59 - uw-stout
Post on 29-Jan-2022
13 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
2
Baldwin, Andrew, J. The Influence of Feedback Orientation on Feedback Environment as it
Relates to Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions
Abstract
To date, researchers have studied the influence of an individual’s feedback environment and
personal characteristics in receiving feedback, but very little research has been conducted
incorporating both. The current study sought to address this gap by examining feedback
orientation as a moderator of perceived supervisor and coworker feedback environment and job
satisfaction/turnover intentions. Analyses were conducted using responses from 119 adults
employed in diverse jobs and industries. Results from hierarchical multiple regression analyses
indicated that participants with high feedback orientation and high perceived supervisor feedback
environment had higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of turnover intentions than
participants with low feedback orientation. Perceived coworker feedback environment and job
satisfaction/turnover intentions were not moderated by feedback orientation. These findings
support previous research suggesting that perceived supervisor feedback environment is more
influential than perceived coworker feedback environment (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006).
3
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I sincerely thank my advisor Dr. Alicia Stachowski for her superior
guidance and insight throughout the process of completing my thesis. Her expertise and support
proved to be invaluable from start to finish. I trust that through her supervision my final product
is much stronger than it would have been with any other advisor. In addition to my advisor I also
thank my thesis committee: Dr. Amy Lane and Dr. Kat Lui. Their support and critical
examination of my thesis was much appreciated.
I also thank my family for the support provided to me during the completion of this
project, namely my beautiful wife Hannah. Her willingness to go above and beyond in taking
care of and entertaining our toddler for countless hours made finishing this project possible.
Additionally, her motivation and encouragement helped keep me stay on track. Lastly, I thank
the Lord who gave me the energy and stamina needed for long nights, as well as a clear mind to
write efficiently.
4
Table of Contents
................................................................................................................................................... Page
Abstract.. ..........................................................................................................................................2
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................6
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................7
Chapter I: Literature Review ..........................................................................................................8
Theoretical Background ....................................................................................................8
Effectiveness of Feedback ................................................................................................9
Dimensions of Feedback .................................................................................................10
Feedback Environment ...................................................................................................15
Individual Differences ....................................................................................................18
Chapter II: Methodology................................................................................................................22
Participants and Procedure ..............................................................................................22
Measures .........................................................................................................................23
Chapter III: Results ........................................................................................................................26
Chapter IV: Discussion ..................................................................................................................29
Practical Implications......................................................................................................32
Limitations and Future Research ....................................................................................33
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................33
References ......................................................................................................................................35
Appendix A: Feedback Environment Scale ...................................................................................44
Appendix B: Feedback Orientation Scale ......................................................................................48
Appendix C: Job Satisfaction Scale ...............................................................................................50
5
Appendix D: Turnover Intentions Scale ........................................................................................51
6
List of Tables
Table 1: Individual Characteristics as a Percentage of the Population ..........................................52
Table 2: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Overall Scale
Scores ..............................................................................................................................53
Table 3: Regression Analysis Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and
Supervisor Feedback Environment on Job Satisfaction..................................................54
Table 4: Regression Analysis Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and
Coworker Feedback Environment on Job Satisfaction ...................................................55
Table 5: Regression Analyses Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and
Supervisor Feedback Environment on Turnover Intentions ...........................................56
Table 6: Regression Analyses Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and
Coworker Feedback Environment on Turnover Intentions ............................................57
7
List of Figures
Figure 1. Analysis for feedback orientation (FOS) as a moderator of the relationship between
supervisor feedback environment (S-FES) and job satisfaction. ....................................58
Figure 2. Analysis for feedback orientation (FOS) as a moderator of the relationship between
supervisor feedback environment (S-FES) and turnover intentions. ..............................59
8
Chapter I: Literature Review
As the business climate continues to become more competitive (Baker, 2010), companies
are now more than ever seeking to maximize employee capital (Carmeli & Weisberg, 2006).
One strategy to accomplish this goal has been to implement formal feedback strategies (Baker,
2010). Feedback has been widely regarded as a valuable (Van den Bossche, Segers, & Jansen,
2010) and important variable in training design (Martocchio & Webster, 1992) and the coaching
process (Gregory, Levy, & Jeffers, 2008). One reason for this is that feedback has the potential
to improve performance by increasing learning and motivation (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979;
Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback has also been shown to impact an employee’s job
satisfaction (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008). The current study sought to better understand the
relationship between feedback, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions by examining individual
differences pertaining to the reception of feedback.
Theoretical Background
Underpinnings for the importance of feedback can be linked to several theories regarding
human behavior (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), three of which include social cognitive theory, control
theory, and feedback intervention theory. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986; 1991) focuses
on self-regulation as the primary mechanism for why humans behave as they do. Within social
cognitive theory, feedback serves as a resource for which individuals can compare prior behavior
to internal goals (Bandura, 1986; 1991; Wofford & Goodwin, 1990). Said differently, feedback
provides important indicators of how one is performing to set standards (Lam, DeRue, Karam, &
Hollenbeck, 2011). Control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982) also relies on the use of feedback,
positing that feedback allows individuals to regulate the amount of effort needed to obtain
desired outcomes. The feedback intervention theory (FIT) states, in part, that feedback identifies
9
gaps between performance and goals (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Thus, if
feedback is directed appropriately, recipients are able to close or reduce the gap by focusing their
attention on improving performance. Each one of these theories outlines briefly the impact
effective feedback can have on behavior. In other words, the type of feedback provided is
important. While individuals providing feedback assume it is effective and will be acted upon by
the recipient, research suggests this is not always the case (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000).
Effectiveness of Feedback
Kluger and DeNisi (1996) conducted an exhaustive meta-analysis on the effect of
feedback interventions on performance. The meta-analysis consisted of 131 articles and the
prevalence of ineffective feedback was quite high. They found that feedback interventions only
had a modest positive effect on performance. Additionally, more than one third of the feedback
interventions negatively impacted performance. The Kluger and DeNisi meta-analysis highlights
the need to carefully examine the feedback process. Furthermore, results from this study
encapsulate what several researchers suspected: the relationship between feedback and
performance improvement is not direct and simple (Balcazar, Hopkins, & Suarez, 1985; Ilgen et
al., 1979; Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter, 1984). Feedback holds the potential or presents an
opportunity to be used by the recipient as a tool to improve performance, but in of itself is
neutral (Latham & Locke, 1991). While this point may seem rather intuitive, early researchers of
the subject held a different view.
Feedback has been studied for more than a century (e.g., Brand, 1905; Judd, 1905;
Wright, 1906). Many of the first researchers who studied feedback found mixed results
regarding the effectiveness of feedback, but neglected to highlight instances in which feedback
was detrimental to subsequent performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Therefore, feedback was
10
viewed as having a causal impact on performance, which led to an uncritical view of the
feedback process, culminating in Ammons’ (1956) review of feedback interventions (Ilgen et al.,
1979; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). However, due to continued inconsistent findings (Locke, 1967),
researchers began questioning the relationship between feedback and performance improvement
(Ilgen et al., 1979; Salmoni et al., 1984). Consequently, researchers examined various aspects of
the feedback process to better clarify what constitutes effective feedback. Specifically,
researchers have studied the dimensions of feedback (Becker & Klimoski, 1989; Kluger &
DeNisi, 1996; Martocchio & Webster, 1992), the feedback environment (Ashford & Cummings,
1983; Herold & Parsons, 1985; Ilgen et al., 1979), and individual differences in the reception of
feedback (Cawley, et al., 1998; Gregory et al., 2008; Herold & Fedor, 2003).
