Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Digitale Feedback-Trends im Coaching und zur Selbststeuerung richtig einsetzen

Using digital feedback trends correctly in coaching and for self-guidance

  • Hauptbeiträge
  • Published:
Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Wir beobachten einen Trend hin zu digitalen Feedback-Tools für hochfrequente und niedrigschwellige Rückmeldungen im Arbeitskontext, ganz im Stile der Bewertung von Produkten, Reisen oder Lieferdiensten auf einschlägigen Internet-Plattformen. Der zusätzliche Feedbackkanal wird sicher nicht schaden oder vielleicht doch? Wir diskutieren sowohl Chancen als auch Probleme im Coaching und zur Selbststeuerung. Dazu fassen wir den Stand der Forschung überblicksartig zusammen, teilen unsere Praxiserfahrungen und geben Handlungsempfehlungen für Organisationen und Coaches, die ihr Repertoire erweitern möchten.

Abstract

We are observing a trend towards digital feedback tools for high-frequency and low-threshold feedback in the work context, much like the evaluation of products, travel or delivery services on relevant internet platforms. The additional feedback channel certainly won’t hurt, or maybe it will? We discuss both opportunities and problems in coaching and self-guidance. For this purpose, we summarize the state of research, share our practical experiences and give recommendations for action for organizations and coaches who want to expand their repertoire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Notes

  1. Der NPS-Score ist ein Maß für Kundenzufriedenheit. Er kann Werte zwischen -100 (unzufrieden) und +100 (zufrieden) annehmen.

  2. Transparenzhinweis: Der Erstautor ist Inhaber der Crews & Captains GmbH.

Literatur

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balcazar, F., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of performance feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3), 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M., et al. (2018). The effects of feedback fatigue and sex disparities in medical student feedback assessed using a minute feedback system. Journal of Surgical Education, 75(5), 1245–1249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, P., Edwards, P., Lingard, H., & Cattell, K. (2014). Workplace stress, stress effects, and coping mechanisms in the construction industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(3), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, M. (2006). Saying it like it isn’t: The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback. Business Horizons, 49(5), 395–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. A., Fearey, E., & Smith, R. E. (2017). „That which is measured improves“: A theoretical and empirical review of self-monitoring in self-management and adaptive behavior change. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Mental Health, 1(4), 19–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Church, A. H., Bracken, D. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Rose, D. S. (2019). The handbook of strategic 360 feedback. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coenen, L., et al. (2023). Development of TOEKAN, a 360° evaluation tool for the clinical learning environment in General Practice postgraduate training. Medical Teacher, 45(11), 1247–1253.

  • DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? The Academy of Management Perspectives, 14(1), 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(2), 165–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. J. (1996). 360 degree feedback: The powerful new model for employee assessment and performance improvement. New York: amacom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feng, S., Mäntymäki, M., Dhir, A., & Salmela, H. (2021). How self-tracking and the quantified self promote health and well-being: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.2196/25171.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Furenes, M. I., Røislien, J., Gjerald, O., Furunes, T., & Øgaard, T. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis: the effect of feedback on satisfaction with the outcome of task performance. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02847.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Geister, S. (2005). Feedback in virtuellen Teams: Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Online-Feedback-Systems. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geister, S., Konradt, U., & Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Research, 37(5), 459–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, C. (2018). Instant Feedback – Sterne vom Kollegen. managerSeminare, 242, 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, T. (2011). Harnessing the power of feedback loops. Wired Magazine. https://www.wired.com/2011/06/ff-feedbackloop/

  • Hancı, E., Ruijten, P. A. M., Lacroix, J., & IJsselsteijn, W. A. (2021). The impact of mindset on self-tracking experience. Frontiers in Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2021.676742.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Handke, L., Klonek, F., O’Neill, T. A., & Kerschreiter, R. (2022). Unpacking the role of feedback in virtual team effectiveness. Small Group Research, 53(1), 41–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. A. C., & Yates, G. C. R. (2014). Using feedback to promote learning. In V. A. Benassi, C. E. Overson & C. M. Hakala (Hrsg.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (S. 45–58). Washington: Society for the Teaching of Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecht, M. (2011). E‑Valuation 2.0 – Bewertung von Lehrern und Professoren im Internet. München: Grinverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtmeier, S., & Mertin, I. (im Druck). 360° Feedback-Varianten für faire Potenzialkonferenzen und ein effektives (Selbst‑)Coaching. In K. P. Stulle & R. T. Justenhoven (Hrsg.), Personalauswahl 4.0 – KI, Machine Learning, Gamification und andere Innovationen in der Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

