Feedback
London & Smither (2002)
- Highlighted the important gap in the literature: the failure to examine feedback in a work context - Feedback seeking is part of Org Culture - They added the following elements to the model: individual feedback orientation & feedback environment (FE)/organizational feedback culture - They defined FE as the norms within an organization for seeking feedback, providing feedback, & holding ee's accountable ---> Shaped largely by organizational leaders ---> In some organizations, it's delivered frequently and considerately; in other places, it does not happen at all
Zingoni & Byron 2017
An EE's IPT effect the value and threat perception of negative feedback An incremental theorist will perceive negative relative feedback as more valuable and less threatening than an entetist
Ilgen et al (1979)
Feedback process includes the source, message, & recipient Source: - Can be others or self-generated - Source credibility = expertise & trustworthiness - Recipient is more likely to rate feedback message/source as more favorable when the source is credible - 3 elements of feedback message influence recipient's desire to respond: timing, frequency, & the sign - Individual differences play an important role in responding to feedback (i.e. self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, locus of control) - Set the stage for how we think about the feedback process Feedback should be specific rather than general.
(VandeWalle, 2003)
Learning oriented people seek feedback from experts or qualified people, performance oriented people seek feedback from people with established power Learning oriented is more related to incrementalism (Growth) and performance oriented is more related to entity (Fixed) Learning oriented people will tend to see feedback as more diagnostic, and will specifically seek out negative feedback to help with their deficiencies. Performance oriented people may use feedback seeking to draw attention to positive performance. Strong performance goal orientation leads individuals to focus more on the cost of feedback seeking, and that a strong learning goal orientation leads individuals to focus more on the value of feedback seeking. Because of these differential levels of concern about the cost and value of feedback seeking, learning-goal-oriented individuals (compared to performance-goal-oriented individuals) engage in a more productive pattern of feedback-seeking behavior for enhancing performance. The irony of these pattern choices is that the desire of performance-goal oriented individuals to look competent leads them to often avoid seeking the very feedback that could help them develop their competencies. (Ashford and northcraft 1992 show that they are not going to look bad anyway, but will avoid, people should be taught this and encouraged to seek feedback)
(Park et al., 2007)
Mastery goal orientation was positively related to expectancy and appraisal value and was unrelated to either ego or self-presentation cost. Prove goal orientation was positively related to ego cost, as well as appraisal and expectancy values, which highlights the complex array of potentially conflicting motives underlying feedback seeking for these individuals. Avoid goal orientation was positively related to both self-presentation cost and ego cost such but was unrelated to either expectancy or appraisal value.
(Ashford & Northcraft, 1992)
Study 1 showed that people see costs with seeking feedback, especially in a public evaluative setting. When in the presence of an audience, they found that feedback seekers felt nervous. However, Study 2 showed that people don't actually look negatively upon people who seek feedback, so these concerns are unfounded. Specifically, seeking feedback enhances superior performers' image, but does not change a poor performer's image. Norms mattered. The most feedback seeking happened from least to greatest: Low Norm -> No Norm -> High Norm (can make the connection to the FE from this information, as in creating a favorable FE could lead to a High Norm) Thus, superior performers who attempt to protect their reputations by foregoing opportunities to seek feedback may be committing a "fundamental feedback error"-they think that seeking makes them look bad in the eyes of others when, in fact, it does not.
Wang et al (2014)
Title: Age differences in feedback reactions: The roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility - Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST): the awareness of passage thru different life stages is universal and has implications for emotions, cognitions, and motivations ---> Older adults focus more on socioemotional experiences (time left in life) ---> Younger adults focus more on KSA development/growth (time since birth) ***Used Linderbaum & Levy's 4 dimensions of FO (with particular attention on social awareness & utility) ***Used Steelman, Levy, & Snell's (2004) taxonomy of FE, but only focused on favorability of feedback, feedback delivery, & feedback quality Results: > older workers had higher levels of FO on social awareness, but lower levels of FO on utility than younger workers > Favorability of feedback, feedback delivery, & feedback quality were all (+) related to ee reactions > Favorability of feedback & feedback delivery had stronger influence on older workers' feedback reactions > Feedback quality had a stronger impact on younger workers' feedback reactions Main implication: It is important to consider age-related differences in HR functions > I.e. providing feedback in a considerate manner to older workers and improving the informational quality of feedback to younger workers are more likely to engender desirable feedback reactions from them, respectively
Dahling, O'Malley, & Chau (2015)
Title: Effects of feedback motives on inquiry and performance They used the SCENT model to frame the mediating/moderating effects of feedback motives (all about maintaining a positive image through various motives) Perceptions of a supportive supervisor feedback environment (SFE) leads to higher instrumental & image-enhancement motives for feedback seeking They found that perceptions of SFE were (+) related to feedback inquiry, which was (+) related to task performance ratings made by the supervisor The relationship between inquiry and task performance ratings was only significant (and positive) for those employees with a low image enhancement motive -> in other words, if you have a low IE motive, then you will seek feedback more often, which in turn leads to better performance rated by supervisors