Dimensions of Feedback
Van den Bossche et al. (2010) identified four main dimensions of feedback: 1) sign –
positive or negative, 2) frequency, 3) source, and 4) helpfulness. Each one of these dimensions
influences the effectiveness of feedback and will be described in turn. While researchers
continually make clearer the picture of effective feedback, it is also being discovered that this
picture looks different, in different situations.
Sign. Feedback sign has commonly been dichotomized as either positive or negative
(Becker & Klimoski, 1989). Positive feedback highlights above average performance, whereas
negative feedback indicates inadequate performance (Martocchio & Webster, 1992). Research
findings largely support positive feedback as being more effective than negative feedback. For
example, findings from Martocchio and Webster indicated superior test performance in
microcomputer software training from individuals receiving positive, as opposed to negative,
feedback. In some instances, negative feedback may be less developmentally useful because
11
recipients respond defensively (Ilgen, Mitchell, & Frederickson, 1981) and/or perceive the
information to be inaccurate (Ilgen et al., 1979). However, other research suggests that feedback
sign is not a significant modifier of effectiveness (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000; Kluger & DeNisi,
1996).
To better understand the role of feedback sign in subsequent performance, Steelman and
Rutowski (2004) examined moderators of responses to negative feedback. Specifically, they
measured the impact of source credibility, feedback quality, and feedback delivery. Surveys
were sent to 698 employees at two manufacturing companies, with 405 employees completing
the survey. Although these variables did not moderate the negative feedback-satisfaction
relationship, the abovementioned variables did moderate how motivated employees were to
implement negative feedback. In other words, Steelman and Rutowski found that unfavorable
feedback generally needed to be delivered from a credible source, be of high quality, and
tactfully presented for respondents to be motivated to change their behavior.
Frequency. A second dimension of feedback identified by Van den Bossche et al.
(2010) is frequency. Feedback frequency refers not only to how often feedback is given, but also
how much (Becker & Klimoski, 1989). Stemming from the early thinking of feedback as wholly
beneficial, the belief that greater amounts of feedback lead to better results was established and
propagated (Ilgen et al., 1979; Salmoni et al., 1984). Similar to feedback sign though, the impact
of feedback quantity on ensuing performance is more complex than initially presumed.
Most recent to challenge the “more is better” assumption was Lam et al. (2011). Lam
and colleagues went a step further than previous research, and demonstrated a curvilinear
relationship linking frequency of feedback and consequent performance. They found that
performance improves with more frequent feedback until a certain “tipping point” is reached,
12
after which additional feedback proportionally hinders performance. One proposed explanation
for this finding draws from the resource allocation theory (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). This
theory states that a large amount of feedback cognitively overwhelms an individual, especially
when learning a new task.
Additional noteworthy findings from Lam et al. (2011) include the roles of mediating and
moderating variables in the relationship between feedback frequency and task performance.
Specifically, these authors found task effort mediated the curvilinear effect, while an individual’s
positive affect moderated the impact of feedback frequency on task performance. The
curvilinear relationship was most exaggerated, when during the task, participants were
experiencing low levels of positive affect (i.e., not seeking to maintain positive feelings). The
authors also suggest that other variables, such as organizational context, may influence the
relationship between feedback frequency and subsequent performance.
Source. Van den Bossche et al. (2010) identified source as a third dimension of
feedback. There are three areas from which individuals receive feedback (Herold & Greller,
1977; Ilgen et al., 1979). One of the areas is from the individuals themselves (i.e., self-
feedback). Reliance upon self-feedback is determined by variables such as relevant experience
and self-confidence (Ilgen et al., 1979). Another domain of feedback comes from the
environment; two forms of which are inherent and augmented (Ilgen et al., 1979). The third area
from which individuals receive feedback is from other individuals. Research on feedback from
other individuals typically includes peers, coworkers, and supervisors (Van den Bossche et al.,
2010).
Researchers have attempted to pinpoint which source of feedback is most effective, but
have found mixed results. For example, Becker and Klimoski (1989) found feedback from
13
supervisors to be more highly related to performance than feedback from peers. Conversely,
DeNisi, Randolph, and Blencoe (1982) and Maurer, Mitchell, and Barbeite (2002) found peer
feedback to be the most influential source for perceived job performance, motivation, and
cohesiveness and attitudes toward a feedback intervention training program, respectively. Rather
than the source itself, some researchers have highlighted the importance of source credibility as a
determinant of how well individuals respond to feedback and their willingness to implement
feedback (Gregory et al., 2008; Ilgen et al., 1979; Steelman & Rutkowski, 2004). Once again,
these findings underscore the highly dynamic nature of feedback due to individual characteristics
of the respondent.
Another area of source feedback which has emerged as an important area for
investigation is multisource feedback (Van den Bossche et al., 2010). Multisource feedback is
defined as receiving feedback from more than one source (e.g., supervisor, coworkers, and
subordinates), and is commonly employed by businesses as a performance management tool
(Church & Allen, 1997). Smither, London, and Reilly (2005) presented a meta-analysis of
longitudinal studies examining the extent to which recipients of multisource feedback improved
their performance, and put forth a theoretical model on how to improve the effectiveness of
multisource feedback. The authors found support for validity across different raters.
Furthermore, multisource feedback positively impacted performance, but effects were small. In
their theoretical model, the authors suggest several mediating variables impacting the extent to
which recipients’ of feedback improve. Three of these variables include receptiveness to
feedback, a perceived need for change, and goal setting tendencies. One proposed explanation
for the effectiveness of multisource feedback is because it increases the richness of the feedback,
providing more information from which to change future behavior (Hoffman & Woehr, 2009).
14
Helpfulness. The fourth and final dimension of feedback highlighted by Van den
Bossche et al. (2010) is helpfulness. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) studied the helpfulness of
feedback in depth, and proposed the feedback intervention theory as mentioned previously. The
FIT rests upon five interdependent assumptions. The first assumption is that when present,
individuals seek to reduce the gap between feedback and a particular goal. The second
assumption is that goals are arranged hierarchically as the following processes (highest to
lowest): meta-task, task-motivation, and task-learning. Meta-task processes focus on goals of
self-concept, while task-motivation processes focus on the task performance directly. The lowest
level, task-learning processes, focuses on specific actions in completing a certain task. The third
assumption posits that individuals have limited amounts of attention, so behavior will only be
changed when attention is focused on the corresponding gap. In other words, the level at which
feedback is pointed contributes directly to its effectiveness (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000).
The fourth assumption is that feedback is typically directed at the second level of the
hierarchy (i.e., task motivation). Naturally one might suspect the highest level of the hierarchy
processes would be the best place to direct feedback. However, DeNisi and Kluger (2000) state
task-motivation processes are the most effective place to direct feedback, because the individual
is most focused on reducing the gap between performance and goals. Focusing feedback at the
highest or lowest levels will shift attention away from the actual task, decreasing the likelihood
of performance improvements (DeNisi & Kluger). The fifth and final assumption of the FIT is
that the locus of attention is altered by feedback, and thus changes behavior.
In addition to focusing on task-motivation processes, other considerations are necessary
to provide helpful feedback. For example, for feedback to be effective, it needs to be recipient-
tailored, relevant, accurate, timely, specific, and understandable (Baker, 2010). Furthermore,
15
feedback ought to take into consideration the recipient’s length of employment and generation
(Baker, 2010). DeNisi and Kluger (2000) also state that feedback needs to be presented
respectfully and indicate how to reach specific goals, potentially by creating a goal-setting plan.
