different aspects of the formality

different aspects of the formality or informality of feedback.
When operating in a grey area, much informality is
included, even in those feedback procedures considered
formal at first glance. Our case study indicated that there
maybe two contradictory interpretations of formality close
to any everyday life communication situation, especially
if the parties represent different levels of the hierarchy
of the organisation. Some subordinates may easily
regard daily discussions with their superior as formal,
while superiors may regard them as informal. According
to the case analysis, different interpretations of the concepts
of formal and informal feedback among managers
can be summarised as arising from different hierarchical
positions, superior–subordinate relations, individual feedback
attitudes, abilities and preferences, and organisational
feedback culture.
The main contribution of this article is to offer a
framework of formal and informal feedback along three
analytical dimensions: source, time, and rule. While these
dimensions were identified and grouped based on our
review of the prior literature on formal and informal feedback
(Fig. 1), we developed these ideas further by including
our empirical findings. Our exploratory field work with
Division Steelco allowed us to combine, analyse, and “test”
interpretations regarding formal and informal feedback
received from the managers of the case company on those
dimensions and to make sense of various conceptualisations.
In our case, the rule dimension was surprisingly
dominant in defining formal feedback, while the prior literature
included clearer definitions of formal and informal
feedback associated with source or time dimensions.
Our central contribution is summarised in the analytical
matrix for understanding and examining formal and informal
feedback, presented in Fig. 2. It depicts a space, where
feedback can “travel” rather fluidly along its two axes: formality
vs. informality and the three analytical dimensions
of feedback, relating to source, time and rule.
Our field work reflects the logic of practice regarding
formal and informal feedback in a Finnish metal engineering
unit and naturally we have to be cautious regarding
how far they can be generalised. However, as our analysis
is neatly connected to the prior literature on feedback –
and we thereby faithfully followed the idea of contextual
generalisation (Lukka and Kasanen, 1995) – it is probably
not too courageous to suggest that the developed analytical
matrix can form a solid platform for further testing
and refinement. It may well be that the specific patterns
of formal and informal feedback practices vary in different
settings (for example, in service companies relying heavily
on team performance and team management), but it is an
open question as to how much such contingencies affect
the core structure of our model. Hence, even more important
than exploring how specific features change from one
setting to another, is the question of whether the three analytical
dimensions we suggest are the most suitable ones
to make sense of how formal and informal feedback can
be most accurately defined. In addition, since people tend
to define and interpret these concepts in various ways, we
encourage researchers to explicate more clearly what they
mean by formal and informal feedback (or control) in each
case.