Anseel et al (2013)
Title: How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) Support was found for the cost/benefit framework in the feedback seeking domain -> Value was positively related to FSB (***Hays & Williams, 2011) -> Organizational tenure, job tenure, and age were (-) related to FSB -> LGO & PGO, external feedback propensity, frequent (+) feedback, high self-efficacy, a transformational leadership style, and a high quality relationship were (+) associated with FSB Challenging some of dominant views in FS literature -> The relationship between uncertainty and FSB was (-) and the relationship between FSB and performance was small. Inquiry and monitoring are not interchangeable feedback-seeking tactics -> FSB is best represented as an aggregate model instead of a latent model Other Findings: -> Individuals seek more feedback after frequent negative feedback -> Individuals who sought feedback were more likely to engage in building relationships, networking, & socialization Implications: -> They recommend that researchers measure both inquiry & monitoring in their studies of FSB
Peng & Lin (2016)
Title: Linking supervisor feedback environment to contextual performances: The mediating effect of leader-member exchange - SFE: the nature and frequency of the informal and day-to -day communication between supervisors and subordinates, which may motivate employees (Not stable - environment changes) - Focus was on 2 extra-role/contextual performance variables (OCB & WDB) --- used social exchange theory (i.e. when supervisors form high-quality relationships with subordinates, ees will reciprocate by going beyond formal job requirements) ***Just like Rosen et al (2006), this study examined the indirect effect of FE on extra-role perf Results: - SFE (+) related to LMX - LMX (+) related to OCB & (-) related to WDB (workplace deviant beh) - LMX fully mediates btw SFE & OCB and btw SFE & WDB (a more favorable SFE -> higher quality LMX -> increase in OCBs/decrease in WDBs) Implications: What should organizations do? - Develop counseling/communication skills for supervisors - Integrate FE into coaching/training to form feedback-oriented org cultures - Encourage employees to actively seek feedback to develop closer relationships with their supervisors & better career development - Develop/improve relationships btw supervisors & subordinates and promote high-quality LMX relationships (which should improve OCB & reduce WDB)
Linderbaum & Levy (2010)
Title: The development and validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS) ***This research builds on the work done by London & Smither (2002) 2) Utility (cognitive) - individual beliefs that feedback can lead to other valued outcomes ---> (+) predictor of perceived utility of PA & perceived benefits of participation in developmental activities 3) Accountability - individual sense of responsibility to respond to feedback ---> (+) predictor of intentions to use feedback & role clarity 4) Social awareness - external pressure to be aware of/respond to feedback (opposed to accountability) ---> (+) predictor of self-monitoring & intentions to use feedback 5) Feedback self-efficacy - whether you feel competent to use feedback ---> (+) predictor of PA session satisfaction, participation in developmental activities, & feedback seeking - They used a sample from an organization to explore external validity (CFA supported the four dimension FOS) Result: FO was modestly (+) related to learning goal orientation, work ethic, self-efficacy, and affect - FO was (+) related to active inquiry FO is based on protean career, where individuals are responsible for their own career development - Practical Implication: FOS could be a diagnostic tool; tells us the degree to which an individual is open to feedback ---> It also tells us how coachable someone is & if they are open to developmental opportunities
(Kluger & DeNisi, 1996)
Title: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory - FIs do not consistently improve performance. Results are variable. - Ammon's Review - unfortunate milestone in FI literature (he overlooked evidence contrary to his conclusions that knowledge of performance increases learning & motivation) - Conducted a meta-analysis to determine avg FI effects on performance - 5 basic arguments of FIT: 1) Behavior is regulated by comparisons of feedback to goals or standards 2) Goals or standards are organized hierarchically 3) Attention is limited and therefore only feedback-standard gaps that receive attention actively participate in behavior regulation 4) Attention is normally directed to a moderate level of the hierarchy 5) FIs change the locus of attention and therefore affect behavior FIT has a self-regulation component - Comparison of feedback to a standard -> detected discrepancy -> 1 of 4 coping options (i.e. change the behavior; abandon the standard; change the standard; reject the feedback message) Results: - In the absence of learning cues, the fewer cognitive resources needed for task performance, the more positive was the effect of FIs on performance - Goal-setting interventions improved the effect of FI on performance (***Locke & Latham, 2002) - What really determines if feedback intervention is successful - where attention is focused; It should be focused on the task (motivation or learning processes), not the self (meta-task processes) ---> Relates to process/outcome feedback in that feedback delivered around the self will not result in success (in part, b/c it's not process)
Steelman, Levy, & Snell (2004)
