Formatting Lab Inspecction Feedback for Success
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•73 views
The format of feedback has a significant impact on the outcome of an evaluation. For example, checklists, a common tool in health and safety inspections, have limited potential to change practices and habits between utilizations because they don’t convey priority or provide guidance on how to solve cited issues and because there is variability in thoroughness of application. By contrast, feedback in the form of unstructured descriptive comment has the potential to magnify existing strengths which sustain overall good practice between inspections if the comments include positive citations that are specific and detailed. Without this addition to the standard, structured checklist, inspectors miss the opportunity to reinforce actions already being performed and the opportunity to build on the foundation of existing skill and knowledge. This presentation brings together principles of management, evaluation tool design, and neurological science to illustrate how to leverage inspection feedback for a more significant impact on the culture of safety.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Formatting Lab Inspecction Feedback for Success
Similar to Formatting Lab Inspecction Feedback for Success (20)
More from Melinda Box
More from Melinda Box (9)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Formatting Lab Inspecction Feedback for Success
- 1. Melinda Box, M.Ed. (mcbox2@ncsu.edu) North Carolina State University
- 2. FEEDBACK IN HEALTH AND SAFETY Formal Site Inspections Training Record Audits Informal Verbal exchange Email exchange
- 3. FORMATTIN G FORMAL FEEDBACK Evaluation Tool Considerations: Purpose Goals Consumers Target Resources for response Evaluation methodology basics : the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation by Davidson, E. Jane Thousand Oaks, Calif. : Sage Publications, c2005.
- 5. How thoroughly How frequently How soon In what framework: • Health and Safety • Regulatory compliance • Institutional compliance • Necessities vs. Recommendations Recipients Need to Know:
- 6. SINCERE SPECIFIC SOON SIGNIFICANT Lippman, V., 2015. Management Feedback Is Vital - Why Is It So Often Given Badly?. [online] forbes.com. Available at: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2015/09/02/ management-feedback-is-vital-why-is-it-so-often-given-badly> [Accessed 26 July 2020].
- 8. INSPECTEE RESPONSIVEN ESS Citation (i.e. negative feedback) registers with greater strength dampens deviations from standards vs. Inspiration (i.e. positive feedback) amplifies receptivity, comprehension, and recall motivates learning expands willingness to try new things increases engagement increases inclination to ask for assistance (i.e. in essence admit to not knowing, to uncertainty, or to deficiency)
- 9. 2:1 1:2 5:1 “The Role of Positivity and Connectivity in the Performance of Business Teams: A Nonlinear Dynamics Model” American Behavioral Scientist, Volume: 47 issue: 6, page(s): 740-765, Issue published: February 1, 2004 Marcial Losada and Emily Heaphy
- 10. WHY IS POSITIVE FEEDBACK SO IMPORTANT? Thorough evaluation requires trust and rapport Recipients need: Empowerment to make changes to know what excellence looks like to know what to continue doing Evaluators need to consider the meaning and value of conclusions to recipients
- 11. CHECKLIST DESCRIPTIVE • pre-ordinate • standards-based • inflexible • flexible • creative • evolving • responsive
- 12. BONUS: INSPEC TORS BENEFI T, TOO Emotions are contagious Benefits to donor of giving positive feedback: more imaginative problem solving increased cognitive perceptual openness lower blood pressure enhanced immunity overall better health Richard E. Boyatzis et al. Coaching With Compassion: Inspiring Health, Well- Being, and Development in Organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2012, 49(2) 153–178
Editor's Notes
- Welcome to “Formatting Feedback for Success.” I’m Melinda Box, and I am the Chemistry Department Safety Officer at North Carolina State University. In that position, over the past four years, I have observed significant changes in safety compliance following the inclusion of positive feedback on environmental health and safety inspections. Inspired by that, I have assembled in this presentation principles of evaluation tool design and organizational management and related research in neuroscience and behavioral psychology that helps explain what we observed.
- First I’ll begin with some feedback tools I have listed some here that are common for environmental health and safety inspection and categorized them based on whether they are included in the official record or not. Of course, that official record is necessary because it facilitates accountability, establishes expectations, and facilitates follow-up. Nonetheless, informal feedback, while not officially required, is just as essential in achieving successful outcomes. Here are the reasons I have seen for that are: First, much can be shared in person which can give meaning to the documented results. This includes greater specificity in observations than can be captured in the standard form; it includes illustrating a point by sharing others’ prior experiences, and it includes amplifying on regulations and rules to give them meaning in context. Second, giving praise and providing positive impressions in the inspection setting gives those statements more meaning because inspectees can share in the observation. Nonetheless, emailing positive feedback, another informal method, can also have a significant impact, we found particularly when departmental administrators are included in that correspondence, as I’m sure you can imagine. And, third, addressing and negotiating possible remedies can more readily be done in person, and thereby facilitate follow-up. All of these benefits of informal feedback are only possible, of course, if there is, present at the inspection, a member of the group being inspected. So while unannounced or spot inspections may provide a more accurate snapshot of the evaluated setting during the time it’s in use, they may also have less impact in terms of change and improvement depending on the follow up.
