What are the most common mistakes in feedback collection for program coordinators?

1) Limited Feedback Channels: Relying solely on one feedback channel, such as surveys, might exclude individuals who prefer other methods of communication. 2) Ignoring Negative Feedback: Dismissing or ignoring negative feedback can hinder improvement opportunities. 3) Lack of Follow-up: Not following up with respondents or failing to communicate changes made based on their feedback can discourage future participation. 4) Not Diversifying Respondents: Collecting feedback from a narrow group might result in biased or limited perspectives. 5) Poor Timing: Timing is crucial when collecting feedback. Asking for input too late may cause respondents to forget details, while asking too early may not capture the full experience.

There are many points about this article but I highlight two important points from my experience Ignoring Negative Feedback: Focusing only on positive feedback and neglecting constructive criticism, missing out on valuable insights for improvement. Not Acting on Feedback:Collecting feedback without a plan for implementation or improvement, leading to a lack of trust and decreased participation in future feedback initiatives.

A n?o defini??o de estratégias e objetivos é revelada num discurso confuso e difuso, que culmina num sub-rendimento dos funcionários em diversos momentos. Fundamental definir uma estratégia em três passos: 1. Curto prazo - definir qual o caminho no imediato com um discurso focado n?o no quadro geral, mas no trabalho a ser desenvolvido para o momento mais próximo. O feedback deverá ser firme, incisivo e limitado apenas ao que deve ser desenvolvido. 2. Médio prazo - Entende se pelo caminho intermédio de objetivos já atingidos e por atingir, com vista a longo prazo. Feedback incisivo, abrangente e passível de liberdade de pensamento dos funcionários. 3. Longo prazo - Feedback objetivo e motivador, n?o passível de ser alterado.

I would offer performance or execution of the program can be the purpose of feed back. Goals, objectives, and indicators can all be met, however I would offer what is organization's effort to achieve those end states? Clarity of communication of tasks, outputs, and organization participation from each contributing office. Schedules can all be met, but what was organization's cost in man-power, time, and material? Did exhaust the organization? Just some thought.

Usually I make stakeholder comfortable answering me / providing feedback, I make sure my body language is appropriate, I collect feed back and use it constructively, I do not target any individual, rather use feedback for benefit of programs.

Choosing proper and suitable feedback method helps enhance the power of communication . Know when to use the right tools for the right group

Know what you're trying to understand by collecting feedback so that you can choose appropriate methods. Also, know your people, how they communicate best, and what barriers they might encounter when engaging in your feedback method. That will help to narrow down the best methods.

This is the most crucial step but is dependent most on the answers to step one. The use of open ended questions is best but also adds complexity to forming a powerful question. Consider asking questions that encourage creative answers for the feedback you seek. For example, if you want to determine how to improve on a course, a reasonable question would be “what can we do to improve [the content area]?” A more powerful question that may encourage richer answers could be “A competitors’ offering proves to be a more impactful course for students. What do they do that we do not?”

It's not so easy to get feedback. There could be many barriers in the process of getting feedback. Even your questionnaire might be biased. Study the stakeholders and reason for asking feedback from them. Then curate a specific and personalized questionnaire to ask for feedback.

This is an area that requires technical expertise and practice, particularly for surveys. With very large, well-funded projects, you may be able to get feedback on questions through multiple channels, such as through interviewing content experts or conducting cognitive interviews with individuals who are demographically the same as, or similar to, the population that will be responding to the survey. While this may not be possible with smaller surveys, it’s still essential for question writing to be a collaborative process — is everyone on the team interpreting the questions the same way? Will this interpretation be the same as participant understandings? It is essential that these questions are considered prior to administration.

There are many answer biases that we encounter when, for example, conducting a survey. Question order, how the question is phrased, and its similarity to other questions in the data set can confound your data, confuse the participants you're getting feedback from and confuse you in analysis. You also might be demonstrating your own biases when asking the questions. Review your questions and consider how asking them in that way might impact the responses.

Pilot testing is essential to identify how others may perceive questions in different contexts. At times, questions may appear to be clearly written, however, in some industries, words may have different meanings which leads to unintended replies that do not answer the intended question.

For the love of all that is good and decent in the world: Do NOT ask people to goof around with an Excel spreadsheet table. If you want to use Excel to analyze, fine, but do not make people "fill out" Excel cells.

