Antecedents and Consequences of. Reactions to 360-degree feedback. Leanne Atwater. Joan F. Brett. School of Management, Arizona State University West

Transcription

1 Antecedents and Consequences of Reactions to 360-degree feedback Leanne Atwater Joan F. Brett School of Management, Arizona State University West Running head: Reactions to feedback Author Note: Leanne E. Atwater and Joan F. Brett, School of Management, Arizona State University West. This research was funded by a grant from Society for Human Resource Management Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joan F. Brett, School of Management, Arizona State University West, P.O. Box 37100, Phoenix, Arizona , phone: (602) , fax: (602) Electronic mail can be sent to jbrett@asu.edu

2 Reactions to feedback 2 Abstract This study investigated how attitudes and format of 360 degree feedback affected recipients reactions and attitudes following feedback. Managers were less positive, more negative and less motivated after receiving text versus numeric feedback. Leaders attitudes toward the feedback process and levels of organizational commitment influenced their reactions following feedback.

3 Reactions to feedback 3 Press Release An estimated 25 percent of companies are using upward or 360-degree feedback, however research indicates that improvement following these programs only resulted for 50% of the supervisors. It seems unlikely that organizations would invest thousands of dollars in a process that helps good managers get better but discourages managers receiving negative feedback. This study investigated how attitudes and format of 360 degree feedback affected recipients reactions and attitudes following feedback. Managers were more negative and less motivated after receiving text versus numeric feedback. Leaders attitudes toward the feedback process and levels of organizational commitment influenced their reactions following feedback.

4 Reactions to feedback 4 Antecedents and Consequences of Reactions to 360-degree feedback Three hundred and sixty degree or multi-source feedback, the process in which subordinates, peers, supervisors and /or customers provide anonymous feedback to recipients, has grown in popularity over the past decade (Waldman & Atwater, 1998). In 1996, Antonioni reported that an estimated 25 percent of companies were using some type of upward or 360- degree feedback process. In fact, several studies have reported improvements in overall performance following 360 or upward feedback interventions (e.g., Atwater, Roush & Fischthal, 1995; Reilly, Smither & Vasilopoulos, 1996). So why would any organization not engage in a 360-degree intervention? Positive behavior change and increased self-awareness are not the only outcomes that may result from 360-degree feedback. Recent research has suggested that individuals may react with anger and discouragement when 360 degree feedback is negative or not as positive as expected (Brett & Atwater, 2001). Kluger and DeNisi s (1996) seminal piece on the impact of performance appraisal feedback on performance also raised the issue that performance improvement is not the only outcome that can be expected from performance feedback. In fact, they concluded that in one third of the cases feedback actually resulted in decreased performance. Atwater, Waldman, Atwater and Cartier (2000) found that improvement following an upward feedback intervention only resulted for 50% of the supervisors who received it. It seems unlikely that organizations would want to invest thousands of dollars in a process that helps good managers get better but discourages and angers managers receiving negative feedback. An understanding of why and how recipients react to negative feedback may enhance the likelihood that the 360-feedback process will assist those most in need of the developmental feedback. Salient features of the feedback itself or attitudes of the feedback recipients may

5 Reactions to feedback 5 impact how individuals react to their feedback and towards their job or organization following feedback. This study investigates the influence of feedback recipient s attitudes and feedback format on the feedback recipients emotions and reactions. Recent research on 360-degree feedback suggests that some feedback recipients may not be benefiting from the process while others demonstrate notable improvements (Atwater, Waldman & Brett, 2002). Part of the reason some individuals do not respond favorably to the feedback may be due to the format in which it is provided. In a summary of research on employee reactions to performance standards, Bobko and Colella (1994) reported that research on performance feedback indicates that specific, descriptive feedback (e.g., how the individual scored), results in perceptions of source credibility and system fairness, more accurate evaluations of expected future success, and increased performance when compared to evaluative outcome feedback (e.g., how well the individual scored relative to others). Ilgen and Davis (2000) suggested that the framing of negative feedback may influence how recipients cognitively and affectively respond to the feedback. They asserted that the challenge of delivering effective negative feedback is achieving a balance between making recipients accept responsibility for low performance and not lowering the individual s self-concept. DeNisi and Kluger s (2000) research on performance appraisal feedback suggested that feedback that highlights self-other comparisons focuses the recipient s attention on him or herself rather than on the behaviors or task performance evaluated. This type of comparative feedback, where individuals see themselves as below average, causes employees to become alienated and demoralized. This is because most employees consider their work to be above average (Meyer, 1975). DeNisi and Kluger (2000) discuss feedback intervention theory which suggests that the effectiveness of any feedback depends on the level at which the feedback

