DOES CONSTRUCTIVE PERFORMANCE

FEEDBACK IMPROVE CITIZENSHIP

INTENTIONS & JOB SATISFACTION?
THE ROLES OF PERCEIVED OPPORTUNITY FOR
ADVANCEMENT, RESPECT, & MOOD
Authors: Kristin L. Sommer & Mukta Kulkarni
Journal: Human Resource Development Quarterly

Presented by: Sally Reese Westendorf

October 29, 2014
1

KEY VARIABLES
Constructive Feedback versus Destructive Feedback
Organizational Citizenship Behavior Intentions (distal)
Job Satisfaction (distal)
Mood (distal)
Opportunity for Advancement (immediate RXN)
Fairness/Respect (immediate RXN)
2

MAIN POINTS
Importance of delivering negative feedback
performance in a way that employees will be accepting
of the information
Make changes to benefit themselves and organization

Emphasizing behaviors versus personal weaknesses

Identifying clear routes to improvement
3

QUESTION
Have you ever taken part in a formal
performance appraisal process within your
current or past job?
What was it like?
Sally the shrink asks:

How did it make you feel?

4

GENERAL BACKGROUND
Performance appraisal outcomes important for role
changes, training needs
May be stressful for employee
Negative PA likely to elicit hostility or withdrawal
Positive PA may increase job satisfaction (or other
variables)
5

GENERAL BACKGROUND
Implications may go beyond performance management
E.g., respected by organization increased job satisfaction
extrarole behaviors

Quality of feedback and the implications have not been

researched
Thus, the authors ask the following questions:
6

QUESTIONS
Does the constructiveness of negative supervisory feedback predict
feelings of respect, mood at work, perceived opportunities for career
advancement, job satisfaction, and OCB intentions?
To what extent do perceived respect, mood at work, and perceived
opportunities for advancement mediate (explain) the links between
feedback and both job satisfaction and OCB intentions?

CONSTRUCTIVE PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK

Taxonomy: emphasizing problem behaviors versus
personal weakness, explicitly references performance
standards, and outlines clear paths remedying poor
performance

Failure to provide constructive feedback can:

Disrupt moral
Encourage avoidance (versus approach) of goals
8

FEEDBACK AND PERCEIVED ADVANCEMENT

May help to align behaviors with organizational goals
May help reinforce/clarify KSAOs needed for
advancement
ROLES IN JOB ARE CLARIFIED
Actively seek feedback

FEEDBACK AND PERCEPTIONS OF

FAIRNESS
Types of justice:
Distributive - outcomes
Procedural processes to determine fairness
Interactional quality of interpersonal treatment
during implementation

10

FEEDBACK AND PERCEPTIONS OF

FAIRNESS - II
Four dimensions of negative feedback:

Clarity
*Constructiveness
Cognizance
*Consistency

Constructiveness and Consistency were most

important features for perceived fairness
11

QUESTION
Imagine a supervisor tells you that your
productivity numbers fell well below par, and
when they tell you they arent very nice.
How do you take it? Was it fair?
How do you view your supervisor afterwards?

Then, consider the opposite.

2001 study shows feedback using interpersonal fairness increases
openness and positive attitudes towards supervisors/org.

12

FEEDBACK AND PERCEPTIONS OF

FAIRNESS - III
Enhanced leader-member exchange (LMX)
Q: perceived fairness predicts well-being and control (via ^)

Results: fairness positively related to both, MEDIATED

by LMX

Conclusions: feedback fairness enhances

well-being via improved relationships
between superiors and their subordinates

13

QUESTION
What type of feedback do we view as being
stressful and lowering our satisfaction?
Why? What is missing? What are we NOT told?

14

FEEDBACK AND JOB-RELATED AFFECT

When feedback is negative, individuals dont receive
anything

No advice
No methods for improving
Self-efficacy for task not enhanced
No explanation

Who would NOT be in a bad mood after the perception of poor

treatment?
Anger sadness confusion tension irritation
15

OCBS AND JOB SATISFACTION

Fairness (esp. respect) critical for OCBs and job
satisfaction
Work group identification includes supervisory
interactions
Q: Do OCBs and job satisfaction derive from perceived
respect, or does mood play more of a role?
Previous research poses that mood may explain variance in
OCB intentions and job satisfaction, more so than respect by
itself.

16

CAUSAL MODEL FIGURE 1

First set of mediators (immediate rxns to feedback):
perceived advancement opportunities and perceived
respect
Second set of mediators (distal; driven by respect and
opportunity for advancement): positive affect (PA) and
negative affect (NA)
Pathways: opportunities for advancement (direct for
OCB intensions; indirect for mood to job satisfaction)

17

Direct path

immediate

distal

Direct path
18

PHASE 1 KEY DIMENSIONS OF FEEDBACK

Remember the Taxonomy?
emphasizing problem behaviors versus personal
weakness
explicitly references performance standards
and outlines clear paths remedying poor performance

19

PHASE 1 METHOD
ASSESSING FEEDBACK MEASURE

Method:
Convenience sample: 81 individuals in 1 year management
certificate program in India
Asked to consider past negative feedback from supervisor
Complete OCB, job satisfaction, and constructiveness
measures

Measure - Constructive Feedback

PCA with varimax rotation
1: Three items load onto factor one factor one removed
2: One component solution (eigenvalue = 4.00) accounting for 57%
of variance, = .87 (7 items; see Table 1)
20

21

QUESTION

Do you have any concerns regarding their

methodology so far from Phase 1?

