Performance Feedback and Evaluation

Taylor, Fisher, & Ilgen (1984)

Added idea of control theory to Feedback research. Have a goal --> compare goal to reality --> Exert effort towards goal --> Has an effect on environment --> input (feedback)

Brown, Kraimer, & Bratton (2020)

Appraisal resources (Co-worker support, your PA experiences) is negatively related to PA cynicism which leads to turnover intentions and leader effectiveness

Anderson et al. (2015)

Attempt to reduce bias for those who score high on IAT. SFR, SM had opposite effects than expected. EMT had no effect. SFR and SM were helpful for the low bias group but not the high bias group (Implicit bias?)

Anseel, Strauss, & Lievens (2017)

Book chapter. Thinking about future work self can help absorb negative feedback in a positive way (somewhat different from FIT

Speer, Tenbrink, & Schwendeman (2019)

Calibration meetings are good for accountability, information sharing and accuracy. Both correlational and pre-post design (before and after calibration) show that calibration meetings are beneficial for these outcomes

Dahling et al. (2016)

Coaching skill (but not coaching frequency) predicts employee goal attainment. (Frequency is negative for low skilled coaches). Coaching skill is important

Adler et al. (2016)

Debate about whether we should get rid of performance ratings. Get rid side: The interventions we have tried are not working (BARS for instance): Rater training, Multiple raters do not help the problem Disagreement among raters Contextual effects Multiple, conflicting purposes Feedback is not accepted or acted upon Reasons for performance ratings vary and this causes problems Keep side: Businesses are not getting rid of ratings Too hard is no excuse for I-O Psychologists Some people quantify the person instead of the performance but that's a manager problem not a problem with PM itself Organizations can have all the benefits if they listen to the research we have The better question than should we get rid of performance ratings: How can we improve them?

Steelman, Levy, & Snell (2004)

Developed Feedback Environment Scale (FES) Facets: Source Credibility, Feedback Quality, Feedback Delivery, Favorable, Unfavorable Feedback Source Availability, Promotes Feedback Seeking External variables: Satisfaction with Feedback, Motivation to Use Feedback, Feedback Seeking Frequency, Leader-member Exchange Quality (LMX)

Linderbaum & Levy (2010)

Development of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). The FOS is made up of 4 dimensions: 1. Utility 2. Accountability 3. Social awareness 4. Feedback self-efficacy (Could look at the criteria for development)

Park et al. (2007)

Differences in goal orientation (mastery, prove, avoid) predict the values and costs perceptions of feedback which predicts the type of feedback sought (diagnostic, normative, Assurance)

Rasheed et al. (2015)

Dimensions of FO all relate to job performance Satisfaction with feedback mediates relationships between FO dimensions and job performance

Sheldon, Dunning, & Ames (2014)

Dunning-Kruger effect for EI feedback. Low performers thought they did well. And, when told they didn't do well, used the unrestrained escape measure (not accurate or irrelevant). Low scorers less interested in developing as well.

Williams et al. (1999)

Extension of Levy et al. (1995). Source supportiveness and positive peer reactions led to more feedback seeking.

Katz, Rauvola, & Rudolph (2021)

FE catch all (Meta analysis). FE is good for job performance, feedback seeking, commitment/satisfaction, psychological empowerment, burnout, etc. (22 supported hypotheses lol).

Anseel & Lievens (2007)

FE is related to job satisfaction 5 months later. This relationship is mediated by LMX

Sparr & Sonnentag (2008)

FE leads to feelings of helplessness and or control (over information and over decisions) which influence work outcomes (satisfaction, depression, anxiety, turnover)

Smither & Walker (2004)

Favorableness of narrative comments predicted improvement on scores. Employees who received a small number of negative comments improved more than those who received a large number of negative comments.

Kluger & DeNisi (1996)

Feedback Intervention Theory (FIT) (catch all) Hierarchy of high-level and low-level needs (Should focus on the low level (focus on the task not the person) Some interventions cause negative behaviors History began with knowledge of results training but that had inconsistent results. FIT seeks to fill these gaps Moderators: Cues (sign, frequency), Task characteristics (Novelty, complexity), Situational variables (threat to self-esteem, external rewards) Methodological variables (lab v. field)

Anseel, Lievens, & Schollaert (2009)

Feedback and reflection group performed much better on trial two of a task than any other group (feedback, no reflection; no for both; no feedback, reflection)

Bear et al. (2017)

Feedback has power dynamics that limit women's ability to rise to leadership positions. Not given as much negative feedback for instance