- An inspection will also have little impact if the feedback is not documented, generally in a structured form. By the same token, that form’s impact will vary depending upon its content and structure. As a result, it is important to consider best practices when designing this evaluation tool. Beginning with outlining the purpose. Identifying the “purpose” means determining what about the target will be assessed. In the case of an inspection visit, that would be the target’s status, meaning its static state. While some observations captured on the form may be related to operations, those aspects will only give a partial view of on-going practice rather than a thorough assessment. So the primary target, therefore, is the status. Next establish the goals, meaning the particular changes and improvements the evaluator would like to facilitate. For an environmental health and safety inspection, those might include improving the safety of conditions, increasing compliance with institutional requirements, and strengthening preparedness for external inspections, such as state or federal. It might also be to increase consciousness and understanding of those who work in the setting about applicable rules and regulations to facilitate inspection follow-up. Since an inspection document may be viewed by multiple parties, it is important to consider who those consumers will be and what they will be looking for. For example, likely recipients of the report would be those who work in the inspected setting, the supervisor of those workers, facility management, and then higher management. Things they may be looking for could include: how did we do? meaning was our performance satisfactory? how does the content compare to last year’s? meaning are there items that were not previously noticed? what are the trends for the facility as a whole? are there legal concerns? any risks to organizational reputation? or risks of regulatory fines? and perhaps, most importantly, what is needed to fix the deficiencies? do we need to change practice? increase worker awareness? find some funding? or get approvals for facility modifications? Taking these things into consideration will help in formatting the communication about the specific target items of the inspection, such as the quality of chemical inventory management, the consistency of PPE use, and the degree of compliance in waste management, just to give a few examples. Lastly, to achieve the goals of the evaluation, it is important to take into consideration the resources available to the consumers of the evaluation. For example, if the form indicates safety shower testing is needed and the recipients don’t have access to the people responsible for doing that, then no change can take place.
- Thinking for a moment outside of the usual inspection format, evaluation tools, in general, can consist of not only checklists, but narrative comment, and not only observations, but interviews, and not only the contributions of the evaluator, but also the evaluee. To determine which of these variations might be useful (or some combination thereof), it’s important to ask, “what do we expect this evaluation tool to do?” And that’s related to the comparisons shown here. So, for example, “Do we want it to emphasize development or accountability?” For development, we would design the evaluation tool to be formative. A good example of this is homework. With low points, it’s intended to be part of an iterative process to aid improvement. For accountability, we would design a summative assessment, meaning one which is conclusive and so does not involve inspector follow-up. Using the same academic analogy, this would be like an exam. Another question - “Do we want it to emphasize proficiency or proffering awards?” For proficiency, one would strictly compare each recipient to a standard, meaning they would use a criterion-referenced tool. By contrast to decide who receives awards, one would compare inspectees to one another, meaning they would use a norm-referenced tool. And, these are not mutually exclusive, so a hybrid might be used. Also, these approaches might both be incorporated into informal feedback, as well. Finally, we might ask “Do we want more emphasis on expertise or empowerment?” For expertise, an independent evaluation is used, which involves a specialized, trained inspector. Whereas, to achieve empowerment, a participatory evaluation is implemented. This means having recipient contribution, including getting their input on evaluation tool design and having them perform self- or peer- type inspections. Using this approach can be less efficient, but it can also achieve more vested interest and buy-in by the recipients, so these pro’s and con’s can be weighed in deciding how much of each, if any to include.
- Because a goal of an inspection is likely improving environmental health and safety by remedying deficiencies, it’s important to recognize the value of conveying priority to recipients. When inspectees follow up on results, they must judge how thoroughly, how frequently, and how soon to implement solutions for each item cited - but that’s not something recipients are necessarily as equipped to do as the inspector. They are not trained to do inspections and therefore have less expertise on the framework used for evaluation, meaning on the particulars and subtleties of applicable regulations, institutional requirements, and consequences of non-compliance. So this is where informal feedback can come in – it can be pivotal. To illustrate, an inspector may record that the amount of stored chemicals is excessive, but those who receive this feedback won’t necessarily know what that means. They won’t have the frame to determine which components of their inventory tipped to “excess” and why. Bridging this gap might be achieved conversationally during the visit. As another example, an inspector may record that chemical containers are not properly capped, but recipients may not know what that means if they believe the bottle is “in use” and therefore allowed to be open. And, finally, to illustrate that the priority of urgency may not be obvious - if an inspector identifies that gas cylinders were not properly secured, recipients may not place a high priority on addressing this risky situation they believe the tanks are secure because they are chained.
- Finally, to maximize the impact of feedback, it’s important to consider some particular priorities in delivering it, beginning with the underlying intention. Whether that is more focused on finding errors or on promoting well-being, has a significant impact on the responsiveness of recipients. When recipients sense sincere concern and interest, they can more readily respond with their own sincere efforts to change and improve. Specificity in this feedback is essential, too, since without enough detail the recipient may not locate and or understand how to address the problems. And timing of the feedback is key. Promptness of delivery not only capitalizes on fresh memory, but it also models what is desired from recipients in terms of their responsiveness. So prompt feedback paves the way for prompt response. And, finally, insuring there is significance in the content not only conveys respect for the recipients’ time and effort, but also builds trust because it does not get bogged down in trivialities.
