Abstract
Although people are generally motivated to perform well at work, there is often ambiguity regarding whether they are meeting their organization’s standards. As such, people often seek feedback from others. To date, feedback-seeking research has emphasized the feedback seeker, identifying traits and circumstances associated with feedback seeking, whereas far less is known about this process from the feedback source’s point of view. However, we expect that feedback sources will vary in their willingness to allocate effort toward delivering feedback. Specifically, integrating the cost-value framework of feedback with self-regulatory theories of goal prioritization, we predict that effort allocated toward a feedback episode is determined by the feedback source’s perceptions of the feedback seeker’s motives for seeking feedback. Across two complementary studies, we found perceived instrumental motives (i.e., a desire to improve one’s performance) to be positively related to the amount of effort put toward delivering feedback, and perceived image enhancement motives (i.e., a desire to impress the feedback source) to be negatively related to effort allocation. Importantly, Study 1 was a field study in which managers were asked to report on a recent episode in which a subordinate had sought their feedback, and Study 2 used an experimental design in which feedback-seeking motives were manipulated. Thus, the current research makes an important contribution to the literature by considering the often overlooked role that the feedback source plays in the feedback process. Moreover, triangulation of both field and experimental data enhances both the external and internal validity of our conclusions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
When measuring perceived feedback-seeking motives, we also consider ego enhancement motives, which are characterized by a desire to be reassured about the quality of one’s work or past behavior. However, relatively little empirical research has considered ego enhancement motives (Ashford et al., 2016). Furthermore, research and theorizing on person perception indicates that perceivers’ two dominant concerns center on cooperation vs. exploitation (which aligns with our focus on image enhancement motives) and level of competence (which aligns with our focus on instrumental motives; Cuddy et al., 2008). As a result, we anticipate that ego enhancement motives may not generally be as salient of a motive, particularly when interacting with unfamiliar individuals (as in Study 2). Thus, although we developed a measure of enhancement motives in our current study for completeness, we do not make a priori hypotheses regarding its impact on feedback source’s effort or include it in our focal studies.
In addition to this focal screening question, participants were asked several other questions about their employment experiences (e.g., “Are you currently self-employed?”). This was done to ensure that our screening criterion was not obvious, thereby limiting the prospect of potential participants providing false information for the purpose of gaining access to the study. Additionally, the study was only visible to individuals residing in the USA with a 95% MTurk approval rating based on at least 100 HITs.
Individual differences collected were implicit person theory (Dweck, 2000), self-monitoring (Wilmot et al., 2017), and political skill (Ferris et al., 2007). These variables were collected for exploratory purposes and are therefore not discussed further. However, a correlation matrix including these individual differences, as well as perceived ego enhancement motives, is presented in the SOM (Table SOM.4).
We also included three items to measure the ego enhancement factor for scale development purposes. As a final validation step, we conduct a confirmatory factor analysis using the data from the current study. The three-factor solution fit the data well (CFI = .912, RMSEA = .083). Furthermore, the three-factor model was a better fit than several plausible alternative factor structures (e.g., a one-factor solution; \(\Delta {\chi }^{2}=228.67\), \(\Delta df=3\), p < .001, CFI = .591, RMSEA = .175).
We also conducted hypothesis tests including ego enhancement motives as an exploratory variable. These results are presented in the SOM.
Similar to Study 1, participants were asked two additional questions about their employment experiences to help ensure that the screening criterion was not obvious. Specifically, participants were also asked “Do you currently, or have you ever, worked abroad?” and “Are you currently, or have you ever been, self-employed?” Likewise, participation was restricted to US residents with a 95% MTurk approval rating based on at least 500 HITs.
We also conducted the analyses for Study 2 using only the items with an inter-rater reliability above .70. Adjusting the cut-off to .70 results in one fewer feedback sensitivity item, however, the results are the same regardless of whether this item is included or not. Therefore, we retained this item and the a priori cut-off of .65.
Given the p < .10 significance level, we probed this interaction for the sake of completeness. As was the case in Study 1, the form of this interaction did not match our predictions. Likewise, the form of the interaction did not replicate the interaction observed in Study 1. Thus, we do not consider this interaction further.