6 Reactions to feedback 6 intervention focuses one s attention. When attention is focused at the task level (e.g., tasks on which the person needs to improve) individuals focus on shrinking the gap between their actual performance and their performance goals. Alternatively, when feedback focuses attention on the self, (e.g., when comparisons are made between oneself and others), feedback interventions often produce strong affective reactions that can interfere with task performance. DeNisi and Kluger (2000) reported that their research found that feedback that provided comparative information was associated with performance decline while feedback that provided information about past performance resulted in performance improvement. A typical 360-degree feedback report includes numerical self-ratings, averaged other ratings, and normative data about one s performance ratings compared to others in the organization. Comparing one s own ratings with those received by others may result in increased self-awareness for some individuals, but for others these comparisons may be detrimental because their ego or self-esteem is threatened. Attention to self produces affective reactions that may interfere with task performance and deplete the cognitive resources needed for task performance (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989). DeShon and Alexander (1996) found that when the discrepancy between a performance standard (similar to a self-rating a 360-degree process) and the actual level of performance (similar to others ratings in a 360-degree process) was large, the recipient was less likely to persist with the task. Kluger and De Nisi (1998) asserted that feedback interventions will be more effective if they are focused on goals at the task level and less focused on the self. We believe that feedback provided in the traditional manner (i.e., numeric ratings from self and others along with normative data about how others in the group scored) may cause a focus on self that will result in less positive and more negative reactions among recipients than feedback that is provided

7 Reactions to feedback 7 without numeric scores and normative comparisons. As such, we believe that text feedback that describes an individual s strengths and weaknesses in words rather than with numbers will result in more positive and fewer negative reactions. H1: Leaders will react more positively to feedback that is provided in text format without normative information as opposed to numeric format with normative information. Managers have different relationships with superiors, peers and direct reports; thus managers may value feedback from certain sources more than others, or may expect higher or lower ratings depending on the source. Reactions to negative feedback may vary depending on the source of the feedback. Ratings from superiors may be perceived as more important because superiors control resources and have legitimate power over recipients. Greller and Herold (1975) found that superiors were considered to be a more important source of feedback when compared with co-workers. Most organizations use some formal process for superiors to provide feedback to managers. Mechanisms for honest upward feedback from subordinates to managers are unlikely to exist unless the organization has been using some anonymous upward feedback process. As such, feedback in a 360 degree feedback process likely provides more new information to a manager because it includes unique feedback from subordinates. H2: Feedback to leaders from their subordinates will be more highly related to their emotional reactions to feedback than feedback from superiors or peers. Managers attitudes toward the feedback process may depend not only on the feedback source but also on the extent to which the feedback is discrepant with the manager s self view. Feedback that confirms the recipient s self-view is preferred and is seen as more informative (Pearce & Porter, 1986; Swann & Read, 1981). Pedler and Boydell (1980) found that feedback that was very disconfirming of one s self view, i.e., more negative than expected, did not result in developmental outcomes, but rather in rationalization.

8 Reactions to feedback 8 H3: Leaders who over-rate their leadership will experience more negative and fewer positive emotional reactions following feedback than under-raters. Feedback recipients may react to feedback differently depending on how committed they are to the organization. Individuals who are highly committed to their organizations would be more likely to feel positively toward a developmental process designed to improve their behavior and ultimately the organization s effectiveness. They will also be more motivated to change their behavior as a result of the feedback received. Likewise, those who are not committed to the organization may question why they should invest time and effort in developmental activities for an organization for which they feel little loyalty or commitment. H4: Leaders with higher levels of organizational commitment will be more motivated following feedback regardless of the sign of the feedback received. The attitudes individuals hold toward the feedback process may be relevant to their reactions to the feedback itself. We contend that the feedback recipients attitudes toward the feedback process itself also will impact the way feedback is perceived and used. Earlier work in the area of performance appraisal feedback has suggested that individuals who have positive attitudes toward the process and believe it is fair are more receptive to feedback (Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, & Carroll, 1995). Herold, Parsons and Rensvold (1996) suggested that feedback recipients were not merely passive. Rather, the proclivities, predispositions and selfconceptions of the recipient influence the quality of the feedback to that individual. To date, the attitudes individuals hold toward the 360-degree feedback process have not been investigated in terms of their impact on the recipients reactions to the feedback received. H5: Leaders with more favorable attitudes toward the feedback process will have more motivation, regardless of the sign of the feedback received. We propose that in addition to emotional reactions to feedback, another relevant outcome of a 360-degree feedback process is the leader s commitment to subordinates following

