The feedback mechanisms provided at work were very interesting in that they were essentially non-existent. In fact, the only time direct, explicit feedback was really provided to me was during the mid-term and final performance reviews mandated through the program. As someone who lives and studies in a society that is very big on clear feedback (grades, performance evaluations, etc.), this was a major adjustment for me. Especially early on, I wasn’t sure what my fellow employees thought of me, both personally and professionally. When I was given tasks, I would do them. When I needed more work, I would ask for it. But I never really knew if the work was simply adequate, above average or in need of modifications. In general, I wasn’t always sure of what the expectations were for my position let alone whether I was meeting them. Luckily, as the internship progressed, I became more perceptive of ways to gauge my performance. While nothing explicit was provided, there were subtle ways that my coworkers provided feedback. The primary of these means were comparison and workplace chatter.

Throughout my internship small talk and little discussions were very common during our hour lunch break as well as during smaller break periods throughout the day. While topics of the conversation during these breaks general strayed from workplace topics, occasionally the workday would be discussed, particularly when something was done particularly well or particularly poorly. Therefore, it was during these instances, when workplace discussion bled into breaktimes, that I really developed a concept of my performance and what was expected of me. I think people have a tendency to remain quiet when there’s no need to speak up. No news is good news, as the expression says. Therefore, when someone felt the need to speak about work during their free time, it was almost always to voice a more polarizing concern or opinion; either to complain about work done poorly or praise work done well. As I overheard my colleagues complaining about and praising others (and occasionally myself), I slowly figured out the local workplace standards and could personally evaluated whether my own work was up to snuff.

During my time at Pulsar, I was also lucky enough to have another intern to work alongside. While he worked in the finance department of the company, and therefore worked on different projects with different people than I did, having another student in the workplace was very beneficial in terms of understanding expectations. Both by directly observing the other students’ interactions with our coworkers and indirectly overhearing accounts of these interactions, I got a better idea of how to perform myself. For instance, when I’d see coworkers huddle around the other intern’s desk, or overhear the CFO talking about a job he did well, I’d be able to take notes about how to improve my own performance. Having a peer in similar circumstances as my own also provided a valuable resource in terms of collaborative discussion. By actively having conversations with him about expectations and performance, we were both better able to grasp our corporate responsibilities.

Passive feedback was very visible in my workplace via discussions and comparisons. In terms of whether or not this feedback method is effective, I can say that it was in my case. However, as a more objective means of evaluating passive feedback, I think it’s important to highlight some pros and cons of the method. As opposed to active, direct feedback, passive feedback provides a lower stress work environment. However, it also produces the risk of a toxic, gossipy social dynamic on the job.

I think forcing constant evaluations can create a sense of panic in workers. Quantifying every aspect of working can create an emphasis on results over wellbeing and develop a workplace that employees dread entering. A more wholistic, unofficial approach to feedback, on the other hand, empowers workers with a sense of trust and allows them to work under less pressure. In this sense, passive feedback is preferable. However, the problem with passive feedback is that it can create a workplace full of gossip and cliques. When feedback isn’t given through an official channel, smaller, more private back-channels can open up and fester with criticism and complaints. If these channels are used continually to pick on/talk about one person rather than address that person directly, the workplace environment can suffer greatly. Therefore, the risk of workplace gossip is vastly increased in a passive feedback system.

In conclusion, working for a company with a passive feedback system provided a new challenge for me as I was forced to rely on observation and discussion to gauge my professional performance. All in all, though, this feedback method proved effective as it allowed me to focus on my work without worrying about a given evaluation or criticism. However, this system of feedback does create a risk of cliquey-ness that employees should be aware of.