References
Anseel, F., Beatty, A. S., Shen, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 318–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484521
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465–487. https://doi.org/10.5465/256219
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 32, 370–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3
Ashford, S., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29, 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00079-5
Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression-management in feedback-seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90068-i
Ashford, S. J., Stobbeleir, K. D., & Nujella, M. (2016). To seek or not to seek: Is that the only question? Recent developments in feedback-seeking literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062314
Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & König, C. J. (2012). Personnel selection as a signaling game. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026078
Ballard, T., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2018). On the pursuit of multiple goals with different deadlines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 1242–1264. https://doi.org/10.1037/ap10000304
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2680.5.4.323
Beck, J. W., Schmidt, A. M., & Natali, M. W. (2019). Efficient proximal resource allocation strategies predict distal team performance: Evidence from the National Hockey League. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 1387–1403. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000407
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 354–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031145
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2018). Negative relationships between self-efficacy and performance can be adaptive: The mediating role of resource allocation. Journal of Management, 44, 555–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314567778
Braddy, P. W., Sturm, R. E., Atwater, L. E., Smither, J. W., & Fleenor, J. W. (2013). Validating the Feedback Orientation Scale in a leadership development context. Group & Organization Management, 38, 690–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113508432
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Z., Huo, Y., Lam, W., Luk, R.C.‐T. and Qureshi, I. (2021), How perceptions of others’ work and impression management motives affect leader-member exchange development: A six‐wave latent change score model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychologyhttps://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12341
Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2017). Amazon mechanical turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
Dahling, J., O’Malley, A. L., & Chau, S. L. (2015). Effects of feedback motives on inquiry and performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-12-2012-0409
Dahling, J. J., & Whitaker, B. G. (2016). When can feedback-seeking behavior result in a better performance rating? Investigating the moderating role of political skill. Human Performance, 29, 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1148037
Doorewaard, H., Hootegem, G. V., & Huys, R. (2002). Team responsibility structure and team performance. Personnel Review, 31, 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480210422750
Drouvelis, M., & Paiardini, P. (2021). Feedback quality and performance in organisations. The Leadership Quarterlyhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101534
Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Routledge.
Ferris, G., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations. Journal of Management, 33, 290–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300813
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
Ghiselli, E., Campbell, J., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioural sciences. Freeman.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Gupta, A. K., Govindarajan, V., & Malhotra, A. (1999). Feedback-seeking behavior within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199903)20:3%3c205::aid-smj17%3e3.0.co;2-h
Hays, J. C., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Testing multiple motives in feedback seeking: The interaction of instrumentality and self protection motives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.01.007
Keith, M. G., Tay, L., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Systems perspective of Amazon Mechanical Turk for organizational research: Review and recommendations. Frontiers in Psychology, 8https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359
Kleinke, C. L. (1978). Perceived approbation in short, medium, and long letters of recommendation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 119–122. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1978.46.1.119
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Kraut, A., Pedigo, P. R., McKenna, D. D., & Dunnette, M. D. (1989). The role of the manager: What’s really important in different management jobs. The Academy of Management Executive, 3, 286–293. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1989.4277405
Kromrei, H. (2015). Enhancing the annual performance appraisal process: Reducing biases and engaging employees through self-assessment. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 28, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21192
Landers, R. N., & Behrend, T. S. (2015). An inconvenient truth: Arbitrary distinctions between organizational, Mechanical Turk, and other convenience samples. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 142–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.13
Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-2902.87.1.72
Lam, L. W., Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 348–363. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634440
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30, 881–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.005
Lord, R. G., & Levy, P. E. (1994). Moving from cognition to action: A control theory perspective. Applied Psychology, 43, 335–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1994.tb00828.x
Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. (2017). Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156
Manzoni, J.-F., & Barsoux, J.-L. (1998). The set-up-to-fail syndrome. Harvard Business Review, 76. Retrieved from: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A20496572/AONE?u=wate34930&sid=AONE&xid=6f9574ea
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/e518362013-127
Michel, J. S., O’Neill, S. K., Hartman, P., & Lorys, A. (2017). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a viable source for organizational and occupational health research. Occupational Health Science, 2, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-017-0009-x
Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. The Academy of Management Review, 16, 522–541. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279472
Murphy, K. R. (2020). Performance evaluation will not die, but it should. Human Resource Management Journal, 30, 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12259
Park, G., Schmidt, A. M., Scheu, C., & Deshon, R. P. (2007). A process model of goal orientation and feedback seeking. Human Performance, 20, 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959280701332042
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
Podsakoff, P. M., MaKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Rosen, C. C., Simon, L. S., Gajendran, R. S., Johnson, R. E., Lee, H. W., Lin, S.-H., & (J.). . (2019). Boxed in by your inbox: Implications of daily e-mail demands for managers’ leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000343
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0504_2
Schmidt, A. M., & Deshon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018289
Schmidt, A. M., & Dolis, C. M. (2009). Something’s got to give: The effects of dual-goal difficulty, goal progress, and expectancies on resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014945
Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1261–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1261
Sherf, E. N., Venkataramani, V., & Gajendran, R. S. (2019). Too busy to be fair? The effect of workload and rewards on managers’ justice rule adherence. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 469–502.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258440
Sun, S., Vancouver, J. B., & Weinhardt, J. M. (2014). Goal choices and planning: Distinct expectancy and value effects in two goal processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.09.002
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individual’s reactions to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective. In Research in personnel and human resources management (pp. 81–124). JAI Press.