- The standard approach for inspections (of any sort) is checklists since they facilitate systematic evaluation. Checklists also establish central expectations for both the stakeholders and the independent evaluator. However, if the items on the list are general and if the scope of the target is large, use of the checklist may yield results that are not reproducible. The generality of the categories may leave too much room for interpretation for that reproducibility. So this lack of reliability can impact the trust of the recipients and their motivation to comply since success will feel like a moving target. Compounding this is that variation in thoroughness means without record of deficiencies there is no evidence that an inspection has been done. If something is recorded as “in compliance” it may be that the inspector did not look thoroughly enough. So, in effect, a checklist becomes a record, with certainty, of only negative feedback. In addition, although a desired outcome may be to train recipients to self-regulate between inspections, checklists do not necessarily achieve this, and, finally, they don’t necessarily convey how to fix the deficiencies. So to address these shortcomings, some supplemental approach may be used, formally or informally. Since a record facilitates follow-up, modifying an inspection form may be preferable, in particular to include a descriptive portion. Even though descriptions may also be arbitrary in the same way that general items on a checklist can be, they nonetheless may compensate for some of the limitations of a checklist. They are more flexible and adaptive, and thus can capture specificity enough to both aid recipients in fixing what’s wrong and reinforce what recipients are doing right.
- Even if an evaluation tool has been designed well by including all of these considerations, and it has been delivered in a useful way along with helpful that conveyed priorities for follow up, inspectees may still not be responsive and fix things. And while there may be no way to guarantee a response, there are things that may influence the likelihood that may tip the balance. Psychological studies have shown that negative feedback consistently registers with more strength than positive feedback so this approach may seem preferable. However, those studies have also shown that while the emotional impact is memorable the details of it are not. And they have also shown that negative feedback reduces variations in behavioral responses, which may not be so preferable if what is needed is creative problem solving. In the case of laboratory setting inspections, examples of creativity might be changing schedules, reassigning training, finding alternatives for chemical storage, and the list could go on. By contrast, studies in behavioral psychology and in neuroscience have shown that positive feedback expands the spectrum of responses. Since the perceived risk of penalization is lower, people try new things. They become more open to learning and become more engaged with others and with the effort. And, in my personal experience, recipients demonstrate more security to ask for assistance, with less fear of being penalized for not knowing or of being deficient. To illustrate the importance of including positive feedback, one noteworthy 2001 review article titled “Bad is Stronger than Good” found that in almost every way bad experiences left a stronger impression than good ones - with ONE EXCEPTION – the content of feedback. It turned out that people wouldn’t remember negative feedback unless it was accompanied by sufficient positive feedback. So how much positive feedback is needed?
- A 2004 study of the performance of business teams found that there were 5.6 positive comments for every one negative comment in the interactions of high performing teams. For comparison, medium performing teams recorded 1.9 positive comments for every one negative, and low performing teams recorded 0.375 positive for every one negative. The numbers on the graphic have been rounded to the nearest conservative integer.
- So why is positive feedback so important? Evaluation tool design and organizational management principles explain this in several ways. First positive feedback establishes trust and rapport between the giver and the receiver. This not only builds teams as in the previously mentioned study but, in the case of any evaluation, it facilitates revelation. To elaborate, if recipients’ strengths have been acknowledged, they feel an added sense of security and this security can contribute to revealing more about their work conditions and practices. This added security also amplifies their confidence to build on their existing strengths. In other words, it empowers them to perform at a higher level. Second it conveys to recipients acknowledgement of how they are achieving excellence and by association, what they are doing correctly that they need to keep on doing. In fact, this is how the Dallas Cowboys coach, Tom Landry, turned his team around. He put together highlight reels for each player so that they could see what they were doing right and focus their efforts on strengthening that. He recognized that it was not obvious to them what they were doing well and the same is true for inspection recipients. Third, it acknowledges what is often most valuable and meaningful to the recipient, i.e. whether or not they succeeded and how they attained that achievement. Was their strategy clever, useful, or efficient? Have they demonstrated a thorough understanding of risk, hygiene, or recordkeeping? Did they overcome an obstacle or exemplify thoughtfulness? All of these behaviors lead to high performance, and, unfortunately, none are captured in a checklist.
- So if the goal of an evaluation is to bring about change and improvement, then best practices of evaluation tool design directs use of a combination of checklist and descriptive formats. Together these give the sturdiness of pre-ordained expectations and the flexibility of open-endedness. And, with appropriate evaluator training, the descriptive feedback has the potential to encourage more creativity and responsiveness in recipients than the checklist could alone.
- What’s more, there is a bonus - the giver of positive feedback benefits, too, both cognitively and physiologically. So there is this added incentive to advocate for designing evaluation tools that capture both a record of deficiencies, i.e. negative feedback, and a record of acknowledgement for what is being done right, i.e. positive feedback.