9 Reactions to feedback 9 feedback. Atwater et al. (2000) assessed the extent to which feedback recipients commitment to subordinates was affected by the feedback the recipient received from subordinates. They discovered that feedback ratings from subordinates predicted supervisors levels of commitment to their subordinates following feedback when pre-feedback commitment levels were controlled. H6: Feedback provided to leaders from their subordinates about their leadership will predict subsequent commitment to subordinates when controlling for pre-feedback commitment levels. Method Sample A multi-source feedback process was conducted with leaders in two organizations: an elementary school district and a retail organization. Within the school district, principals, assistant principals, staff directors and first line supervisors participated. Within the retail organization, district and regional sales managers were the leader participants. The sample sizes by rater group were: Self n=170; peers n=1028; subordinates n=1754 and superiors n=170. Procedure Administration of leadership surveys. Surveys were sent by internal mail to each rater by the Human Resource Managers and returned directly to the researchers. Feedback format. Feedback reports were prepared for each leader wherein he or she could see feedback from each source on each item. That is, the leader saw feedback from him/herself, superior, averaged subordinates and averaged peers. High and low ratings were highlighted in varying colors indicating very high strengths, high strengths, neither strength or development need, development need, and serious development need. The feedback was presented in one of two formats: numeric or text. Each feedback format included the same information detailed above, but was presented in numbers or words. The numeric feedback format was that typically provided to feedback recipients participating in

10 Reactions to feedback degree feedback processes. Numbers indicating strengths were highlighted in shades of green, development needs in shades of red. The text format used was designed specifically for this study to provide similar information to that included in the numeric report. In place of the numeric data, words were substituted such that the leader merely saw text that indicated very high strength highlighted in dark green or development need highlighted in red, etc. The same numeric cut-off scores were used to determine very high strengths (e.g., 8.5 or greater), strengths ( ), etc. for both formats. The feedback formats were pre-tested prior to administering the surveys and the information in the two formats was comparable. Measures Leadership. A leadership survey was created for the purposes of this study. A total of 47 items assessing various aspects of leadership were included. Items were rated on a 9-point scale ranging from 1=not at all to 9=almost always. Factor analyses of the 47 items conducted on each rating group separately, indicated that there were three clear factors representing three aspects of leadership; consideration, performance orientation, and employee development. Leadership scales were created for each dimension for each source by averaging responses to the questions that comprised each scale. Data for a leader s peers and subordinates were aggregated separately to create one score for each dimension for each source. Commitment to Subordinates. Two items assessed the leader s level of commitment to his/her subordinates. These items were used in earlier research by Atwater, et al. (2000). Organizational Commitment. Two items assessed leaders organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was assessed prior to the administration of feedback. Attitudes Toward Feedback. Attitudes toward feedback were measured with three items