Dahling, Chau, & O'Malley (2012)

Feedback orientation and feedback environment predict feedback seeking (FO has a stronger relationship than FE). Feedback seeking is related to performance ratings and LMX

Gong et al. (2020)

Feedback seeking and monitoring (observing indirect cues from the environment) leads to feedback environment which leads to career adaptability (adjust on the job to new things) (I plan important things before I start) So, Monitoring/inquiry --> SFE --> Ability to adapt to new things and maybe like creative problem solving? (my words) Relationship between monitoring/inquiry and SFE is moderated by P-O Fit. Low inquiry/monitoring is particularly bad for SFE when there's low P-O fit. If there's fit, maybe you more naturally feel like there's a good environment. Hard to wrap brain around

Levy et al. (1995)

Feedback seeking and privacy. More likely to seek feedback when it was computer generated but they are more likely to modify behavior when feedback was given by the researcher. Concerned with initial intent to seek feedback and people changing their minds when they realize how private (or not) the feedback would be. Posited that high public self-consciousness would seek feedback more b/c feedback helps to reduce uncertainty about public self-image and you're focused on that. Found that public self-consciousness and social anxiety interact: low in PSC and low in SA = no FS; low PSC and high in SA = FS. Also found that self-esteem matters less in a private condition, and is strongest for semi-public and public contexts. Over time, FS falls for public contexts, but then increases over latter trials for semi-public and private conditions.

Ahmad, Klotz, & Bolino (2020)

Follower OCB leads to leader moral licensing. This is made worst when leader narcissism is high. Also made worse when leader identification with subordinates is high. Taking moral credit related to unethical behavior

Schleicher, Bauman, Sullivan, & Yim (2019)

Framework for PM (Ignore)

Gabriel, Koopman, Rosen, & Johnson (2017)

Helping acts lead to depletion moderated by prevention focus. Prevention focus leads to more depletion as they ruminate more over the costs of helping and invest more regulatory resources in their helping acts. Depletion leads to fewer future helping acts and more political acts

Gabriel et al. (2014)

High FE only good for high FO employees on psychological empowerment dimensions (meaning, competence, self-determination). Competence and self-determination were worse for employees in high FE but low on FO

Mero, Guidice, & Werner (2014)

Holding people accountable for performance improves performance. If you monitor something (task performance, OCB, etc.) performance in that category will improve. Correlational study using supervisor and subordinate ratings

Chawla, Gabriel, Dahling, & Patel (2016)

How to make people listen, learn from, and grow from performance feedback Cultivate supportive feedback environments Develop and foster employee coaching programs Attend to individual differences that influence effectiveness

Yam, Fehr, & Barnes (2014)

If employees use flex time to start later, they are looked down upon (perceived as lower in conscientiousness) and viewed as lower performers. Especially if the manager is a lark

Dahling & Whitaker (2016)

Image enhancement motive leads to feedback seeking but that relationship is moderated by political skill. More politically skilled leads to feedback seeking because they are more able to use that conversation to improve image. Feedback seeking is related to task performance

Heslin, VandeWalle, & Latham (2006)

Implicit person theory (IPT, entity v. incremental theorists) predicts coaching behaviors (incremental is better).

Zingoni & Byron (2017)

Incremental theorists are less threatened by negative feedback. For incremental, absolute feedback more valuable. No difference for threat. For entity, relative feedback more valuable but also more threatening

Heslin, Latham, & VandeWalle (2005)

Incrementalism predicts change in performance ratings. Incrementalists see past the original performance level and evaluate based on what they see now. Incrementalism classes are also effective at helping people see behavioral changes

Gregory & Levy (2011)

Individual consideration, FE and trust led to coaching quality but not transformational leadership. EI and IPT did not relate.

Chen, Lam, & Zhong (2007)

LMX leads to more feedback seeking but this is weaker for those high on empowerment. More feedback seeking leads to better in role performance

Borden, Levy, & Silverman (2017)

Leader arrogance leads to a poor FE. Relationship moderated by POS. FE related to outcomes: feedback seeking, morale, and burnout. FO moderates links to feedback seeking and morale but not burnout.