Feedback Environment
Although sign, frequency, source, and helpfulness are necessary to consider when
evaluating the effectiveness of feedback, researchers have also noted the importance of viewing
feedback in the context in which it is provided (London & Smither, 2002). That is to say,
feedback is not an isolated event, and, is thus influenced by factors other than the content of the
message (Fisher, 1979). Furthermore, individuals are not only passive recipients of feedback,
but also seekers of feedback (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Herold and Parsons (1985) were the
first to systematically evaluate an organization’s feedback environment by developing the Job
Feedback Survey (JFS), which measured the amount of different types of feedback available
from supervisors. The JFS was a step in the right direction, but has been criticized for too
narrowly defining an organization’s feedback environment (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004).
To address the gap in adequately measuring an organization’s feedback environment,
Steelman et al. (2004) developed the Feedback Environment Scale (FES). Their
conceptualization of feedback environment is much more comprehensive than Herold and
Parsons’ (1985). In essence, Steelman and colleagues (2004) view feedback environment as the
level of organizational support for the feedback process. As a result, the FES captures a more
complete picture of factors important to the feedback process. The FES pertains to two sources
of feedback: supervisor and coworkers. Steelman et al. recognize there are other sources of
feedback, but suggest that these two sources may be the most practical to assess. The FES
consists of seven facets: 1) source credibility, 2) feedback quality, 3) feedback delivery, 4)
16
frequency of favorable feedback, 5) frequency of unfavorable feedback, 6) source availability,
and 7) promoting feedback seeking.
Steelman et al. (2004) define the different facets of the FES as follows. Source
credibility refers to the expertise and knowledge of the recipient’s position and performance.
Additionally, for source credibility to be high, the recipient must trust that the source will
provide accurate information. In order for feedback quality to be high, it needs to be consistent,
specific, and removed from emotion and moodiness. Feedback delivery relates to the intention
for providing feedback, and is underscored by the source being considerate. The number of
earned compliments from the feedback source is what comprises frequency of favorable
feedback. Conversely, frequency of unfavorable feedback consists of the number of criticisms
and expressions of dissatisfaction from the source that the feedback recipient deems warranted.
Frequency of favorable and unfavorable feedback does not translate into “liked” or “did not like”
the feedback, but focuses on the perceived accuracy of each type of feedback. Source
availability is defined as the amount of contact the recipient has with the source, and how easily
feedback is obtained from the source. Representing the view that individuals are active seekers
of feedback, the level at which an individual is encouraged to seek out feedback defines the last
dimension, which is referred to as promotes feedback seeking.
Therefore, feedback environment as outlined by Steelman et al. (2004) incorporates not
only contextual components of the feedback process (e.g., source availability; Meyer, 1991), but
also includes various dimensions of feedback itself (e.g., helpfulness; Herold, Liden, &
Leatherwood, 1987). One of the main benefits of viewing feedback environment in this way is
that it closely resembles the feedback process of current organizations (Steelman & Rutkowski,
2004). The FES has been utilized by researchers extensively (e.g., Anseel & Lievens, 2007;
17
Dahling & O’Malley, 2011), and feedback environment has been linked to employee
performance and well-being. Specifically, feedback environment positively correlates with task
performance (Dahling, Chau, & O’Malley, 2012), morale (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006),
organizational citizenship behavior (Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004), and job satisfaction (Sparr &
Sonnentag, 2008). Sparr and Sonnentag (2008) also demonstrated that feedback environment
negatively relates to negative affect at work and turnover intentions.
The present study seeks to add to the current literature by further developing an
understanding of the role individual differences play in the feedback process as it relates to job
satisfaction and turnover intentions. While several studies have examined the relationship
between supervisor feedback environment and various outcome variables, very few have focused
on the role of an individual’s coworker feedback environment. Coworker feedback environment
has been largely excluded from examination for a variety of reasons. Several examples include,
coworker feedback not accurately portraying organization intent (Peng, Tseng, & Lee, 2011),
coworker feedback providing less opportunity for organizational opportunity (Anseel & Lievens,
2007; Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004) and criterion ratings being made by supervisors (Dahling et
al., 2012).
One exception is Rosen et al. (2006), who studied the influence of perception of politics
on supervisor and coworker feedback. The authors found supervisor and coworker feedback to
positively correlate with job satisfaction. Another key finding from their study was that
supervisor and coworker feedback environments were correlated, but not highly, suggesting
respondents adequately discriminated between the two sources of feedback. Incorporating both
sources of feedback in the current study, I expect to replicate the findings of Rosen and
colleagues (2006). Supervisor feedback environment has also been shown to negatively
18
correlate with turnover intentions (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008). I expect to replicate this finding,
and extend it to include coworker feedback environment. Additionally, I aim to replicate
findings that job satisfaction and turnover intentions are negatively correlated (Sparr &
Sonnentag, 2008).
H1a: Supervisor and coworker feedback environment are moderately and positively
correlated.
H1b: Job satisfaction and turnover intentions are negatively correlated.
H2a: Supervisor feedback environment is positively correlated with job satisfaction.
H2b: Coworker feedback environment is positively correlated with job satisfaction.
H3a: Supervisor feedback environment is negatively correlated with turnover intentions.
H3b: Coworker feedback environment is negatively correlated with turnover intentions.
Individual Differences
In addition to studying variables that influence how feedback is provided, researchers
have also studied individual differences as they relate to the reception of feedback. The
importance of individual differences has been recognized for some time (Ashford & Cummings,
1983; Ilgen et al., 1979). Researchers have attempted to measure individual differences using
broad personality characteristics such as self-esteem (Bernichon, Cook, & Brown, 2003), self-
efficacy (Brown, Ganesan, & Challagalla, 2001), and goal orientation (VandeWalle, 2003;
VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). However, findings have been inconsistent in predicting
specific behaviors pertaining to the feedback process, for instance feedback seeking (Herold &
Fedor, 1998).
Seeking to develop the dynamic view of feedback, London and Smither (2002)
established the concept of feedback orientation, which is the degree of openness an individual
19
has toward feedback. London and Smither conceptualize feedback orientation as a multifaceted
construct consisting of one’s comfort level with receiving feedback, and the inclination to seek,
process, and act upon feedback purposefully. An individual with a high feedback orientation
will enjoy receiving feedback, seek feedback, process feedback reflectively, be aware of how
others perceive them, value feedback, and have a sense of obligation to act upon feedback to
improve future performance. London and Smither also theorize feedback orientation to
positively correlate with several personality and individual differences constructs. Specifically,
individuals with high feedback orientation should be open to new experiences, possess a mastery
orientation, and have high self-monitoring and public self-consciousness.
To build upon the theoretical foundation established by London and Smither (2002),
Linderbaum and Levy (2010) created the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). The FOS consists
of four dimensions: utility, accountability, social awareness, and feedback self-efficacy. Utility
refers to how important individuals perceive feedback to be in achieving their goals. The
dimension of accountability is defined as the degree to which an individual feels obligated to
respond to feedback. Social awareness refers to an individual’s awareness and sensitivity of
others’ views by using feedback. The fourth dimension, feedback self-efficacy, is an
individual’s level of confidence to appropriately respond to feedback.