11 Reactions to feedback 11 Reactions to Feedback. Reactions were measured following feedback. The 24 reactions included aware, motivated, pleased, disappointed, etc. These were factor analyzed and three clear factors emerged. Items were averaged to create scores for each of the three scales. Results Means, standard deviations and correlations among the scales are presented in Table 1. A number of interesting findings can be noted from this table. First, similar to earlier work (Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988) leadership ratings from others (subordinates, peers and managers) were related to one another, but self-ratings were unrelated or weakly related to ratings from others. Second, leaders levels of commitment to their subordinates following feedback were related to the ratings they received from those subordinates (i.e., the feedback they got from them), but their ratings of commitment to their subordinates prior to receiving feedback were unrelated to their ratings from their subordinates. Results for hypothesis 1 show that feedback format accounted for additional variance in reactions after the feedback variables were entered. (See Table 2). However, counter to our hypothesis, those who received text feedback reacted more negatively, less positively and were less motivated than those who received numeric feedback. The means on these variables for the two conditions were: positive emotion (text = 2.73, (numeric)=3.36; negative emotion (text) = 2.09, (numeric)=1.58; motivation (text)=3.66, (numeric)=4.03. Results for Hypothesis 2 indicate that ratings from subordinates correlated above.6 with each of the three reaction variables. In contrast, ratings from peers and managers did not correlate above.27 with the three reaction variables. (See table 1). Because subordinate ratings were most highly related to managers reactions overall, we tested hypothesis 3 by comparing self and subordinate ratings. A significant interaction

12 Reactions to feedback 12 indicates that the self-rating relative to subordinate rating is relevant. As can be seen from table 3, interactions were obtained for consideration and employee development in predicting positive emotion, a significant interaction was obtained for performance in predicting negative emotion and a significant interaction was obtained for employee development in predicting motivation. In each case, over-raters had more negative reactions, less positive reactions and lower motivation than under-raters. Misjudging one s performance orientation predicts negative reactions, while misjudging one s employee development predicts motivation. Those who received lower scores from their subordinates on employee development than they expected were subsequently less motivated than those who received higher scores than expected. In support of hypothesis 4, organizational commitment added significant variance to the prediction of motivation even after the ratings the leader received from his/her subordinates were accounted for (see Table 4). Leaders who had higher levels of organizational commitment were more likely to be motivated to improve following feedback, regardless of the type of feedback they received than were those with lower levels of commitment. Leader s attitudes toward the feedback process did add variance in predicting the leader s motivation following feedback after feedback from subordinates was controlled in support of hypothesis 5. (See Table 5). Those who were more positive about the feedback process and believed it was important to use the results were more motivated following feedback regardless of the sign of the feedback received. In support of Hypothesis 6, ratings received from subordinates accounted for an additional eight percent of variance in the leader s commitment to subordinates following feedback (R 2 =.26**). As indicated in Table 1, those who received more positive feedback were subsequently more committed; those receiving more negative feedback were less committed.

13 Reactions to feedback 13 Discussion This study examined antecedents and consequences of 360 degree feedback. We investigated how the format of 360 degree feedback affected reactions to the feedback. We found that individuals were significantly less positive, more negative and less motivated after receiving text feedback than numeric feedback. The implications appear to be that individuals prefer numeric scores and normative feedback and will be less angry and discouraged and more motivated and inspired if they receive numbers and comparative information regarding their leadership behaviors. Perhaps as a society we are used to numeric data. It appears that most individuals prefer to have their leadership strengths and weaknesses quantified as well. This is good news for those doing 360 degree feedback in its traditional format as this format seems to have more positive results than a text format. Regarding the rating source, clearly the reactions leaders had to feedback were most closely associated with the ratings they received from their subordinates as compared to their peers and manager. It is possible that because 360 feedback was a new process in both organizations studied that the novelty of information from this source had an impact. In both organizations, leaders were not housed in the same location as their superior and many of their peers. Thus, it is possible that these leaders believed their subordinates were in the best position to rate their behaviors on consideration, employee development and other leadership behaviors. Consistent with prior research, those who over-rated their leadership had less positive reactions than those who under-rated their leadership. However, the specific leadership dimensions related to different reaction measures. Those who over-rated their performance orientation had more negative reactions, but not fewer positive reactions. Rather over-rating one s employee development behaviors or consideration resulted in fewer positive reactions.

