Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4 (2011), 201–203.Copyright © 2011 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/11

Supportive Feedback EnvironmentsCan Mend Broken PerformanceManagement Systems

JASON J. DAHLINGThe College of New Jersey

ALISON L. O’MALLEYButler University

Pulakos and O’Leary (2011) noted thatthe ongoing informal feedback exchangesbetween managers and employees canenhance the effectiveness of performancemanagement. However, they did not takeinto consideration the context in whichfeedback is shared. A growing body ofliterature on the feedback environmentdemonstrates how contextual factors shapethe meaning and impact of feedback. Wesuggest that the behavioral changes thatPulakos and O’Leary recommended canbe accomplished by helping managers todevelop a supportive feedback environ-ment within their work group (Herold &Parsons, 1985; London, 2003; Steelman,Levy, & Snell, 2004). Many of the commu-nication barriers that derail formal perfor-mance management interventions can beovercome in workplace contexts in whichsupervisors have created an environmentthat is consistently supportive of construc-tive feedback exchanges. Consequently, ourintent in this commentary is to provide read-ers with a brief overview of research onthe feedback environment because attemptsto build effective performance managementsystems are unlikely to succeed in climatesthat are hostile to feedback exchanges.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Jason J. Dahling.E-mail: dahling@tcnj.edu

Address: Department of Psychology, The College ofNew Jersey, 2000 Pennington Road, Ewing, NJ 08628

Definition and Conceptualizationof the Feedback Environment

Early research on the feedback context inorganizations focused on a wide array ofsources, including formal rules and commu-nications, personal thoughts and feelings,supervisors and peers, and the task itself(Hanser & Muchinsky, 1978; Herold &Parsons, 1985). Steelman et al. (2004)refined the construct to focus on the con-text of informal, daily feedback exchangesbetween supervisors and subordinates, andbetween peer coworkers. They developed ameasure of the feedback environment, theFeedback Environment Scale (FES), whichconsisted of seven dimensions. Specifi-cally, a supportive feedback environmentis characterized by a source of feedbackthat subordinates believe to be credibleand knowledgeable about the feedbacktopic; the provision of feedback consid-ered to be of high quality that is deliv-ered in a tactful manner; the provision ofboth positive and negative feedback whenit is warranted; attempts by the sourceto remain available for feedback conver-sations on a regular basis; and activeattempts by the source to promote andencourage feedback seeking. Respondentsto the FES evaluate these seven dimen-sions separately with respect to the feed-back environment set by the supervisor andtheir coworkers. Although we believe thatcoworkers can also serve as important

201

202 J.J. Dahling and A.L. O’Malley

sources of informal feedback, most researchon the feedback environment has focusedon the supervisory environment, and stud-ies that have examined both environmentshave typically found that the supervisoryenvironment has stronger effects on criteria(e.g., Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006). Conse-quently, our overview of outcomes belowis focused on criteria that are associatedwith perceptions of the supervisory feed-back environment.

Linking the Feedback Environmentto Employee Performance andWell-Being

Although the feedback environment is a rel-atively new concept, an impressive bodyof research has documented its effectson important outcomes. Not surprisingly,the most robust finding is that feed-back environment perceptions are posi-tively related to informal feedback-seekingbehavior (e.g., Dahling, Chau, & O’Malley,in press; Steelman et al., 2004; Whitaker,Dahling, & Levy, 2007). However, researchalso demonstrates that supportive feedbackenvironments are directly and indirectlyassociated with many of the outcomesthat formal performance management sys-tems seek to generate for organizations.For example, subordinate perceptions ofthe feedback environment are positivelyrelated to supervisor ratings of task perfor-mance via greater feedback-seeking behav-ior and improved role clarity (Dahlinget al., in press; Whitaker et al., 2007) andvia enhanced morale (Rosen et al., 2006).Furthermore, employees who work in sup-portive feedback environments are morelikely to engage in organizational citizen-ship behaviors directed toward coworkersand the organization (Norris-Watts & Levy,2004; Rosen et al., 2006). Rosen et al. alsoprovided evidence that feedback environ-ments build trust and eliminate ambiguityaround performance standards and rewardsby showing that the supervisory feedbackenvironment had a strong, negative effecton subordinates’ perceptions of organiza-tional politics.

In addition to improved trust and pro-ductivity, feedback environment percep-tions are related to a variety of employeeattitudes and psychological states. Employ-ees who work in supportive feedbackenvironments report higher perceptionsof leader–member exchange (Anseel &Lievens, 2007), better morale and job satis-faction (Rosen et al., 2006; Sparr & Sonen-ntag, 2008), and high affective commitmentto their organizations (Norris-Watts & Levy,2004). Sparr and Sonenntag also focusedon the psychological states that are linkedto feedback environments, demonstratingthat employees in supportive contexts per-ceive greater control over information anddecisions and lower feelings of helpless-ness at work. In turn, these states par-tially mediated the relationships betweenthe feedback environment and employees’reports of turnover intentions, anxiety, anddepression.

