Reviewing 25 years of research, we observed that the science of feedback at work is not yet a story of coherent and cumulative progress. Feedback is often generically defined, and assumptions substantially diverge. Consequently, insights often appear disconnected from the way feedback is practiced and experienced in organizations. We organize the literature by making three core assumptions explicit and identifying six distinct substreams of feedback research. For each substream, we highlight insights and limitations and point to seeming contradictions and departures from the daily reality of managers and employees. We call on scholars to explicate assumptions and develop coherent paradigms that mirror the complex realities of feedback in organizational life. We end with five recommendations for building a cumulative science of feedback.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.