14 Reactions to feedback 14 Being surprised about how their performance was seen made them angry and discouraged, but being informed that they weren t as considerate as they thought caused them to feel less happy or pleased. Perhaps most interesting are the results for motivation. Receiving lower scores on employee development than expected resulted in leaders feeling less motivated than those who did not receive lower than expected scores. The findings regarding motivation following feedback as it relates to commitment to the organization and attitudes toward the feedback process supported our hypotheses. Those who had higher levels of organizational commitment were more motivated, regardless of the nature of the feedback. Commitment was not, however, correlated with the ratings leaders received from subordinates, those who were more committed did not get higher leadership ratings. These results support our contention that those who feel less commitment toward the organization will be less motivated to use the feedback to improve their leadership behaviors. Why work to make oneself a better leader if the job holds no real meaning or you feel negatively toward the organization? Similarly, those who held more positive attitudes toward the feedback process in general were also more motivated following feedback regardless of the feedback received than those who held less positive attitudes. This suggests that efforts to increase feedback recipients acceptance of the process before the process is initiated may be beneficial. If leaders can be convinced that the feedback process will be useful and valuable they should be more motivated to improve following receipt of feedback, even if that feedback is negative. Lastly, our hypothesis regarding a leader s commitment to subordinates following feedback replicated the results reported by Atwater et al. (2000). In their study, they found that the sign of the feedback the leader received from subordinates influenced leaders levels of commitment to subordinates following feedback when pre-feedback commitment levels were

15 Reactions to feedback 15 controlled. This is interesting because commitment to subordinates represents an outcome of 360 feedback not traditionally measured and suggests that there may be unintended negative consequences from negative feedback. Our objectives in this study were to understand the factors that influence reactions to and consequences of 360 degree feedback. The text feedback format exacerbated, rather than minimized negative reactions to negative feedback. Our results did indicate that individuals with more favorable attitudes toward the feedback process were more motivated after feedback, regardless of the feedback received. Research is needed to examine if pre-feedback interventions that facilitate acceptance of the 360 degree process and ally concerns about the process do indeed influence reactions to and consequences of negative feedback. Until this empirical question is answered, we propose that organizations undertaking a 360 degree process invest efforts in explaining the process and obtaining employee acceptance of the overall 360 degree program. The unintended negative consequences of negative feedback indicated in our study, reinforce the importance of attempts to minimize the negative reactions to this feedback.

16 Reactions to feedback 16 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations for Study Variables Perf. Sub. (1) Cons. Sub (2).81** Emp. dev. Sub (3).79**.88** Perf. Peer (4).24**.25**.30** Cons. Peer (5).25**.45**.43**.76** Emp. dev. Peer (6).26**.40**.41**.82**.86** Perf. Mgr (7).16*.17*.20**.50**.39**.38** Cons. Mgr (8).16*.32**.26**.42**.57**.48**.79** Emp. dev. Mgr (9).12.18*.24**.51**.50**.53**.83**.82** Perf. Self (10) Consid. Self (11).03.17*.14.17*.31**.30**.06.22**.21**.56** Emp. dev. Self (12) * **.70** Pos. Em. (13).62**.65**.65**.23**.24**.25**.23**.27**.22**.08.19*.14 Neg. Em.(14) -.52** -.51** -.50** * -.22** ** Mot d (15).21**.31**.32** **.56** -.36** Com. Sub 1 (16) *.12.17* Com. Sub 2 (17).27**.31**.32** **.15*.35** -.37**.20*.43** Org. Com. (18) **.19*.26**.22**.17*.26**.24**.32**.27** *.29**.19 Attitudes Fdbk. (19) **.26**.23** * **.18*.13 Mean sd * p <.05 ** p <.01

17 Reactions to feedback 17 Table 2 Regression Analyses: Feedback Format Predicting Emotional Reactions Controlling for Leadership Ratings DV = Positive Emotion R² R² change Beta Step 1 Manager Performance.02 Manager Consideration.26 Manager Employee Development.08** -.05 Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.17**.09** -.30** Step 1 Peer Performance.15 Peer Consideration.06 Peer Employee Development.06*.05 Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.16**.10** -.32** Step 1 Subordinate Performance.20* Subordinate Consideration.28* Subordinate Employee Development.45**.19 Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.48**.03** -.19* DV = Negative Emotion R² R² change Beta Step 1 Manager Performance -.04 Manager Consideration -.35* Manager Employee Development.07*.21 Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.13**.06**.26** Step 1 Peer Performance -.02 Peer Consideration -.16 Peer Employee Development Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.10**.07**.27** Step 1 Subordinate Performance -.23* Subordinate Consideration -.27 Subordinate Employee Development.33** -.07 Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.36**.03*.18* DV = Motivated R² R² change Beta Step 1 Manager Performance -.09 Manager Consideration.20 Manager Employee Development Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.07*.05** -.23** Step 1 Peer Performance.09 Peer Consideration -.14 Peer Employee Development Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.08**.06** -.25** Step 1 Subordinate Performance -.15 Subordinate Consideration.24 Subordinate Employee Development.16**.25 Step 2 Numeric vs. Text.18**.02* -.16* * p <.05 ** p <.01