One thing that I have found helpful is reviewing your data and analysis in combination with a myriad of other data sources. Combining data for review allows you to understand the complexity of the total situation such as geographical differences, operational similarities or associate influences and get to the root cause of the concern. This allows you to systemically deal with issues and prevent them from reoccurring, not just addressing the fire itself.

Beyond simply analyzing the feedback, it is important to review it with a critical lens. Does the data make sense? What are the frequencies and expected frequencies? Does quantitative data support the qualitative data and vice versa? What are the outliers. Are they valid? Should they be studied on their own or removed from the data set?

O ciclo de feedback é, para quem gere equipas, fundamental para analisar se a informa??o transmitida está a ser executado com a produtividade que se pretende. Em muitas ocasi?es, o acto de passar a mensagem ou orienta??o, pode n?o ser suficiente. Deverá sempre realizar um ciclo de feedback para aumentar a produtividade e eficácia dos funcionários. Cada pessoa tem uma percep??o e entendimento auditivo ou visual diferente. Cabe a quem passa a mensagem que n?o só a fa?a de forma clara, como consiga promover hábitos e rotinas produtivas nas equipas. Ciclo de Feedback. Fundamental para o sucesso.

Research is not cheap and it shouldn't be done unless you intend to act upon it. From my experience, a strategically designed communication plan is essential to acting upon the information. Start with basic awareness. Everyone in the company should understand your goals and where the company stands. The next level of communication is with your senior leadership team. They need to understand the overall data and what needs to be done to impact the desired metrics. Lastly, associates need to understand how they impact these goals and what they can do to help improve feedback results. This typically starts with the front-line and works out from there. Sharing your findings is key to ensuring the research that you do is money well spent.

When you as people for their feedback, but don’t communicate to your team what you’ve learned from feedback, and what might change, you are effectively telling them you do not care about their input, and just gave them busy work.

Sharing and acting on synthesized feedback is the most important step if you want the same population to give you feedback in the future.

This point is so important. Some organizations will sink a huge portion of their budget on conducting research, analyzing results, and then drop the ball on sharing the results internally or externally, thereby losing employee trust and interest in the process. While the data can inform what type of action you will take in response to the feedback, work in a sufficient budget for post-research action.

1. Lack of clarity in the purpose of feedback 2. Inadequate feedback channels: Program coordinators may limit feedback collection to only one or two channels 3. Insufficient anonymity and confidentiality 4. Failure to act on feedback 5. Ignoring negative feedback 6. Limited opportunities for ongoing feedback 7. Lack of diversity in feedback collection

Time when you're asking for feedback from the stakeholders is another important factor. It's never going to work if you're asking feedback from your stakeholders when they are busy with their assignments. For example if you're asking for feedback from stakeholders who are in retail business at the time of sale events, it's highly likely that you wouldn't get any response.

Common mistakes in feedback collection for program coordinators include lacking clear objectives for feedback, leading to irrelevant data. A one-size-fits-all approach fails to account for unique program aspects, while limited stakeholder inclusion can skew results. Poor timing of feedback collection may affect response accuracy, and a lack of anonymity deters honest input. Overlooking negative feedback misses crucial improvement opportunities. Finally, not acting on the feedback gathered can lead to repeated mistakes and stakeholder dissatisfaction. Avoiding these errors is key to obtaining effective and actionable feedback for program enhancement.

In my experience, most of the times, we fall into a negativity bias when analyzing feedback data. It is not only an opportunity to identify mistakes, problems or complaints. It is also a moment to balance what we are doing well, to celebrate it and share it. There's an opportunity for growth in that area we already fulfill to its finest not only correcting or improving what is wrong

In feedback collection, program coordinators often make common mistakes. Undefined objectives lead to vague data. Relying on one channel limits insights; using diverse methods like interviews aids depth. Biased questions skew authenticity, while anonymity absence hinders honesty, especially for critical feedback. Neglecting follow-ups or actions from feedback diminishes participant engagement. Failure to communicate outcomes reduces impact. Timing issues affect accuracy. Overlooking diverse perspectives narrows viewpoints. Avoiding these pitfalls ensures more meaningful, diverse, and actionable feedback, enhancing program effectiveness.

One other thing I find useful is privacy considerations for the feedback provided. Most respondents' preference is being anonymous. Though a smaller percentage would be okay with disclosure of their identity. This also depends on the intervention/s being implemented. Protecting the identity of the respondents is a key ingredient of building trust and confidence among all stakeholders. Project coordination should provide for both those that prefer disclosure or non disclosure of identities during collection of feedback. In the way during dissemination of the results, privacy on some feedback must be a key consideration.