Linderbaum and Levy (2010) were also able to demonstrate reliability and construct
validity for the FOS. Specifically, they found feedback orientation to positively correlate with
several variables, such as intentions to use feedback, self-monitoring, perceived benefits of
development, and feedback seeking. Furthermore, the dimensions of the FOS were
demonstrated to represent unique aspects of feedback orientation by accounting for variance
above and beyond one another, as well as other individual difference variables. Dahling et al.
20
(2012) provided additional construct validity evidence by finding feedback orientation to
positively correlate with feedback seeking behavior and emotional intelligence. Dahling et al.
(2012) also found supervisor feedback environment to positively correlate with feedback
orientation. The current study seeks to replicate this finding, and add to it by also examining the
relationship between coworker feedback environment and feedback orientation.
H4a: Supervisor feedback environment is positively related to feedback orientation.
H4b: Coworker feedback environment is positively related to feedback orientation.
While researchers have examined the role of several mediating variables related to
feedback environment and affective job outcomes (Peng, Tseng, & Lee, 2011; Rosen et al.,
2006; Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008), it is possible that a person’s feedback orientation (individual
difference variable) moderates the relationship between feedback environment and job
satisfaction/turnover. The present paper addresses this gap by adopting London and Smither’s
(2002) view of feedback as a person-environment interaction. That is, while how feedback is
presented is important, the recipient has choice over how, or if, he or she acts upon that
feedback. Specifically, this study examines the relationship between feedback environment and
feedback orientation as they relate to job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Feedback
orientation is thought to interact with feedback environment because not all people are receptive
to feedback (London & Smither, 2002). For example, an individual with low feedback
orientation may not appreciate an open environment for seeking out feedback and a supportive
environment for acting on feedback as much as an individual with high feedback orientation.
Therefore, individuals’ openness to receiving feedback is likely to influence how satisfied they
are in their jobs and also their intentions of looking for a different job.
21
H5a: Individuals who perceive a high supervisor feedback environment and possess
high feedback orientation have higher levels of job satisfaction than those with a high
supervisor feedback environment and low feedback orientation.
H5b: Individuals who perceive a high coworker feedback environment and possess high
feedback orientation have higher levels of job satisfaction than those with a high
coworker feedback environment and low feedback orientation.
H6a: Individuals who perceive a high supervisor feedback environment and possess high
feedback orientation have lower levels of turnover intentions than those with a high
supervisor feedback environment and low feedback orientation.
H6b: Individuals who perceive a high coworker feedback environment and possess high
feedback orientation have lower levels of turnover intentions than those with a high
coworker feedback environment and low feedback orientation.
22
Chapter II: Methodology
Participants and Procedure
One hundred and sixty-nine individuals responded to a request for participation in an
online survey via the social media websites of LinkedIn and Facebook. The survey was posted
on several research-related LinkedIn groups, namely, American Evaluation Association,
Association for Institutional Research, ETS Educational Measurement, Psychometrics and
Research, Measurement and Research Methodology, Research, Methodology, and Statistics in
the Social Sciences, SIOP – The Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and Research Methods and Analytics. The survey was open
for one month (specifically from September 23rd to October 29th, 2012) and was administered
using Qualtrics survey software. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0. Snowball
sampling was utilized, in that those who completed the survey were requested to forward the
survey web link onto others. In order to qualify to take the survey, participants needed to meet
three criteria: (a) not currently enrolled as a student, (b) currently working 30 or more
hours/week in one position, and (c) have a supervisor and coworkers. Students were excluded
from participation because it was assumed that students may be in school to obtain a different
position and therefore, intentions of turnover would be artificially high.
Upon entering the survey, participants were presented with an informed consent
statement. Once individuals agreed to participate and qualified to continue the study,
participants answered a series of demographic questions. Participants then completed the
following measures in random order: perceptions of supervisor and coworker feedback, feedback
orientation, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Measures were randomized to ensure an
approximately equal completion rate among the measures, due to the potential for attrition. After
23
finishing the survey, participants were thanked for their time, and asked to pass the link on to
others to participate in the study.
Of the 169 individuals who responded, 23 reported being currently enrolled as a student,
13 indicated working less than 30 hours/week, and six stated that they did not have a supervisor
and coworkers. In addition to respondents who did not qualify to take the survey, eight
participants were dropped from analyses due to incomplete responses. An incomplete response
was defined as not completing 80 percent or more of each measure. As a result, 119 (66.1%
female, 33.1% male) participants were included in analyses. Participants ranged from 21 to 65
years of age (M = 35.6, SD = 12.4) and were predominately White/Caucasian (89.8%). They had
an average job tenure of 4.3 years (SD = 4.72), with 63.6% planning on remaining in their
current position five years or less. Additionally, 14.3% of participants were part of a labor
union. Participants reported a wide range of education completed, job families, and industry
categories (see Table 1). Job families and industry categories were adopted from O*NET
OnLine (September, 2012).
Measures
Feedback environment. Feedback environment was assessed using both feedback
sources (supervisor and coworkers) of the FES (Steelman et al., 2004). The supervisor FES
measured participants’ perception of seven facets (32 items total): 1) source credibility, 2)
feedback quality, 3) feedback delivery, 4) frequency of favorable feedback, 5) frequency of
unfavorable feedback, 6) source availability, and 7) promoting feedback seeking. The coworker
FES consisted of 31 items and measured the same seven facets as the supervisor FES. Each item
was rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.
An example item from the feedback quality section was, “I value the feedback I receive from my
24
supervisor.” “I seldom receive praise from my supervisor,” is an example item from the
frequency of favorable feedback section. See Appendix A for a complete listing of the items.
The supervisor and coworker factors of the FES have demonstrated high internal consistency
reliability (.96 and .95, respectively) as reported by Steelman et al. (2004).
Feedback orientation. Feedback orientation was measured using the FOS (Linderbaum
& Levy, 2010). Although the FOS is a relatively new scale, it was found to have sufficient
internal consistency reliability (α = .87; Linderbaum & Levy, 2010) and has been used by
researchers to better understand the role of individual differences as they relate to receiving
feedback (Dahling et al., 2012; Lam et al., 2011). The FOS was built from the framework
provided by London and Smither (2002), and consists of 20 items which were rated on a 7-point
scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Items are separated into four
dimensions, with five items per category: 1) utility, 2) accountability, 3) social awareness, and 4)
feedback self-efficacy. Sample items from each category, respectively include, “Feedback is
critical for improving performance,” “I feel obligated to make changes based on feedback,” “I
rely on feedback to help me make a good impression,” and “I know that I can handle the
feedback that I receive”. See Appendix B for a complete list of items.
Job Satisfaction. Employees’ global job satisfaction was measured using a 3-item scale
(see Appendix C) created by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1983). Items were rated
on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. A sample
item is, “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.” Anseel and Lievens (2007) found an internal
consistency of .91 for this scale.
Turnover Intentions. Turnover intentions were measured using a 3-item scale created by
Sparr and Sonnentag (2008). The first two items, “I often think of quitting” and “I already
25
looked around for another job” were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) does
not apply at all to (7) does fully apply. The third item, “How likely is it that you will quit your
job voluntarily during the next 12 months?” was rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging
from (1) very unlikely to (7) very likely. These items are located in Appendix D. Sparr and
Sonnentag (2008) found this scale to have an internal consistency of .77.
