental lies in the fact that one is equipped with thinking theories like Dual-Process Theory, as proposed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. The former, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), describes two systems of thinking: System 1 (fast, intuitive thinking) and System 2 (slow, analytical thinking). System 1 helps in making quick decisions but can be biased. In contrast, System 2, which is based on logical reasoning and problem-solving, requires significant mental effort to make complex decisions. Therefore, being merely judgemental can never serve as a valid feedback mechanism for those lacking the time to delve into the intricate processes of observation and critically analyse the scene before writing on the page as a decree.
Sharing conjectures as insights only disparages and denigrates the ‘the subject.’ Kluger and DeNisi (1996), in their Feedback Intervention Theory (FIT), suggest that feedback affects performance if it is directed toward identity. Carver and Scheier (1982, 1998), in their Cybernetic Model of Feedback, describe feedback as a self-regulatory mechanism where ‘the subject’ compares his performance to a standard and adjusts accordingly. They argue that negative feedback highlights discrepancies between actual and desired performance, leading to corrective action. Pendleton’s Feedback Model (2003) emphasises that a structured approach is needed to deliver feedback, as it involves ‘the subject’ self-reflecting before receiving constructive criticism. Ilgen et al. (1979), in their Affective Response Model, suggest that feedback effectiveness depends not only on the content but also on the emotional reactions of ‘the subject.’ They warn that negative feedback triggers defensiveness and reduces effectiveness. Similarly, Sadler (1989), in The ASK Model (Ask, Show, Know), declares that effective feedback requires ‘the subject’ to understand what good performance looks like, where he currently stands, and how to close the gap.
Countering the Cybernetic Model:
Sigh. Carver & Scheier’s Cybernetic Model of Feedback (1982, 1998) envisions feedback as a self-regulatory mechanism, a corrective force guiding one toward refinement. Yet, does mere acknowledgement of feedback suffice? The model assumes that discrepancies between actual and desired performance will naturally drive corrective action, but it fails to consider the inertia of neglected insights. Feedback is a tool that, if wielded with precision, can mend both performance and opportunity gaps. However, when left unattended, these gaps deepen into chasms, and what could have been a moment of redirection mutates into an unaddressed ailment, resistant to remedy. Simply receiving feedback does not herald progress; its efficacy hinges on how it is framed, how it resonates, and ultimately, how it is enacted. Feedback, when misdelivered or ignored, ceases to be a force of growth and instead festers as stagnation.
Sigh. People who generally hold driving positions in reputed organisations have added feedback as their only resource to manage human resources. Providing feedback should not result in the misallocation of human resources but should instead focus on improving performance and restructuring plans to optimise resource retention. Those who provide feedback or pointers must be aware that emotional intelligence should be applied to deal with sensitive subjects. A missing perspective often creates a biased and one-sided argument, which not only reduces validity but also encourages the ignoring of counterarguments. For example, in workplace evaluations, if only managerial perspectives are considered without employee feedback, the resulting assessments may lack accuracy and fairness, ultimately leading to dissatisfaction and decreased morale. Unverified evidence leads to false conclusions. Any conclusion based on weak evidence is never a conclusion but a confusion meant to pile up the confusions beyond one’s reach. It is imperative to find a solution rather than leave a Himalayan task for the rest of the generation and break it into pieces. To reframe the pieces, one generation must be ready to rectify and reconstruct the remnants of the mess. A generation is required to create one more for better yield.