Finally, emerging research also suggeststhat supportive feedback environments arepositively associated with the feedback ori-entation reported by employees (Dahlinget al., in press; Linderbaum & Levy, 2010).Feedback orientation is globally defined asa person’s overall receptivity to feedback(London & Smither, 2002) and involves apositive appraisal of feedback in general,a tendency to process feedback mindfully,an awareness of the way one is perceivedby others, and a sense of responsibility toact on received feedback (Linderbaum &Levy, 2010). Importantly, feedback ori-entation is conceptualized as a motiva-tional quasi-trait that is malleable overmoderate periods of time (6–12 months;London & Smither, 2002). Consequently,managers who make a concerted effortto support feedback exchanges in theirworkgroups can expect to see that sub-ordinates will develop a more favorableorientation toward seeking and acting oninformal performance feedback. As super-visors and subordinates develop more pos-itive feedback orientations, we expect thatit will be easier to engage in a continuous,constructive dialogue about performanceimprovement that sidesteps the challenges

Feedback environments 203

associated with formal performance man-agement interventions.

Recommendations to DevelopSupportive FeedbackEnvironments

To date, limited empirical research hasexamined how a supervisory feedback envi-ronment can be modified and developed,and this remains an important question forfuture research. However, London (2003)provided several recommendations to cre-ate a feedback culture that may proveto be a useful complement to the train-ing interventions recommended by Pulakosand O’Leary to develop better supervi-sor–subordinate feedback exchanges.

Along similar lines, Peterson (2009)recently offered related suggestions fordeveloping a culture of coaching, learn-ing, and development. Several key themesemerge in these sets of recommendations.First, it is clear that managers need to betrained to understand the value of feed-back and the dynamics involved in givingand receiving feedback. To this end, receiv-ing ‘‘feedback about feedback’’ is a criticalstep toward becoming a source of tact-ful, quality performance information forsubordinates. Such training is particularlycritical for managers with low feedbackorientations. Second, these authors heav-ily emphasize the importance of havingsenior leaders serve as role models toline managers by publicly seeking andresponding to feedback, and by cultivat-ing supportive feedback environments fortheir direct reports. Third, feedback infor-mation given to subordinates can only beaccurate and useful if managers fully under-stand the goals, expectations, and metricsused to formally evaluate performance, soassessments of managers’ perceived systemknowledge (Williams & Levy, 1992) con-cerning the performance appraisal processmay be important. Finally, feedback anddevelopment cultures are most likely todevelop when managers learn that mak-ing the time for informal feedback sharingis acceptable, so it is important to clearly

communicate that such efforts are sup-ported and rewarded by the organization.

ReferencesAnseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2007). The long-term

impact of the feedback environment on jobsatisfaction: A field study in a Belgian context.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56,254–266.

Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., & O’Malley, A. (in press).Correlates and consequences of feedback orien-tation in organizations. Journal of Management.doi:10.1177/0149206310375467

Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Work as aninformation environment. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 21, 47–60.

Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985). Assessingthe feedback environment in work organizations:Development of the job feedback survey. Journalof Applied Psychology, 70, 290–305.

Linderbaum, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The devel-opment and validation of the Feedback Orien-tation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36,1372–1405.

London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, andusing feedback for performance improvement (2nded.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orien-tation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal per-formance management process. Human ResourceManagement Review, 12, 81–100.

Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P. E. (2004). The mediatingrole of affective commitment in the relation of thefeedback environment to work outcomes. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 65, 351–365.

Peterson, D. B. (2009). Coaching and performancemanagement: How can organizations get thegreatest value? In J. W. Smither, & M. London(Eds.), Performance management: Putting researchinto action (pp. 115–156). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pulakos, E. D., & O’Leary, R. S. (2011). Why is perfor-mance management broken? Industrial and Organi-zational Psychology: Perspectives on Science andPractice, 4, 146–164.

Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placingperceptions of politics in the context of thefeedback environment, employee attitudes, and jobperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,211–220.

Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Feedback envi-ronment and well-being at work: The mediatingrole of personal control and feelings of helpless-ness. European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 17, 388–412.

Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). Thefeedback environment scale: Construct definition,measurement, and validation. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 64, 165–184.

Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. E. (2007).The development of a feedback environment androle clarity model of job performance. Journal ofManagement, 33, 570–591.

Williams, J. R., & Levy, P. E. (1992). The effects ofperceived system knowledge on the agreementbetween self-ratings and supervisor ratings. Per-sonnel Psychology, 45, 835–847.