26
Chapter III: Results
Table 2 contains the means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities of study
variables. All measures were found to be reliable. Hypotheses 1-4 were explored via Pearson’s
product moment correlations. Hypothesis 1a was concerned with the relationship between
supervisor and coworker feedback, which were not related as expected, but did trend in the
expected direction (r = .17, p > .05). Hypothesis 1b predicted job satisfaction and turnover
intentions would be negatively correlated, and this prediction was supported (r = -.76, p < .01).
Hypothesis 2a and 2b predicted supervisor and coworker feedback environments would
positively relate to job satisfaction. While supervisor feedback environment was positively
correlated (r = .54, p < .01) with job satisfaction, coworker feedback environment was not (r =
.07, p > .05). Hypothesis 3a and 3b were concerned with the relationship between feedback
environment and turnover intentions. Supervisor feedback environment and turnover intentions
were negatively correlated as predicted (r = -.34, p < .01), while the relationship between
coworker feedback environment and turnover intentions was non-significant (r = -.06, p > .05).
Hypotheses 4a and 4b were both supported. Supervisor and coworker feedback environment
were positively related to feedback orientation (r = .25, p < .01; r = .28, p < .01, respectively).
The second group of hypotheses explored the influence of the individual difference of
feedback orientation. Specifically, H5 and H6 were concerned with the moderating role of
feedback orientation between feedback environment and job satisfaction/intentions of turnover,
and were tested using hierarchical multiple regression. Prior to directly testing these hypotheses,
centered variables were created for supervisor feedback environment, coworker feedback
environment, and feedback orientation. This was done to reduce to potential impact of
multicollinearity. Subsequently, interaction variables were created using the centered variables.
27
Namely, supervisor feedback environment and feedback orientation, and coworker feedback
environment and feedback orientation interaction variables were created. Job satisfaction and
turnover intentions were entered as outcome variables.
Table 3 contains hierarchical multiple regression results for H5a, which predicted that
individuals who perceived a high supervisor feedback environment and possessed high feedback
orientation would report higher levels of job satisfaction than those with a high supervisor
feedback environment and low feedback orientation. Supervisor feedback environment and
feedback orientation were entered in the first step. The interaction term was entered in step 2. In
support of H5a, results indicated that feedback orientation did moderate the relationship between
supervisor feedback environment and job satisfaction (β = .17, p < .05). In a high supervisor
feedback environment, individuals high in feedback orientation had higher job satisfaction than
low feedback oriented individuals (see Figure 1).
Hypothesis 5b predicted that individuals who perceived a high coworker feedback
environment and possessed high feedback orientation would report higher levels of job
satisfaction than those with a high coworker feedback environment and low feedback orientation
(see Table 4). Coworker feedback environment and feedback orientation were entered in the
first step, with the interaction term entered in step 2. Results indicated that feedback orientation
did not moderate the relationship between coworker feedback environment and job satisfaction
(β = .10, p > .05). Individuals high in feedback orientation did not have higher job satisfaction
than low feedback oriented individuals when in high coworker feedback environments.
Hypothesis 6a predicted that individuals who perceived a high supervisor feedback
environment and possessed high feedback orientation would report lower levels of turnover
intentions than those with a high supervisor feedback environment and low feedback orientation.
28
This hypothesis was tested using hierarchical multiple regression by entering supervisor
feedback environment and feedback orientation in the first step. In the second step, the
interaction term (comprised of supervisor feedback environment and feedback orientation) was
entered. Feedback orientation moderated the relationship between perceived supervisor
feedback environment and turnover intentions (β = -.18, p < .05). Hypothesis 6a was supported
(see Table 5). Specifically, individuals who perceived a high supervisor feedback environment
and possessed a high feedback orientation reported lower levels of turnover intentions than those
who perceived a high supervisor feedback environment and had a low feedback orientation (see
Figure 2).
Table 6 contains the results of H6b, which predicted that individuals who perceived a
high coworker feedback environment and possessed high feedback orientation would report
lower levels of turnover intentions than those with a high coworker feedback environment and
low feedback orientation. Feedback orientation did not moderate the relationship between
perceived coworker feedback environment and intentions of turnover (β = -.04, p > .05). In high
coworker feedback environments, high feedback oriented individuals did not have higher job
satisfaction than low feedback oriented individuals. Support was not found for H6b.
29
Chapter IV: Discussion
The present study sought to examine the moderating role of feedback orientation on
perceived supervisor and coworker feedback environment and job satisfaction/intentions of
turnover. Results both converged and diverged from previous findings. Namely, supervisor and
coworker feedback environments were not significantly correlated in this study, as found by
Steelman et al. (2004) and Rosen et al. (2006). However, while there was not a significant
relationship, it is important to note it was trending in the hypothesized direction. This finding is
not especially surprising given the weak relationship previously found among the two sources of
feedback (Rosen et al., 2006). A non-significant relationship between supervisor and coworker
feedback environments further solidifies respondents’ successful discrimination of feedback
from different sources (Rosen et al., 2006).
Job satisfaction and turnover intentions were strongly and negatively related. Thus, the
higher someone’s job satisfaction, the lower his or her intention was to leave the organization.
This relationship was strengthened by another finding. The amount of time in which participants
planned on remaining in their current position was positively related to job satisfaction and
negatively related to turnover intentions. Perceptions of supervisor feedback environment were
positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intentions, supporting
previous research (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008). However, this pattern of results did not hold for
coworker feedback environment. This finding highlights an important difference in how
employees interpret feedback from supervisors and coworkers.
Although coworker feedback may be an important component in completing daily tasks,
ultimately supervisor feedback was a more influential determinant of satisfaction and intentions
of finding a different job. One potential explanation of this finding is employees possess higher
30
expectations of their supervisors to provide quality feedback than coworkers (Rosen et al., 2006).
Therefore, the failure or success of a supervisor providing quality feedback may be more
noticeable than that of coworkers. Another potential explanation for the unexpected difference
between supervisor and coworker feedback is that relationships with coworkers are more
complex. For example, coworkers vary in their level of seniority and expertise as well as in the
quality of feedback they provide. Consequently, quality coworker feedback may become
“diluted,” and thus, overall perceptions of coworker feedback may be weakened.
Recently researchers have found a positive relationship between supervisor feedback
environment and feedback orientation (Dahling et al., 2012). Responding to a call for future
research from Dahling et al. (2012), this finding was replicated and extended to coworker
feedback environment. London and Smither (2002) theorize feedback orientation to be stable in
the medium-term (6 to 12 months), but highlight the importance of feedback culture in
developing a positive feedback orientation. Results from the current study suggest that both
supervisor (Dahling et al., 2012) and coworker feedback contribute to the development of
feedback orientation. Interestingly, coworker feedback environment was more strongly related
to feedback orientation than supervisor feedback environment. Without adequate support for
learning and improving through behavioral feedback, it is likely that an individual will develop a
low feedback orientation (London & Smither, 2002). Employees may rely on informal feedback
from coworkers as a source of support, in addition to that from supervisors. As a result, although
coworker feedback was not found to be directly related to job satisfaction or turnover intentions,
it may indirectly influence these outcomes through feedback orientation.
While the relationships between feedback environment and feedback orientation are
thought-provoking, the most important contribution of the present research was the examination
31
of feedback orientation as a moderator of the feedback environment-job satisfaction and turnover
intention relationships. Previous studies have examined mediating variables of the relationship
between feedback environment and well-being at work, such as personal control and feelings of
helplessness (Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008), morale (Rosen et al., 2006), and work-related stressors
(Peng et al., 2011). The present study extended previous research by measuring the impact of an
individual’s propensity for receiving feedback on the feedback process. Hierarchical multiple
regression results partially supported feedback orientation as a moderator of feedback
environment and job satisfaction. Feedback orientation moderated the relationship between
supervisor feedback environment and job satisfaction (see Figure 1), but did not moderate the
relationship between coworker feedback environment and job satisfaction. Similarly, this
relationship was also found with intentions of turnover as the outcome variable (see Figure 2).