22

PHASE 2 MEDIATIONAL TESTS

Respect, mood, and advancement mediate the effect of
constructive feedback on OCB intentions and job satisfaction
Two control variables: procedural justice and distributive
justice
Procedural: respectful treatment better predicts feedback
responses than fairness of feedback procedures
Distributive: constructiveness would drive responses
independently of the fairness of the outcome
23

PHASE 2 PARTICIPANTS & PROCEDURE

128 Former students and colleagues (in non-university settings)
Via email then asked to recruit others (snowball method)
39% United States 43% India

Average

33 years of age

24

METHOD - MEASURES
Measures: 1 strongly disagree 5 strongly disagree*

Constructive Feedback same from phase 1 ( = .90)

Opportunity for Advancement two items ( = .73)
Respect six items ( = .96)
Mood at Work PANAS 10 items for NA, 10 for PA ( = .91)
Job Satisfaction Job Diagnostic Survey 5 items - ( = .81)
OCB Intentions 11 items ( = .77) (response options 1-7)*
Control Variables sex, age, tenure, country of origin, and
two justice measures
25

METHOD - ANALYSES
Analysis 1: Preliminary Regression
Establish relationships between feedback and criterion
Ensure relationships were not attributed to controls

Analysis 2: Hierarchical Regression

Test theoretical model

Analysis 3: Post Hoc

Ensure no alternative explanations (i.e., procedural justice
not respect)
26

RESULTS ANALYSES 1
Analysis 1: Preliminary (see Table 2, correlations)
75% received formal performance ratings
84% reported appraisal feedback they deserved or better (included)
Control variables - beta weights remained significant/unaltered, so

Relationship between feedback and other

criterion not explained by controls

27

Procedural
Justice

Feedbac
k

Opp. for
Advancemen
t

Respect

Pos.
Affec
t

Neg.
Affec
t

OCB Int.
Job
Satisfactio
n

28

29

RESULTS ANALYSES 2
Analysis 2: Hierarchical Regression (see Table 4, direct and indirect
relationships)
Joint significance testing (two or more mediators in the same model)
Three Steps:
Step 1: feedback significantly related to job satisfaction and OCB intentions
Step 2: Perceived respect significantly related to PA, NA, and job satisfaction;
opp. for advancement predicted only PA and job satisfaction;
Step 3: Significant paths between PA, NA and outcome variables; once jobrelated affect included perceived respect no longer significant predictor of job
satisfaction ((the link between respect and job satisfaction fully mediated by
30
mood at work))
Take home: mediators fully accounted for effects of feedback on job

31

RESULTS ANALYSES 3
Analysis 3: Post Hoc (repeating step 2 from hierarchical
regression)
Procedural justice predicted no significant variance in
PA, but DID in NA
Ensures us that respectful treatment (versus
beliefs of fairness of procedures) underlay
broader affective responses to feedback
32

DISCUSSION
Constructive feedback predicted both OCB intentions and job
satisfaction
Perceived opportunities for advancement and perceived respect
influence responses to feedback (specifically, positive affect at work)
Same for negative affect (perceived respect predicts negative affect
which predicts job satisfaction)
Even when employees are in a good mood at work, if their
opportunity to advance is limited their satisfaction will be
too.

33

33

LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH

Single-source data (self-report)
Impression management
Supervisors may perceive OCB intentions differently than the
employee
Correlation and causation
Face validity of feedback measure (need to examine construct
validity)
Future research should show evidence of convergent and discriminant validity

Organizational specifics should be considered

e.g., contrast of social comparisons (destructive feedback may not be an issue)
34

QUESTION
Do you have any issues with the generalizability of this
research, besides considering the importance of
constructive feedback to each individual organization?

35

IMPLICATIONS FOR HRD

Many variables may be within the managers hands
i.e., trickle-down effects

In general: Be constructive!
Emphasize problematic behaviors,
Clarify standards of performance
Help to or guide towards develop a strategy for fixing
poor performance

All should relate back to benefits to organization and the

employee
Happy employees = successful organization

36

IMPLICATIONS FOR HRD

Include this info in managerial training (newly promoted)
Clarity and specificity
Potentially useful for everyday feedback as well (not just
formal)
Employees like informal and frequent feedback

Training for ALL recipients of feedback:

Importance of openness to change
Ensure they understand the logic of PA

37

QUESTIONS
What elements of appropriate constructive
performance appraisal should we train the recipients of
feedback?
Should we tell them all the WHYs of constructive
performance appraisal?

What type of organizations would not benefit from

constructive feedback?
Who needs harshness or negativity?
Compare and contrast orgs that do and do not need it.

38