1

59

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

59

Figure 2. Analysis for feedback orientation (FOS) as a moderator of the relationship between

supervisor feedback environment (S-FES) and turnover intentions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low S-FES High S-FES

Tu

rnover

In

ten

tion

s

Low FOS

High FOS