Title: The feedback environment scale (FES): Construct definition, measurement, and validation - FE - contextual aspects of supervisor-subordinate & coworker-coworker feedback processes (not the formal PA feedback session) FES includes 2 factors (Supervisor & Coworker source, each with 7 specific facets): 1) Source credibility - source expertise & trustworthiness (***Ilgen et al, 1979) 2) Feedback quality - High-quality feedback is consistent, specific, and useful 3) Feedback delivery - Considerate feedback -> greater chance recipient will accept/respond to feedback 4) Favorable feedback - Positive feedback that recipient believes is accurate/warranted based on his/her performance 5) Unfavorable feedback - Negative feedback that recipient believes is accurate/warranted based on his/her performance 6) Source availability - Amount of contact ee has with supervisor and/or coworkers (typically informal day-to-day interactions) 7) Promotes feedback seeking - extent to which ee's are encouraged to seek feedback & the extent to which ee's feel comfortable asking for feedback (***Linderbaum & Levy, 2010; Dahling, Chau, & O'Malley, 2012 --> Favorable FO leads to increased active inquiry) Results: - ee's reported receiving more unfavorable feedback from supervisors - ee's perceived coworkers to be more available to provide feedback - Unfavorable feedback (a favorable FE) was positively correlated with satisfaction with feedback, motivation to use feedback, & feedback seeking - Strongest predictor of feedback-seeking behavior was extent to which a supportive FE was promoted (by supervisor or coworker) Implication: - This instrument may be used as a training needs assessment for managers/supervisors - FES diagnoses extent to which org supports feedback processes
Anseel & Lievens (2007)
Title: The long-term impact of the feedback environment on job satisfaction: A field study in a Belgian context This study examined: o (1) the relationship between the feedback environment and job satisfaction o (2) the mediating role of leader-member exchange in a Belgian context (more power distance & uncertainty) - Focus was on supervisor FE (supervisor role offers greater opportunity for org intervention) - Contributes to the literature on FE in 3 ways: 1) Examines FE in an organization outside the US (Belgium values more formal rules/structures than the US; constant informal feedback effective in the US may not be in Belgium) 2) Proposes LMX as a potential mediator 3) Assesses long-term effects of FE Results: - FES, quality of LMX, & job satisfaction were all positively related - LMX quality fully mediated the relationship between FE and job satisfaction - Replicates previous findings (***Rosen et al, 2006) -> a favorable FE is beneficial in organizations
Gabriel et al (2014)
Title: The supervisor feedback environment is empowering, but not all of the time: Feedback orientation as a critical moderator - Psychological empowerment --- a dynamic state or active orientation toward work and assesses the extent to which individuals feel as though they have high levels of control over their work environments Four dimensions: - When all dimensions are high, psychological empowerment is high (additive effect) 1) Meaning- alignment b/w an employee's job demands, work goal, or purpose and his/her beliefs, values, and standards (task identity and internal control from A&V) 2) Competence- individual's perceived level of self-efficacy on the job, or level of mastery 3) Self-determination- individual's level of choice in the different tasks and actions he/she pursues in the workplace (autonomy) 4) Impact- extent to which individuals perceive having a voice in influencing strategic or administrative functions of the organization Results: 1) SFE differentially related to dimensions of psych empowerment ---> SFE (+) affected perceptions of meaning & impact ***Confirmed Sparr & Sonnentag's (2008) finding with impact 2) Subordinate FO moderated the relationship btw SFE and subsequent subordinate empowerment ---> FE has a (+) association w/employee empowerment, only among those w/favorable FO ---> A favorable SFE can actually decrease outcomes (i.e. competence & self-determination) for those low on FO. This could have a related effect to FIT, causing the EE to focus on the self and thus allowing performance to suffer. Implications: - SFE cannot be "one size fits all employees" - If majority of employees are high on FO, a strong SFE would be valuable; If majority are low on FO, a minimal FE would be better - Small exception: SFE can (+) influence level of impact (no interaction with FO)
Dahling & Whitaker (2016)
Title: When can feedback-seeking behavior result in a better performance rating? Investigating the moderating role of political skill This research integrates SCENT model of self-enhancement motives with socioanalytic theory Socioanalytic theory - personality traits are expressions of 2 broad social motives: acceptance (get along with others) & achievement (get ahead relative to one's social group) -> Social competencies = key moderating variables in socioanalytic theory; determine whether a person will succeed at developing a favorable reputation Supervisors rated subordinate feedback-seeking behavior Results: -> Subordinate image enhancement was positively related to feedback seeking when political skill was high, but not when political skill was low -> If you are skilled at feedback seeking (high political skill) and you try to enhance your image, your supervisor will recognize you are seeking feedback more often than other employees Practical implication: performance management processes can be improved by making managers more aware of impression management techniques & encouraging them to focus on outcomes associated with employee feedback-seeking behavior
(Williams et al., 1999)
Two studies examined the effects of the feedback-seeking context on the feedback-seeking process. They found that a supportive, positive public environment (this was before the feedback environment) was as good as a private environment for feedback seeking. People were seeking feedback the same between these two conditions. Overall results suggest that the frequency of feedback seeking can be increased substantially in a public setting if the supportiveness of source and peer reactions are positive.
Medvedeff, Gregory, and Levy (2008)
employees were most likely to seek future feedback when they received negative process feedback, and least likely to seek feedback if they were given negative outcome feedback.