  • Holtmeier, S., & Mertin, I. (2020). Feedback-Trends in Organisationen: 360°, Ongoing, Instant, Always-On und Kudo. In K. P. Stulle (Hrsg.), Digitalisierung der Management-Diagnostik (S. 289–330). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, S. M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamil, D. A., Sabah, K. K., Gardi, B., & Adnan, S. (2022). The mediation role of organizational culture between employee turnover intention and job satisfaction. Journal of Statistics Education: An International Journal on the Teaching and Learning of Statistics, 1(4), 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, U. (2019). Arzt-Bewertungsportale – Tipps und Tricks. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie, 98(9), 612–616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malin, F., & Luoma, J. (2020). Effects of speed display signs on driving speed at pedestrian crossings on collector streets. Behaviour, 74, 433–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzetti, G., et al. (2023). Work engagement: a meta-analysis using the job demands-resources model. Psychological Reports, 126(3), 1069–1107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Münch, R. (2022). Die Herrschaft der Inzidenzen und Evidenzen: Regieren in den Fallstricken des Szientismus. Frankfurt a.M., New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, O. (2000). Das 360°-Feedback: Alle fragen? Alles sehen? Alles sagen? München, Mering: Hampp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Open, A. (2021). ChatGPT (Version 4.0). https://chat.openai.com/chat Computer software.

  • Orji, R., et al. (2018). Tracking feels oppressive and „punishy“: Exploring the costs and benefits of self-monitoring for health and wellness. Digital Health. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207618797554.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard, R. D. (1990). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: A practical guide. Westport: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rödel, S., & Krach, S. (2023). Professionelles Feedback als entscheidender Erfolgsfaktor in New Work. Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 30(2), 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scaduto, A., Hunt, B., & Schmerling, D. (2015). A performance management solution: Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES). Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semmer, N. K., & Jacobshagen, N. (2010). Feedback im Arbeitsleben – eine Selbstwert-Perspektive. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung, 41(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleiman, A. A., Sigurjonsdottir, S., Elnes, A., Gage, N. A., & Gravina, N. E. (2020). A Quantitative Review of Performance Feedback in Organizational Settings (1998–2018). Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 40(3–4), 303–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, K., et al. (2022). Leadership behaviours and health-related early exit from employment: a prospective cohort study of 55 364 employees. European Journal of Public Health, 32(5), 709–715.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tagliabue, M., Sigurjonsdottir, S. S., & Sandaker, I. (2020). The effects of performance feedback on organizational citizenship behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 29(6), 841–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werther, S. (2020). Feedback in Zeiten der Agilität: Digitale Instrumente und analoge Methoden. Freiburg: Haufe.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2019). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, C., & Jiranek, H. (2014). Feedback: Nur was erreicht, kann auch bewegen. Göttingen: BusinessVillage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Crews & Captains GmbH, Auguststr. 11, 50733, Köln, Deutschland

    Stephan Holtmeier

  2. Hochschule des Bundes für öffentliche Verwaltung, Willy-Brandt-Straße 1, 50321, Brühl, Deutschland

    Inga Mertin

Authors
  1. Stephan Holtmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inga Mertin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Holtmeier.

Additional information

Hinweis des Verlags

Der Verlag bleibt in Hinblick auf geografische Zuordnungen und Gebietsbezeichnungen in veröffentlichten Karten und Institutsadressen neutral.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature oder sein Lizenzgeber (z.B. eine Gesellschaft oder ein*e andere*r Vertragspartner*in) hält die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte an diesem Artikel kraft eines Verlagsvertrags mit dem/den Autor*in(nen) oder anderen Rechteinhaber*in(nen); die Selbstarchivierung der akzeptierten Manuskriptversion dieses Artikels durch Autor*in(nen) unterliegt ausschließlich den Bedingungen dieses Verlagsvertrags und dem geltenden Recht.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holtmeier, S., Mertin, I. Digitale Feedback-Trends im Coaching und zur Selbststeuerung richtig einsetzen. Organisationsberat Superv Coach 30, 499–514 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11613-023-00849-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11613-023-00849-9

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation