|
Article Excerpt
The finding that performance feedback does not uniformly improve performance (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) has led to a renewed interest in examining feedback processes. One line of research in this area has paid close attention to questions such as 'When do employees feel satisfied about the feedback they receive?' and 'When do employees intend to use the feedback obtained?' Research examining these feedback reactions is important for numerous reasons, including (a) reactions represent a criterion of great interest to practitioners because feedback reactions are vital to the acceptance and use of any feedback system or appraisal system (Cawley, Keeping, & Levy, 1998) and (b) feedback reactions are included in all theoretical models of the feedback process as the immediate predecessors of performance improvement. Providing feedback can only lead to increased levels of individual and organizational performance if employees are willing to accept and respond to feedback (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Kinicki, Prussia, Wu, & McKee-Ryan, 2004). Given this practical and theoretical importance, reactions to feedback have been studied in different contexts, such as development centres (Jones & Whitmore, 1995), 360-degree and upward feedback programmes (Brett & Atwater, 2001; Smither, Wohlers, & London, 1995), management development (Ryan, Brutus, Greguras, & Hakel, 2000), computer-adaptive testing (Tonidandel, Quinones, & Adams, 2002), performance appraisal (Keeping & Levy, 2000) and selection decisions (Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998).
One puzzling issue that has emerged across these different contexts is whether employees are merely interested in hearing good news about themselves or are more interested in feedback that confirms their sell-concept. Several studies could not provide an unequivocal answer to this question. Some studies (e.g. Brett & Atwater, 2001) found that employees reacted favourably to positive feedback, whereas other studies (e.g. Nease, Mudgett, & Quinones, 1999) reported that employees reacted favourably to feedback that was consistent with their self-ratings.
The current study tries to shed new light on these mixed findings by introducing a new moderator of feedback reactions. This moderator, sell-view certainty, is drawn from self-evaluation theory in social psychology. We will examine in the present field study if people's reactions to feedback are moderated by the certainty of their sell-views.
Theoretical background
The determinant that has received the most attention in feedback reactions research is the feedback valence or feedback sign. Several studies have found that feedback recipients are more likely to accept and use favourable (positive) feedback than unfavourable (negative) feedback (Bannister, 1986; Brett & Atwater, 2001; Facteau, Facteau, Schoel, Russel, & Poteet, 1998; Halperin, Snyder, Shenkel, & Houston, 1976; Illies, De Pater, & Judge, 2006; Stone & Stone, 1984; Tonidandel et al., 2002). This finding corresponds to predictions of sell-enhancement theory in social psychology. Self-enhancement theory proposes that people are motivated to view themselves as favourably as possible. Hence, individuals are driven to elevate the positivity of their self-concept and protect themselves from threatening information in order to achieve a high level of personal worth (for a review, see Sedikides & Strube [1997]). In the context of the feedback process, this theoretical perspective predicts that reactions are based on a one-step cognitive appraisal of the feedback message: 'If feedback is unfavourable, then dismiss it as inaccurate. If feedback is favourable, then accept it'.
In addition to the feedback sign, a second important determinant of feedback reactions is a person's perception of themselves before they receive feedback. These sell-views might modify the general tendency to accept and respond to favourable feedback. In particular, several studies reported that, in contrast to self-enhancement theory, feedback reactions were not determined by the feedback sign but by the degree of congruence between the feedback message and the sell-views individuals had before they received feedback. Thus, people are more likely to accept feedback when the feedback message confirms their existing sell-concept (e.g. Dauenheimer, Stahlberg, & Petersen, 1999; Jussim, Yen, & Aiello, 1995; Korsgaard, 1996; Markus, 1977; Nease et al., 1999). This finding corresponds to predictions of sell-verification theory. This social psychological motivation theory suggests that people go out of their way to maintain consistency between their sell-views and new sell-relevant information. People are motivated to confirm their sell-views out of a desire to maximize their perceptions of prediction, control and stability in an often chaotic social environment (for a review, see Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2002). In the context of the feedback process, this theory predicts that reactions are based on a two-step cognitive appraisal, for example: 'If the feedback is favourable and the particular sell-conception is unfavourable, then dismiss feedback as inaccurate. If the feedback is unfavourable and the particular self-conception is unfavourable, then accept the feedback message'.
Integrating self-verification and self-enhancement motives
The above indicates that it remains inconclusive as to which of the two self-evaluation theories is supported when considering feedback reactions in organizations. These mixed findings echo a debate in social psychology between proponents of self-enhancement theory and proponents of self-verification (self-consistency) theory during the 1960s. In origin, adherents of both perspectives questioned the existence of the other motive and tried to persuade the opposition (for a review, see Shrauger, 1975). As it could not be established which of these self-evaluation theories was the correct one, scholars have recently proposed that both models might be correct. That is, people might experience a need for both self-enhancement and self-verification, but these needs vary under different conditions. Thus, the research question has recently shifted from 'which motive is dominant?' to 'under which conditions do the motives operate?', that is, research has begun to search for moderators (Sedikides & Strubbe, 1995, 1997; Swann & Schroeder, 1995).
One important moderator that has been proposed is the nature of feedback reactions. On the basis of a review of empirical findings, Shrauger (1975) proposed that affective reactions to evaluations (e.g. satisfaction) might follow predictions of self-enhancement theory and cognitive reactions (e.g. utility) might follow predictions of self-verification theory. Research in the social psychological self-evaluation domain has supported this hypothesis (Dauenheimer et al., 1999; Jussim et al., 1995; Moreland & Sweeney, 1984; Sweeney & Wells, 1990).
In the current study, we propose a new moderator of the self-enhancement motive and the serf-verification motive in determining feedback reactions, namely, the certainty with which self-views are held before feedback is received. Self-view certainty refers to a subjective confidence of self-beliefs and is conceptually related to self-concept clarity. Self-concept clarity differs from self-view certainty in that the former refers to the global experience of the self as a clear and stable entity, whereas the latter is more concerned with confidence in specific self-views (Campbell, 1990; Story, 2004).
Swann and Schrocder (1995) identified serf-view certainty as one of the main moderators of the self-verification perspective. Empirical research shows that people are most inclined to seek confirmation of their self-views when these self-views are held with high certainty (Chen, Chen, & Shaw, 2004; Pelham, 1991; Pelham & Swann, 1994; Swann& Ely, 1984; Swann, Pelham, & Chidester, 1988). Self-views that are held with high certainty occupy a central position in the cognitive system of people. They are related to a great number of other self-relevant cognitions and therefore possess a high resistance to change (Markus, 1977). When self-concept certainty is high, the more congruent the feedback message is with the corresponding self-view, the more favourably people will react. Thus, people with higher self-view certainty are motivated to invest time and resources in a two-step cognitive appraisal.
However, when self-view certainty is low, people are more eager to self-enhance (Ungar, 1980). Uncertainty about beliefs implies a low resistance to change (Sorrentino, Bobocel, Gitta, & Olson, 1988). People can more easily change their low-certainty self-views in the direction of a more flattering self-image. Thus, when self-view certainty is low, people will use a one-step cognitive appraisal of the feedback. The more positive the feedback message, the more favourably people will react regardless of the corresponding self-views, as predicted by self-enhancement theory.
In short, we expect that serf-concept certainty will moderate the effect of self-views and feedback on feedback reactions. The specific theoretical predictions concerning the moderating effect of serf-view certainty are depicted in Figure 1. First, when serf-view certainty is low, we expect that only feedback scores will determine feedback reactions, regardless of...
|