Chun, Lee, & Sosik (2018)

Leader behavior. Supervisors seek less feedback of qualified subordinates (protect self-image as they are usually driven by image enhancement motive). High LMX predicts asking for feedback. Leader feedback seeking is related to leader effectiveness. As leaders are typically driven by image enhancement, they seek to minimize the costs by seeking feedback from high LMX and low qualifications people. We should encourage leaders to make use of the knowledge and expertise of their other peers and subordinates

Qian, Liu, & Chen (2020)

Leader humility relates to feedback seeking. Mediated by psychological safety. Moderated by job insecurity. If you feel insecure, you want to increase your certainty

Karakowsky, Podolsky, & Elangovan (2020)

Leader humor leads to trust (affective and cognition-based). Affect trust leads to perceived costs and risks. Cognition-based trust leads to perceived value of feedback. Those two lead to FS

Tseng & Levy (2019)

Leaders and managers influence the system of performance appraisal. Especially the informal setting. Need to pay attention to the employee-manager relationship. Leadership process framework to PM.

Gong et al. (2017) In regards to learning orientation

Learning orientation means you seek self-negative and other positive feedback. Performance orientation means you seek self-positive and other negative feedback. Learning orientation is better for job performance

Spence & Keeping (2010)

Likelihood of being confronted by employee led to lower ratings (confrontational employees are not as good?). Managerial knowledge of inflation in ratings will predict ratings better than actual performance. More appraisal experience was related to lower average ratings. Things other than performance have a major impact on ratings

Kim, Atwater, Patel, & Smither (2016)

Longitudinal study of MSF. Multi-source feedback leads to greater ability and knowledge sharing which improves workforce productivity. MSF is especially helpful when it is used for both administrative, and developmental, processes

Lam, Wan, & Roussin (2016)

Longitudinal study of workers over a week-long period. OCBs can be enriching rather than depleting. This is especially true when high role ambiguity (can't get meaningfulness from tasks so you get it from OCBs)

Smith, Craig, Wallace, & Jordan (2016)

Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy negatively related to supervisor ratings and helping behavior. Promotion focus for the narcissist makes this worse

Koch, D'Mello, & Sackett (2015)

Males are more prone to gender role congruity bias when rating others. This effect also stronger for male-dominated jobs. Bias is lower when raters are accountable for their decisions. Women show less gender role congruity bias in their ratings

Schaerer et al. (2018)

Managers believe that they are more clear when giving negative feedback than they actually are. Gap in understanding is wider the more negative the feedback is. Can be made more clear if people are told to be clear or if incentives are given for clarity.

Steelman & Wolfeld (2016)

Managers high on FO are more effective coaches and make a better FE.

Heslin & VandeWalle (2011)

Managers' IPT related to employee perceptions of procedural justice which is then related to employee OCBs and Org commitment

Rotolo et al. (2018)

Many new practices do not heed the advice of IO (AIO). We should focus our energies on expanding areas and frontier topics instead of focusing on methodological minutiae

Donia, Johns, & Raja (2016)

Measured self-reports and supervisor reports of OCBs. Supervisors can tell the motivations of employees who do OCBs (impression management, helping)

Motro & Ellis (2017)

Men are punished more for crying during PA than women (it's viewed as atypical)

Heilman & Chen (2005)

Men's altruism improves ratings but not for women. Women are viewed as needing to be altruistic or they are punished

Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume (2009)

Meta-analysis of OCBs. OCBs are related to a host of outcomes including ratings of performance, turnover, customer satisfaction, absenteeism, and organizational effectiveness

Anseel et al. (2015)

Meta-analysis of feedback seeking. Tenure and age negatively related to feedback seeking. FO and learning orientation positively related. Transformational leadership and LMX positively related. Feedback seeking is positively related to job satisfaction

Hekman et al. (2017)

Minorities who champion diversity are viewed as less competent and are then rated lower

Speer (2018)

Narrative ratings have a lot to say above and beyond numerical ratings (Predict above and beyond too). Especially helpful at reducing restriction of range.

Kim & Kim (2020)

Negative feedback has effects on creativity. Bottom up (subordinate to supervisor) feedback is positive for creativity while lateral or top down feedback hinders creativity (because they feel threatened by the negative feedback) (Used supervisor ratings of creativity)

Motro, Comer, & Lenaghan (2021)

Negative feedback leads to sadness which lowers performance. Sadness to performance moderated by grit and feedback self-efficacy

Vandenberghe et al. (2019)

Newcomers seek feedback less and less over time. As this happens, organizational commitment also decreases. As this happens, turnover intentions increase. As this happens, turnover increases

Hoffman, Blaire, Meriac, & Woehr (2007)

OCB is distinct from task performance

Bolino, Hsiung, Harvey, & LePine (2015)

OCB leads to Citizenship fatigue which leads to fewer future OCBs. POS, Team member exchange, & citizenship pressure (low is better) moderate the relationship between OCB and fatigue.

Koopman, Lanaj, & Scott (2016)

OCB leads to positive affect but also less work goal progress. These things lead to well-being. Relationship between OCB and positive affect is moderated by promotion focus (more is stronger). Relationship between OCB and work goal progress is moderated by prevention focus (high has stronger negative effect)

Yam, Klotz, He, & Reynolds (2017)

OCB leads to psychological entitlement. This relationship is moderated by external motivation such that it is stronger when the person is external motivation. Psychological entitlement leads to CWBs (Moral licensing theory)

Rapp, Bachrach, & Rapp (2013)

OCBs and have a curvilinear relationship with task performance. There isn't always enough time to do a lot of both. This relationship is moderated by time management

LePine, Erez, & Johnson (2002)

OCBs are a latent construct rather than an aggregate one. No difference in dimensions of OCBs

Lin, Savani, & Ilies (2019)

OCBs are better for positive affect and subsequent helping when they are autonomously decided upon instead of controlled. With high autonomy, and high citizenship pressure, highest effect on affect.

Organ (1997)

OCBs are not defined well. Discretionary? Not rewarded? Contextualized performance may be a better name but it's boring. So call it OCB and define it as contextualized performance

Kraimer et al. (2011)

Organizational support for development (OSD) and perceived career opportunity interact to predict turnover. LMX and career mentoring related to OSD.

He et al. (2021)

PFP programs encourage helping behavior when performance is subjectively measured but make no difference when it is objectively measured

Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, & Moye (2015)

PM is a broken system. Need regular, informal feedback more than a few individual instances.

Hunt (2016)

PM is important. Should be asking how to improve ratings not thinking of getting rid of them altogether. It's basically impossible to eliminate ratings altogether (What methods are effective/ineffective).

Grundmann, Scheibe, & Epstude (2021)

People often ignore negative feedback in an attempt to feel better and that can sometimes be a functional thing. After you receive negative feedback, which is more salient? Your goal to improve or your goal to feel better? Posit that disengagement may not always be bad. Nevertheless, we should attempt to find ways to make improvement the more salient goal above feeling better. That way you'll have more feedback engagement

Zhao et al. (2020)

Performance ratings made by core members are better than ratings made by peripheral members. Ratee GMA and Conscientiousness is more correlated to rating accuracy from core members

Rosen, Levy, & Hall (2006)

Poor FE leads to organizational politics (unclear roles) which is bad for morale and consequently job performance

Simon et al. (2020)

Providing negative feedback is detrimental to the provider if that person is high on empathy. High on empathy felt distress and lower attentiveness which lowered leader effectiveness. Low on empathy had opposite effect

Baltes, Bauer, & Frensch (2007)

Racist people rate blacks as lower performers Structured Free Recall eliminates difference between ratings of biased and non-biased raters for black candidates (Explicit bias?)

Speer (2020)

Rater GMA is related to rating convergence with other raters Ran a correlational study

Bowler, Paul, & Halbesleben (2019)

Ratings of motives for OCB. LMX with supervisor related to positive motives for OCB (self-rated) LMX related to positive motives for OCB (leader-rated) LMX related to negative motives for OCB (co-worker rated)

DeRue & Wellman (2009)

Relates to FIT. Developmental challenges have a diminishing return on leadership progress. Cognitive resources are drawn toward the task when there's an overload. Feedback moderates relationship such that diminishing returns are lessened with high feedback availability.

Thompson, Bergeron, & Bolino (2020)

Relationship between POS and OCB is stronger for men than for women. Women feel like they need to anyway

Levy, Silverman, & Cavanaugh (2015)

Responds to Pulakos, Hanson, Arad, & Moye (2015). To improve PM, Practitioners need to pay attention to researchers and researchers need to study helpful topics. Big scientist-practitioner gap as illustrated by Pulakos et al (2015)

Landy & Farr (1980)

Review of Performance ratings: Focus on cognitive processes Anchored scales tend to be good. Rater training tends to be good Need more cognitive process research

Levy, Tseng, Rosen, & Lueke (2017)

Review of inaccurate/misleading comments about PM. We should get rid of ratings. Everyone hates ratings. etc. PM is expensive but it may be better if its frequent and informal. Enhance motivation and accountability for better ratings. Give instant feedback if possible. Incorporate more forward looking feedback

Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin (1993)

