One lesson: organizations that focus on improving how their employees effectively give and receive feedback are likely to be more resilient when challenges emerge.
One quote from the article:
"What’s more, companies will need to provide support systems that allow employees to engage in creative collisions and debates, give and share feedback honestly, and continually incorporate that feedback into their routines so they will be better able to adapt to any future challenges."
One lesson: meaningful feedback between human and bot goes both ways, and will likely become an increasingly important part of our lives.
From the paper's abstract:
"Intelligent agents interacting with humans through conversation (such as a robot, embodied conversational agent, or chatbot) need to receive feedback from the human to make sure that its communicative acts have the intended consequences. At the same time, the human interacting with the agent will also seek feedback, in order to ensure that her communicative acts have the intended consequences. In this review article, we give an overview of past and current research on how intelligent agents should be able to both give meaningful feedback toward humans, as well as understanding feedback given by the users. The review covers feedback across different modalities (e.g., speech, head gestures, gaze, and facial expression), different forms of feedback (e.g., backchannels, clarification requests), and models for allowing the agent to assess the user's level of understanding and adapt its behavior accordingly. Finally, we analyse some shortcomings of current approaches to modeling feedback, and identify important directions for future research."
One lesson: self-feedback matters. Reviewing the work of others and then reflecting on our own can be a tremendous way to grow.
The paper's abstract:
"When students engage in peer assessment activities, they often put emphasis on the feedback they receive from peers but fail to appreciate how their role as a peer assessor can contribute to their learning process and improve their own work. Because of this, students and sometimes teachers undervalue the peer assessment process. This scholarship of teaching and learning project conducts a small-scale controlled experiment with students undertaking peer assessment in randomly assigned groups that either focus on giving and receiving peer feedback or assessing peers’ work only without receiving feedback on their own. In addition, it explores how different peer assessment strategies such as rubric creation, rank order assessment and assessment without qualitative feedback affect both students’ ability to improve their work and their perception of the value of peer assessment. Consistent with theoretical expectations, the results provide exploratory evidence that students’ perceived value of peer assessment is lower when they do not receive feedback, but improvement in their writing is actually higher when they focus on assessing peers’ work rather than receiving feedback on their own. While feedback is a potential benefit of the peer assessment process, it may also distract focus from the potentially more valuable learning that derives from students’ self-evaluating their own work after critically assessing their peers’."