These results indicate that individual difference factors are important to consider as part
of the feedback process. Furthermore, the findings strengthen the person-environment
interaction view of feedback proposed by London and Smither (2002). In other words, quality
feedback can be readily provided and available, but if an individual does not value or appreciate
feedback, it will not positively influence job satisfaction or turnover intentions. Job satisfaction
and turnover intentions changed very little for employees low in feedback orientation from low
to high supervisor feedback environments. However, employees who enjoy receiving feedback
and find it useful for bettering their performance will be more satisfied in their jobs and will be
less likely to search for alternative employment with a high supervisor feedback environment.
Conversely, high feedback orientated employees working in a low supervisor feedback
environment will have lower job satisfaction than employees with low feedback orientation.
Satisfaction may be lower for employees with high feedback orientation working in an
32
environment with a low supervisor feedback environment, because they do not feel well
supported or may have increased role ambiguity (Tuten, 2005).
Practical Implications
The present study carries several practical implications. First, the moderator effect of
feedback orientation suggests that managers and supervisors should be concerned about the type
of feedback environment they provide. The findings of this study suggest that an employee’s
disposition toward receiving feedback is an important element of his or her job satisfaction.
Individuals high in feedback orientation engage in higher levels of feedback seeking (Dahling et
al., 2012), thus promoting and supporting this behavior will in turn positively influence job
satisfaction. Additionally, feedback orientation is theorized to be influenced by the feedback
environment (London & Smither, 2002). That is, employees working in an environment with
poor feedback will eventually start to value and seek out feedback less often. Conversely,
employees who receive regular, helpful feedback will find it more valuable, and will likely seek
it independently as well.
Second, as previously mentioned, providing quality feedback is not a given. Certain
components need to be part of the feedback message, such as relevance, accuracy, timing, and
tailoring to each recipient (Baker, 2010). Because not all feedback is created the same,
organizations should provide training to managers and supervisors on how to provide quality
feedback. Third, in addition to the feedback message, organizations need to support and promote
employees to regularly seek feedback. As the value of feedback provided by supervisors
increases, it is likely that the level of which this feedback is independently sought will also
increase. Lastly, organizations that value providing feedback should seek individuals who value
receiving feedback. The results of this study indicate that in high supervisor feedback
33
environments, employees with high feedback orientation will have higher job satisfaction and
will be less likely to leave than employees with low feedback orientation.
Limitations and Future Research
Participants in this study came from a wide range of jobs and industries, varying also in
job tenure and age. However, a large percentage of the participants were White/Caucasian
(89.8%) and non-union (85.7%). Future research should replicate this study with a more
ethnically diverse and unionized sample to further generalize the interaction effects of feedback
orientation on job satisfaction and turnover intentions. A second limitation of this study is its
cross-sectional design. Feedback orientation may change over time, especially when working in
a feedback environment contrary to one’s orientation (London & Smither, 2002). Future
research implementing a longitudinal or repeated measures design could capture how quickly
and to what extent these changes occur.
Future research should also more closely examine why an employee’s coworker feedback
environment plays a lesser role in influencing job satisfaction and turnover intentions, and
whether or not coworker feedback environment influences other important outcome variables.
Additionally, researchers should more closely examine why employees with high feedback
orientation who work in low supervisor feedback environments are the least satisfied and most
likely to look for other work. As a result, organizations will be able to efficiently focus their
efforts when seeking to improve their feedback environments.
Conclusion
The findings of this study provide empirical support for London and Smither’s (2002)
person-environment interactional view of feedback. Most notably, feedback orientation was
shown to positively moderate the relationship between supervisor feedback environment and job
34
satisfaction, and negatively moderate the relationship between supervisor feedback environment
and turnover intentions. Additionally, a positive relationship between coworker feedback
environment and feedback orientation was established, suggesting that both sources of feedback
contribute to the development of feedback orientation. Surprisingly, coworker feedback
environment was not related to job satisfaction or turnover intentions. Additional research in
each of these areas will provide useful information for how supervisor and coworker feedback
can be used by organizations to become stronger and more competitive.
35
References
Ammons, R. B. (1956). Effects of knowledge of performance: A survey and tentative theoretical
formulation. Journal of General Psychology, 54, 279-299. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1956.9
920284
Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2007). The long-term impact of the feedback environment on job
satisfaction: A field study in a Belgian context. Applied Psychology, An International
Review, 56(2), 254-266. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00253.x
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal
strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
32(3), 370-398. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3
Baker, N. (2010). Employee feedback technologies in the human performance system. Human
Resource Development International, 13(4), 477-485. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2010.5019
94
Balcazar, E., Hopkins, B. L., & Suarez, Y. (1985). A critical, objective review of performance
feedback. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 7(3-4), 65-89. doi: 10.1300/
J07 5v07n03_05
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Becker, T. E., & Klimoski, R. J. (1989). A field study of the relationship between the
organizational feedback environment and performance. Personnel Psychology, 42(2),
343-358. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00662.x
36
Bernichon, T., Cook, K. E., & Brown, J. D. (2003). Seeking self-evaluative feedback: The
interactive role of global self-esteem and specific self-views. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84(1), 194-204. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail
?vid=9&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdat
a=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=cmedm&AN=12518979
Brand, J. E. (1905). The effect of verbal suggestion upon the estimation of linear magnitudes.
Psychological Review, 12(1), 41-49. doi: 10.1037/h0073182
Brown, S. P., Ganesan, S., & Challagalla, G. (2001). Self-efficacy as a moderator of information
seeking effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 1043-1051. doi: 10.1037/00
21-9010.86.5.1043
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D., Jr., & Klesh, J.R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, III, P. H. Mirvis,
& C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures,
and practices (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.
Carmeli, A., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Exploring turnover intentions among three professional
groups of employees. Human Resources Development International, 9(2), 191-206. doi:
10.1080/13678860600616305.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for
personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–
135. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal
process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615-633. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.4.615
37
Church, A. H., & Allen, D. W. (1997). Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback.
Group and Organization Management, 22(2), 149–161. Retrieved from http://web.ebscoh
ost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9db55%40session
mgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=1455018
4
Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., & O’Malley, A. (2012). Correlates and consequences of feedback
orientation in organizations. Journal of Management, 38(2), 531-546. doi: 10.1177/01492
06310375467
Dahling, J. J., & O’Malley, A. L. (2011). Supportive feedback environments can mend broken
performance management systems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2), 201-
203. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01327.x
DeNisi, A. S., Randolph, W. A., & Blencoe, A. G. (1982). Level and source of feedback as
determinants of feedback effectiveness. Academy of Management Proceedings, 175-179.
doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.1982.4976533
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be
improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129-139. doi: 10.5465/AME.2000.
2909845
Facebook (2012). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/
Fisher, C. D. (1979). Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: A
laboratory investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(5), 533-540. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=23&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9
db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=bu
h&AN=5112782
38
Gregory, J. B., Levy, P. E., & Jeffers, M. (2008). Development of a model of the feedback
process within executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 60(1), 42-56. doi: 10.1037/1065-9293.60.1.42
Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Individuals’ interaction with their feedback environment:
The role of domain-specific individual differences. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 16, 215-254. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/deta
il?vid=26&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&b
data=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=1998-07789-004
Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2003). Individual differences in feedback propensities and
training performance. Human Resource Management Review, 13(4), 675-689. doi: 10.101
6/j.hrmr.2003.11.008.
