|
Article Excerpt
Performance feedback supposedly enhances performance, attitudes and intentions but these benefits are likely to depend on ratee's reactions to feedback. A longitudinal design was used to overcome limitations of previous studies that investigated the relationship between satisfaction with feedback and performance. In a sample of 256 professional employees, satisfaction with feedback predicted performance. Satisfaction with feedback was positively related to organizational commitment, job satisfaction, commitment toward manager and satisfaction with manager, and negatively related to turnover intentions. Implications of results are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.
**********
A primary purpose of formal performance appraisals is the provision of clear, performance-based feedback to employees (Carroll & Schneier, 1982; Ilgen, Fisher & Taylor, 1979). The significance of feedback to the appraisal process as well as to the broader management process has been widely acknowledged (e.g., Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Ilgen et al., 1979; Lawler, 1994; Maier, 1958; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Performance feedback has the potential to influence future performance (Ilgen et al., 1979; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), and significantly impact job and organizational attitudes (Ilgen, Peterson, Martin & Boeschen, 1981; Pearson, 1991; Taylor, Fisher & Ilgen, 1984). Thus, feedback is not only important to individuals but also to organizations because of its potential influence on performance and a variety of attitudes and behaviors of interest to organizations.
Whether these benefits are realized likely depends on how recipients of feedback react to the feedback. Indeed, reactions to feedback not feedback per se, are presumed to influence future job performance (e.g., Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), as well as job and organizational attitudes (e.g., Pearson, 1991; Taylor et al., 1984). Because reactions to feedback potentially influence a variety of outcomes, it is important to empirically verify if these benefits are realized. Given this apparent significance of studying reactions, many researchers have bemoaned the relative lack of research (e.g., Bernardin & Villanova, 1986), so much so that, Murphy and Cleveland (1995, p. 310) referred to reaction criteria as the "neglected criteria" of performance appraisal research.
Satisfaction with appraisal feedback is regarded as one of the most consequential of the reactions to appraisal feedback (e.g., Dorfman, Stephan & Loveland, 1986; Giles & Mossholder, 1990; Keeping & Levy, 2000). For instance, Giles and Mossholder (1990) and others (e.g., Organ, 1988) have asserted that satisfaction as a measure of employees' reactions is a more encompassing indicator of reactions to appraisal feedback than more specific, cognitively oriented criteria, such as perceived utility and accuracy of feedback (e.g., Keeping & Levy, 2000). In addition, because appraisals form the basis of several important decisions, satisfaction with feedback signifies recognition and future prospects within the organization. Thus, more favorable attitudes about reward contingencies develop when satisfaction is high than when it is low. These various psychological implications of satisfaction with feedback make it a significant determinant of future behavior and job and organizational attitudes (Taylor et al., 1984).
In summary, the central role of feedback to the appraisal process and the importance of examining ratees' satisfaction with appraisal feedback are widely acknowledged (e.g., Ilgen et al., 1979; Keeping & Levy, 2000; Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Given this, the relative lack of research on reactions to appraisal feedback served as the impetus for this study. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to build on previous theory and research and investigate the influence of satisfaction with feedback on subsequent job performance, attitudes and intentions.
This study extends the stream of research on appraisal feedback in three important ways. First, the limitations of previous studies that investigated the influence of satisfaction with feedback on performance (discussed later) are overcome to rigorously test if, in fact, satisfaction with appraisal feedback influences lucre job performance. Second, the assertion that satisfaction with feedback could influence job and organizational attitudes (e.g., Ilgen et al., 1981; Pearson, 1991; Taylor et al., 1984) has not been adequately examined. Third, research has not examined if satisfaction with feedback influences satisfaction with and commitment toward the source of feedback. Thus, in addition to the theoretical relevance of examining the relationship between satisfaction with feedback and performance, attitudes and intentions, results of this study have the potential to inform performance appraisal practice and research.
Satisfaction with Appraisal Feedback and Subsequent Performance
One stream of research recognizes that performance feedback has cognitive and motivational elements that can enhance employee motivation and performance (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999). For instance, expectancy theories predict that job motivation would improve to the extent that employees understand the relationship between performance and rewards (Lawler, 1994; Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Steers & Porter, 1974; Vroom, 1964). Once performance--reward contingencies, instrumentality is established, feedback allows the individual to anticipate rewards on the basis of perceived instrumentality (Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996).
Feedback is also central to goal setting theory, as Locke and his colleagues (Latham & Locke, 1991; Locke, 1996) have reported that goal-setting is most effective when there is feedback showing progress toward the goal. Performance feedback discussions include a discussion of outcomes (ratings) and processes (strategies to enhance future performance) both of which enhance motivation to perform (Earley, Northcraft, Lee & Lituchy, 1990). Thus, satisfaction with feedback should influence future performance.
The notion that rewards or anticipation of rewards have the potential to motivate people to higher levels of job performance is consistent with expectancy (e.g., Van Eerde & Thierry, 1996; Vroom, 1964), goal setting (e.g., Latham & Locke, 1991), social-cognitive (e.g., Bandura, 1991), and reinforcement (e.g., Skinner, 1969; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1997) theories of motivation.
The potential of feedback to influence employee performance is consistent with theoretical arguments put forth by several performance appraisal researchers (Cederblom, 1982; Ilgen et al., 1979; Ilgen et al., 1981; Klein, Snell & Wexley, 1987; Taylor et al., 1984). However, in an exhaustive meta-analysis, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) concluded that although feedback generally improved performance, in more than one third of the studies feedback lowered performance. Their study focused on the effects of performance feedback per se (i.e., whether or not feedback was provided) on performance. This is very different from examining the effects of reactions to performance feedback, such as satisfaction with feedback, on subsequent performance.
Because satisfaction with feedback implies acceptance of feedback of ratings and the feedback itself, it could be a better predictor of future job performance than the provision of feedback per se. If ratees are dissatisfied with feedback, they are less likely to use feedback to improve performance (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Ilgen et al., 1979). Several studies have reported that satisfaction with feedback has a positive effect on employees' motivation to improve their job performance (e.g., Burke, Weitzel & Weir, 1978; Nemeroff & Wexley, 1979; Russell & Goode, 1988). Therefore, satisfaction with feedback on past performance could be expected to influence future performance.
Although a number of studies have investigated the relationship between feedback and job performance (see Kluger & DeNisi, 1996), only a few studies have examined the relationship between satisfaction with feedback and performance. Jawahar (2006) reviewed these studies and noted that the studies were methodologically limited, in at least three ways. First, some studies that investigated this relationship correlated self-reported ratings as opposed to actual ratings with satisfaction with appraisal feedback (e.g., Jordan & Jordan, 1993). Second, several studies correlated employees' satisfaction with appraisal feedback and performance ratings, both measured at the same time (e.g., Jordan & Jordan, 1983; Russell & Goode, 1988). It is likely that employees who are good performers report higher-quality reviews, rather than appraisal reviews leading to higher performance (Dorfman et al., 1986).
Third, many studies did not control for the effects of previous performance...
|