Review of process model since Landy & Farr (1980). We've sufficiently investigated process models of performance ratings Emphasize that we need to shift to other elements such as the investigation of work group, and organizational factors as well as the design of appraisal systems

Levy & Williams (2004)

Review paper of the effects of the social environment on PA. Landy & Farr: look at cognitive. Ilgen, Barnes-Farrell, & McKellin: Look at social variables. Distal factors: Culture, economic conditions These things will impact the type of PM systems an organization will implement Process Proximal Variables Rater Issues: Affect (positive mood = higher rating), motivation (Not always about accuracy), Individual differences, Rating purpose, accountability, attributions (is X behavior due to Z or Y?) Ratee Issues: Appraisal reactions, LMX, Impression management, FE Structural Proximal Variables Multi-source feedback, PA purpose, Rater training There are a lot of social aspects of PA

Dachner et al. (2021)

Review paper. Employees need to be active in their own development. Formal development programs may not be sufficient.

Schleicher et al. (2019)

Review paper. Systems approach to PM. Inputs lead to throughput which lead to output. Inputs: Givens such as the environment, resources and strategy Throughput: Formal processes, informal processes and individuals all contribute to the PM system tasks Outputs: Include performance ratings, generated and delivered feedback, development planning, administrative recommendations (promotions etc.) and others PM Tasks: setting performance expectations, observing employee performance, integrating performance information, the rendering of a formal summative performance evaluation, generating and delivering performance feedback, the formal performance review meeting, and performance coaching

Lance, Hoffman, Gentry, & Baranik (2008)

Review paper: Multi-source feedback. Feedback from different sources may reflect different aspects of performance. Ran statistical analyses to show that different raters are assessing different (although equally valid) aspects of performance

Peng & Lin (2016)

SFE leads to LMX which leads to OCBs and CWBs. Opposite direction than Steelman et al. (LMX leads to SFE)

Dahling, Gabriel, & MacGowan (2017)

SFE profiles (high, moderate, low) (People tend to be high or low on all FE elements) High LMX correlated with high SFE

Gong et al. (2017)

SFE related to psychological empowerment which is related to burnout. Relationship is moderated by FO.

Sherf & Morrison (2020)

Self-efficacy does not always lead to seeking feedback more. If you're high on self-efficacy, you value feedback less so you seek it less. But, if you're able to take the perspective of others then self-efficacy does improve feedback seeking. Mediated by perceived value of feedback. You value it more if you can take the perspective of others and have high self-efficacy

Wang et al. (2014)

Socioemotional Selectivity Theory: time from birth v. time till death. Relationships between favorable feedback/feedback delivery and feedback reaction is stronger for older people Relationship between feedback quality and feedback reaction stronger for younger people

Stauffer & Buckley (2005)

Some people have argued that there isn't a clear link between ratings and race. But there is some bias when you break things down by the rater's race.

Spence & Keeping (2011)

Sometimes raters consider factors other than accuracy in their ratings (Politics, Impression Management, Leniency, Motivation (what is the goal of the rater?))

Oc, Bashshur, & Moore (2015)

Subordinates reactions to fairness of pay influences later payout distributions. If given negative feedback, leaders feel guilty and give out more. Otherwise they take more for themselves

Gorman et al. (2017)

Survey of top organizations and their PA practices. (Many do not like their PA practices even those high up on the chain) Only 3/4 of orgs train managers how to do PM 23% use 360 degree feedback 22% reported that the PM system was somewhat or extremely unfair

Dahling, O'Malley, & Chau (2015)

The motive for feedback seeking matters. SFE leads to instrumental and image motives for seeking feedback. Instrumental motive leads to feedback seeking. Feedback seeking is related to task performance but this is moderated by the motive. (image motive has a weaker relationship

Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor (1979)

Three factors to feedback effectiveness Source of feedback Actual feedback message Feedback recipient

London & Smither (2002)

Three stages Receive feedback and have emotional reaction Mindfully process feedback Take action on feedback Added idea of Feedback environment

Skarlicki & Turner (2014)

Victim derogation: reports of injustice against candidates will lower their ratings. This is moderated by people's belief in a just world

Heilman, Manzi, & Caleo (2019)

When people improve their behaviors, men are viewed more positively than women. When people decline in performance, women are viewed more negatively than men

Meinecke, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Kauffeld (2017)

Within a PA conversation, Task related statements (e.g., defining performance standards) lead to passive reactions. Relation oriented statements (e.g., offering praise) lead to active engagement. We should help the subjects of PAs to be engaged and active in the process