Managing Organizational Feedback in Action Research

Group Feedback Meeting Strategy

The feedback meeting will be held with the same small group of organizational leaders with whom I have been working throughout this project. While I have a primary point of contact, I believe it is most appropriate to present all suggestions and feedback to the entire group. This approach ensures that everybody hears the same message rather than risk information being distorted through indirect communication. If feedback arises from the group about anything presented, addressing it all at once prevents the need to answer the same question multiple times and allows everyone to hear consistent responses. Communication becomes substantially easier when a small group gathers to discuss matters collectively.

I am admittedly apprehensive about speaking in front of a group. High expectations weigh on me, and although I understand this is only one cycle in the larger action research process with many more to follow, I worry that the organization expects immediate, transformative results. At this point, I do not believe I am delivering bad news to anyone, and I presume that individuals recognize this reality. However, working with people always carries uncertainty. A group meeting mitigates this risk because even if someone disagrees with proposed ideas, a calm and rational discussion is more likely to occur, and participants are less likely to take feedback personally.

The primary strategy for preventing problems is to have contingency approaches ready. First, I want to ensure that everyone understands the entire action research process focuses on issues, not individuals. This principle is fundamental to conflict resolution. I am prepared to answer questions to the best of my ability and can reiterate how the process works, explain what expectations exist for each step, and provide progress measures demonstrating how well the organization is advancing.

Communications studies offers numerous techniques that illuminate how communication functions. The Johari Window is one such framework. According to MindTools (2015), the Johari Window is a model divided into four compartments representing things known by others, unknown by others, known by yourself, and unknown by yourself. When neither party knows something, it constitutes a blind area. Such blind areas exist everywhere; for instance, most people on this project likely know little about quantum mechanics, but that is irrelevant because nothing particularly pertinent exists in that blind area for this work.

The Johari Window and Communication

The open area consists of things known by everybody. The hidden area comprises things you know but others do not; the unknown area contains things others know that you do not. A core principle underlying the Johari Window is that more effective communication occurs when more information resides in the open area, where everyone shares knowledge.

Filling in every detail of what I know but presume others do not is essentially impossible—both because the list is extensive and because such details require filtering for relevance. It is more practical to think of the hidden window as encompassing anything I have not yet communicated to them. They likely understand 10 to 20 percent of what I know regarding management theory and related subjects; I must recognize that my knowledge in this domain significantly exceeds theirs. By definition, I cannot complete the blind box because it consists of things unknown to me. If I do not know something, I cannot know it. Conversely, the client has extensive institutional knowledge from years in operations that I lack. Explaining everything they know would take weeks, even after filtering for relevance.

Revealing more of my hidden knowledge is generally beneficial; they should understand more. However, a problem emerges when I walk them through excessive background and preamble regarding my thought processes. They need specific plans, concrete objectives, how those objectives affect them, and what expectations apply to them. My knowledge is embedded within these elements; they do not require a crash course in my prior studies.

I provide feedback constantly and deliberately avoid overly structured formats. Stiff, formal communication erects barriers. Structured meetings carry time constraints, make people defensive knowing they will receive a flood of feedback, and cause information overload. I view action research as dialogue. In my consulting role, this dialogue must remain open, and I must maintain continuous feedback flow as insights emerge. This creates a continuous feedback loop, an approach I have deliberately adopted.

This strategy has proven generally successful. Everything is progressing well in the project, and no major roadblocks have emerged. This does not mean disagreements have not occurred, only that such disagreements have not impeded communication or project progress. My experience indicates that continuous, flowing communication works best with this organization.

Continuous Feedback Approaches

I have deliberately incorporated the appreciative approach into my consulting work. In an earlier submission several weeks ago, I noted that I had originally discounted the appreciative approach's value but have completely reversed my position. The appreciative approach has proven remarkably effective for building trust with the organization and engaging all key internal stakeholders in the change process. I am now a firm advocate for this methodology.

I have asked for feedback, and our dialogues remain continuous, but at this point I have probably not requested as much input as I could. I want to focus on helping the organization, but realistically this requires them to tell me how I am performing. If I am being honest, I have done a little of this but could do significantly more. Perhaps I should ask the direct question: "How is my driving?"

The client appears willing to provide feedback, but I am uncertain whether I am receiving truly candid input. They are primarily concerned with themselves and their organization and frankly may not care greatly whether I am performing well. They lack experience with this type of process and cannot evaluate my effectiveness directly. I believe they judge my effectiveness primarily on the outputs associated with the consulting process rather than their direct experiences working with me. This is my hypothesis, though I have not asked them about it directly.