Herold, D. M., & Greller, M. M. (1977). Research notes. Feedback: the definition of a construct.
Academy of Management Journal, 20(1), 142–147. doi: 10.2307/255468
Herold, D. M., Liden, R. C., & Leatherwood, M. L. (1987). Using multiple attributes to assess
sources of performance feedback. Academy of Management Journal, 30(4), 826-835. doi:
10.2307/256164
Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985). Assessing the feedback environment in work
organizations: Development of the job feedback survey. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70(2), 290-305. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.70.2.290
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2009). Disentangling the meaning of multisource performance
rating source and dimension factors. Personnel Psychology, 62(4), 735-765. doi: 10.1111
/j.1744-6570.2009.01156.x
39
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349-371. Retrieved
from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=36&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93
023d9db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#
db=buh&AN=6239230
Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Frederickson, J. W. (1981). Poor performers: Supervisors’ and
subordinates’ responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27(3), 386-
410. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=38&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-
4068-bf19-e93023d9db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl
2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=6342696
Judd, C. H. (1905). Practice without knowledge of results. Psychological Review: Monograph
Supplements, 7(1), 185-198. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4
1&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnN
pdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=psyh&AN=1926-02662-001
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An
integrative/aptitude–treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74(4), 657–690. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.657
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback intervention on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–84. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
40
Lam, C. F., DeRue, D. S., Karam, E. P., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2011). The impact of feedback
frequency on learning and task performance: Challenging the “more is better”
assumption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 217-228.
doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.05.002
Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212-247. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)
90021-K
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the feedback
orientation scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372-1405. doi: 10.1177/014920
6310373145
LinkedIn (2012). Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/
Locke, E. A. (1967). Motivational effects of knowledge of results: Knowledge or goal settings?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(4), 324-329. doi: 10.1037/h0024771
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the
longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review,
12(1), 81-100. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=56&sid=00b05
dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhv
c3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=7247206
Martocchio, J. J., & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feedback and cognitive playfulness on
performance in microcomputer software training. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 553-578.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00860.x
41
Maurer, T. J., Mitchell, D. R. D., & Barbeite, F. G. (2002). Predictors of attitudes toward a
360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development
activity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(1), 87–107. doi:
10.1348/096317902167667
Meyer, H. H. (1991). A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma. Academy of
Management Executive, 5(1), 68-76. doi: 10.5465/AME.1991.4274724
Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P. E. (2004). The mediating role of affective commitment in the
relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65(3), 351–365. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.08.003
O*NET OnLine (September, 2012). Find occupations. Retrieved from http://www.onetonline
.org/find/
Peng, J. C., Tseng, M. M., & Lee, Y. L. (2011). Relationships among supervisor feedback
environment, work-related stressors, and employee deviance. Journal of Nursing
Research, 19(1), 13-23. doi: 10.1097/JNR.0b013e31820b0fe5
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of
the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(1), 211-220. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211
Salmoni, A. W, Schmidt, R. A., & Walter, C. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor
learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 355-386. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.355
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following
multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical
findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x
42
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Feedback environment and well-being at work: The
mediating role of personal control and feelings of helplessness. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), 388–412. doi: 10.1080/1359432080207714
6
SPSS (Version 20.0) [Computer software]. Armonk, New York: IBM.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct
definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64(1), 165-184. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258440
Steelman, L. A., & Rutkowski, K. A. (2004). Moderators of employee reactions to negative
feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1), 6-18. doi: 10.1108/02683940410520
637
Tuten, T. L. (2005). Happy at work? Perceptions of stress, communication, and trust when
viewed through rose-colored glasses. Competition Forum, 3(2), 288-295. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=76&sid=00b05dea-5ceb-4068-bf19-e93023d9
db55%40sessionmgr10&hid=27&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=s3h
&AN=20872524
Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., & Jansen, N. (2010). Transfer of training: The role of feedback
in supportive social networks. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(2),
81-94. Retrieved from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2
010.00343.x
VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human
Resource Management Review¸ 13(4), 581-604. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2003.11.004
43
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the
feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 390-400. doi: 10.1037/
0021-9010.82.3.390
Wofford J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1990). Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice
of decision style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 603-612. doi: 10.1037/0021-901
0.75.6.603
Wright, W. R. (1906). Some effects of incentive on work and fatigue. Psychological Review,
13(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1037/h0076041
44
Appendix A: Feedback Environment Scale (FES)
Supervisor Source Coworker Source
Source credibility My supervisor is generally familiar with my performance on the job.
My coworkers are generally familiar with my performance on the job.
In general, I respect my supervisor’s opinions about my job performance.
In general, I respect my coworkers’ opinions about my job performance.
With respect to job performance feedback, I usually do not trust my supervisor.
With respect to job performance feedback, I usually do not trust my coworkers.
My supervisor is fair when evaluating my job performance.
My coworkers are fair when evaluating my job performance.
I have confidence in the feedback my supervisor gives me.
I have confidence in the feedback my coworkers give me.
Feedback quality My supervisor gives me useful feedback about my job performance.
My coworkers give me useful feedback about my job performance.
The performance feedback I receive from my supervisor is helpful.
The performance feedback I receive from my coworkers is helpful.
I value the feedback I receive from my supervisor.
I value the feedback I receive from my coworkers.
The feedback I receive from my supervisor helps me do my job.
The feedback I receive from my coworkers helps me do my job.
The performance information I receive from my supervisor is generally not very meaningful.
The performance information I receive from my coworkers is generally not very meaningful.
Appendix A (continued)
45
Feedback delivery My supervisor is supportive when giving me feedback about my job performance.
My coworkers are supportive when giving me feedback about my job performance.
When my supervisor gives me performance feedback, he or she is considerate of my feelings.
When my coworkers give me performance feedback, they are usually considerate of my feelings.
My supervisor generally provides feedback in a thoughtless manner.
My coworkers generally provide feedback in a thoughtless manner.
My supervisor does not treat people very well when providing performance feedback.
In general, my coworkers do not treat people very well when providing performance feedback.
My supervisor is tactful when giving me performance feedback.
In general, my coworkers are tactful when giving me performance feedback.
Favorable feedback When I do a good job at work, my supervisor praises my performance.
When I do a good job at work, my coworkers praise my performance.
I seldom receive praise from my supervisor.
I seldom receive praise from my coworkers.
My supervisor generally lets me know when I do a good job at work.
My coworkers generally let me know when I do a good job at work.
I frequently receive positive feedback from my supervisor.
I frequently receive positive feedback from my coworkers.
Unfavorable feedback When I don’t meet deadlines, my supervisor lets me know.
When I don’t meet deadlines, my coworkers let me know.
My supervisor tells me when my work performance does not meet organizational standards.
My coworkers tell me when my work performance does not meet organizational standards.
Appendix A (continued)
46
On those occasions when my job performance falls below what is expected, my supervisor lets me know.
On those occasions when my job performance falls below what is expected, my coworkers let me know.
On those occasions when I make a mistake at work, my supervisor tells me.
On those occasions when I make a mistake at work, my coworkers tell me.
Source availability My supervisor is usually available when I want performance information.