Unsworth, K., Yeo, G., & Beck, J. (2014). Multiple goals: A review and derivation of general principles. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 1064–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1963
Vancouver, J. B., & Morrison, E. W. (1995). Feedback inquiry: The effect of source attributes and individual differences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1050
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. N., & Brown, S. P. (2000). An integrated model of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 996–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.996
Vial, A. C., & Napier, J. L. (2018). Unnecessary frills: Communality as a nice (but expendable) trait in leaders. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01866
Wilmot, M. P., Kostal, J. W., Stillwell, D., & Kosinski, M. (2017). Using item response theory to develop measures of acquisitive and protective Self-Monitoring from the original Self-Monitoring Scale. Assessment, 24, 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115615213
Yeo, G. B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix 1. Perceived feedback-seeking motives scale
Instructions:
Please think about why this subordinate may have asked you for feedback and indicate your agreement with the following statements:
They sought feedback because they…
-
1.
Wanted to learn more about the performance expectations that others set for them. (Instrumental)
-
2.
Wanted to improve their job-related skills. (Instrumental)
-
3.
Wanted to “learn the ropes” after new performance goals and expectations were set for them. (Instrumental)
-
4.
Wanted to understand whether they were meeting expectations. (Instrumental)
-
5.
Were searching for hints that could help them improve their performance. (Instrumental)
-
6.
Were taking an opportunity to remind you of their accomplishments. (Image Enhancement)
-
7.
Knew it would enhance the way you saw them. (Image Enhancement)
-
8.
Were aiming to communicate to you that they are competent. (Image Enhancement)
-
9.
Were trying to influence how you see them. (Image Enhancement)
-
10.
Wanted to feel better about their performance. (Ego Enhancement)
-
11.
Were looking for you to reassure them. (Ego Enhancement)
-
12.
Were hoping you would make them feel more confident about performing a specific task. (Ego Enhancement)
Response scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neither Agree nor Disagree), 4 (Agree), 5 (Strongly Agree).
Appendix 2. Study 2 vignettes
All vignettes were preceded by these instructions:
Please imagine you are a manager at a small advertising firm. You have 15 employees that directly report to you, one of whom is named Joe. Joe’s performance is generally middle of the pack, and you have been supervising him for three years.
One day, you get the following email from Joe:
A: High Image Enhancement Motives, Low Instrumental Motives
You’ve given Joe feedback before that he hasn’t used, so you are skeptical any feedback you give him will translate into significant improvements in the quality of his logo. You also know that Joe is bragging, and hoping you will give him some praise. It seems like he is asking you for feedback in an attempt to enhance the way you think about him and his work, perhaps to put himself in a good position for a pay raise.
B: High Image Enhancement Motives, High Instrumental Motives
You know that every time you give Joe feedback, he works hard to implement it, so you feel like any feedback you give him will translate into significant improvements in the quality of his logo. You also know that Joe is bragging, and hoping you will give him some praise. It seems like he is asking you for feedback in an attempt to enhance the way you think about him and his work, perhaps to put himself in a good position for a pay raise.
C: Low Image Enhancement Motives, Low Instrumental Motives
You’ve given Joe feedback before that he hasn’t used, so you are skeptical any feedback you give him will translate into significant improvements in the quality of his logo. You also don’t think that Joe is bragging or looking for praise. It doesn’t seem like he is asking for feedback in order to enhance the way you think about him or his work.
D: Low Image Enhancement Motives, High Instrumental Motives
You know that every time you give Joe feedback, he works hard to implement it, so you feel like any feedback you give him will translate into significant improvements in the quality of his logo. You also don’t think that Joe is bragging or looking for praise. It doesn’t seem like he is asking for feedback in order to enhance the way you think about him or his work.
Appendix 3
Study 2 feedback stimulus
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Minnikin, A., Beck, J.W. & Shen, W. Why Do You Ask? The Effects of Perceived Motives on the Effort that Managers Allocate Toward Delivering Feedback. J Bus Psychol 37, 813–830 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09776-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09776-x