My coworkers are usually available when I want performance information.
My supervisor is too busy to give me feedback.
My coworkers are too busy to give me feedback.
I have little contact with my supervisor.
I have little contact with my coworkers.
I interact with my supervisor on a daily basis.
I interact with my coworkers on a daily basis.
The only time I receive performance feedback from my supervisor is during my performance review.
Promotes feedback seeking My supervisor is often annoyed when I directly ask for performance feedback.
My coworkers are often annoyed when I directly ask them for performance feedback.
When I ask for performance feedback, my supervisor generally does not give me the information right away.
When I ask for performance feedback, my coworkers generally do not give me the information right away.
I feel comfortable asking my supervisor for feedback about my work performance.
I feel comfortable asking my coworkers for feedback about my work performance.
Appendix A (continued)
47
My supervisor encourages me to ask for feedback whenever I am uncertain about my job performance.
My coworkers encourage me to ask for feedback whenever I am uncertain about my job performance.
48
Appendix B: Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS)
Utility
Feedback contributes to my success at work.
To develop my skills at work, I rely on feedback.
Feedback is critical for improving performance.
Feedback from supervisors can help me advance in a company.
I find that feedback is critical for reaching my goals.
Accountability It is my responsibility to apply feedback to improve my performance.
I hold myself accountable to respond to feedback appropriately.
I don’t feel a sense of closure until I respond to feedback.
If my supervisor gives me feedback, it is my responsibility to respond to it.
I feel obligated to make changes based on feedback.
Social Awareness I try to be aware of what other people think of me.
Using feedback, I am more aware of what people think of me.
Feedback helps me manage the impression I make on others.
Feedback lets me know how I am perceived by others.
I rely on feedback to help me make a good impression.
Appendix B (continued)
49
Feedback Self-Efficacy I feel self-assured when dealing with feedback.
Compared to others, I am more competent at handling feedback.
I believe that I have the ability to deal with feedback effectively.
I feel confident when responding to both positive and negative feedback.
I know that I can handle the feedback that I receive.
50
Appendix C: Job Satisfaction
All in all, I am satisfied with my job.
In general, I don’t like my job.
In general, I like working here.
51
Appendix D: Turnover Intentions
I often think of quitting.
I already looked around for another job.
How likely is it that you will quit your job voluntarily during the next 12 months?
52
Table 1
Individual Characteristics as a Percentage of the Population (N = 119)
Characteristic Percentage Education level completed
Graduated from high school 4.2 Attended college but did not complete degree 5.9 Associate’s degree (A.A., A.S., etc.) 11.8 Bachelor’s degree (B.A., B.S., etc.) 44.5 Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., etc.) 21.0 Doctorate degree (M.D., J.D., Ph.D., etc.) 12.6
Job family Business and Financial Operations 9.2 Community and Social Service 6.7 Computer and Mathematical 4.2 Education, Training, and Library 17.6 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 7.6 Healthcare Support 4.2 Management 5.9 Office and Administrative Support 13.4 Sales and Related 6.7 Other 24.4
Industry family Educational Services 29.4 Finance and Insurance 4.2 Government 11.8 Health Care and Social Assistance 16.8 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 10.9 Retail Trade 4.2 Other 22.7
Note. Categories containing less 5 participants were group into an “other” category.
53
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations Among Overall Scale Scores (N = 119)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Supervisor feedback environment
5.21 1.09 .96
2. Coworker feedback environment
5.07 0.98 .17 .96
3. Feedback orientation
5.66 0.61 .25 ** .28 ** .87
4. Job satisfaction 5.42 1.46 .54 ** .07 .10 .93 5. Turnover
intentions 3.00 1.84 -.34 ** -.06 -.09 -.76 ** .86
6. Age 35.56 12.42 -.04 -.02 -.12 .07 -.22 * 7. Sex -.04 .01 -.05 -.00 .02 -.05 8. Race -.04 .01 -.05 .02 .15 .04 -.03 9. Highest level of
education -.17 -.08 -.03 -.01 .05 .15 .06 .17
10. Tenure (months)
51.99 56.67 -.22 * -.03 -.18 -.05 .01 .58 ** -.00 -.06 -.06
11. Remaining in current position .07 .11 .05 .43 ** -.56 ** .11 -.11 -.10 -.09 .14
12. Labor union membership .06 -.07 .13 .11 -.09 -.06 -.16 -.17 -.09 -.13 .06
13. Job family .09 .10 -.08 .02 .02 -.03 .11 -.09 -.17 .03 .12 -.01 14. Industry .06 .13 .12 .13 -.13 -.06 -.19 * -.12 -.20 * -.09 .09 .22 * .17
Note. Cronbach’s alphas are reported on the diagonal. *p < .05, **p < .01.
54
Table 3
Regression Analysis Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and Supervisor
Feedback Environment on Job Satisfaction (N = 119)
Variable B SE B β
Step 1
Supervisor Feedback Environment .74 .11 .56**
Feedback Orientation -.10 .20 -.04
Step 2
Supervisor Feedback Environment .75 .11 .56**
Feedback Orientation -.06 .20 -.03
Supervisor Feedback Environment*Feedback Orientation .33 .16 .17*
Note. Step 1 R2 = .298 (p < .01), adjusted R2 = .285; Step 2: ∆R2 = .03 (p < .05), adjusted R2 =
.307.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
55
Table 4
Regression Analysis Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and Coworker
Feedback Environment on Job Satisfaction (N = 119)
Variable B SE B β
Step 1
Coworker Feedback Environment .07 .15 .05
Feedback Orientation .20 .24 .08
Step 2
Coworker Feedback Environment .07 .15 .05
Feedback Orientation .18 .24 .08
Coworker Feedback Environment*Feedback Orientation .24 .23 .10
Note. Step 1 R2 = .011 (p > .05), adjusted R2 = -.007; Step 2: ∆R2 = .01 (p > .05), adjusted R2 =
-.007.
56
Table 5
Regression Analysis Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and Supervisor
Feedback Environment on Turnover Intentions (N = 119)
Variable B SE B β
Step 1
Supervisor Feedback Environment -.58 .16 -.34**
Feedback Orientation -.01 .28 -.00
Step 2
Supervisor Feedback Environment -.58 .16 -.35**
Feedback Orientation -.06 .28 -.02
Supervisor Feedback Environment*Feedback Orientation -.45 .22 -.18*
Note. Step 1 R2 = .117 (p < .01), adjusted R2 = .101; Step 2: ∆R2 = .03 (p < .05), adjusted R2 =
.126.
*p < .05, **p < .01.
57
Table 6
Regression Analyses Examining the Interaction between Feedback Orientation and Coworker
Feedback Environment on Turnover Intentions (N = 119)
Variable B SE B β
Step 1
Coworker Feedback Environment -.07 .19 -.04
Feedback Orientation -.23 .30 -.08
Step 2
Coworker Feedback Environment -.07 .19 -.04
Feedback Orientation -.22 .30 -.07
Coworker Feedback Environment*Feedback Orientation -.11 .29 -.04
Note. Step 1 R2 = .009 (p > .05), adjusted R2 = -.010; Step 2: ∆R2 = .00 (p > .05), adjusted R2 =
-.018.
58
Figure 1. Analysis for feedback orientation (FOS) as a moderator of the relationship between
supervisor feedback environment (S-FES) and job satisfaction.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Low S-FES High S-FES
Job
Sati
sfact
ion
Low FOSHigh FOS
top related