18 Reactions to feedback 18 Table 3 Regression Analysis: Self Other Rating Comparisons Predicting Reactions to Feedback DV = Positive Emotion R² R² Change Step 1 Subordinate Performance.38** Step 2 Self Performance.39**.01 Step 3 Self Subordinate Performance.39**.00 Step 1 Subordinate Consideration.42** Step 2 Self Consideration.43**.008 Step 3 Self Subordinate Consideration.44**.014* Step 1 Subordinate Employee Development.41** Step 2 Self Employee Development.43**.02* Step 3 Self Subordinate Employee Development.44**.01 DV = Negative Emotion R² R² change Step 1 Subordinate Performance.25** Step 2 Self Performance.25**.00 Step 3 Self Subordinate Performance.28**.03** Step 1 Subordinate Consideration.25** Step 2 Self Consideration.25**.00 Step 3 Self Subordinate Consideration.26**.01 Step 1 Subordinate Employee Development.24** Step 2 Self Employee Development.24**.00 Step 3 Self Subordinate Employee Development.24**.00 DV = Motivated R² R² change Step 1 Subordinate Performance.05** Step 2 Self Performance.07**.02 Step 3 Self Subordinate Performance.08**.01 Step 1 Subordinate Consideration.09** Step 2 Self Consideration.11**.02 Step 3 Self Subordinate Consideration.11**.00 Step 1 Subordinate Employee Development.11** Step 2 Self Employee Development.18**.07** Step 3 Self Subordinate Employee Development.21**.03* * p <.05 ** p <.01

19 Reactions to feedback 19 Table 4 Regression Analysis: Leader s Organizational Commitment Predicting Motivation Following Feedback DV = Motivation Following Feedback R² R² change Beta Step 1 Subordinate Performance -.15 Subordinate Consideration.18 Subordinate Employee Development.12**.26 Step 2 Leader s Organizational Commitment.14**.023*.16* Table 5 Regression Analysis: Leader s Attitudes Toward Feedback Predicting Motivation Following Feedback DV = Motivation Following Feedback R² R² change Beta Step 1 Subordinate Performance -.15 Subordinate Consideration.19 Subordinate Employee Development.12**.24 Step 2 Leader s Attitudes Toward Feedback.18**.06**.25** a p<.10 * p <.05 ** p <.01

20 Reactions to feedback 20 References Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, normative and continuance commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25, Argyris, C. (1968). Conditions for competence acquisition and therapy. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 4, Ashforth, B. E., & Lee, R.T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Relations, 43, Atwater, L.A., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self-and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, Atwater, L.A., Waldman, D., Atwater, D., & Cartier (2000). An upward feedback field experiment. Supervisors cynicism, follow-up and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, Atwater, L.A., Waldman, D., Brett, J. F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback. Human Resource Management Journal. 41, Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, Baron, R.M., & Ganz, R.L. (1972). Effects of locus of control and type of feedback on performance of lower-class black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, Berhardin, H.J, Dahmus, S.A., and Redmon, G. (1993). Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward subordinate appraisals. Human Resource Management, 32, Bobko, P. & Colella, A. (1994). Employee reactions to performance standards: A review and research propositions. Personnel Psychology, 47, Brett, J., & Atwater, L. (2001). 360-degree feedback: Accuracy, reactions and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 1, DeShon, R.P., & Alexander, R.A. (1996). Goal setting effects in implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65,

21 Reactions to feedback 21 Festinger, L. A. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. Greller, M. M. & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: a preliminary investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, Harris, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer and peer supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, Ilgen, D. & Davis, C. (2000). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feedback. Applied Psychology: An international Review, 49, Kanfer, R. & Ackerman, P.L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integration / aptitude- treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, Kluger, A. N. & De Nisi, A. (1998). Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-edged sword. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 7, Love, K.G. (1981). Comparison of peer assessment methods: Reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, Marsh, H. W. & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students evaluation of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias and utility. American Psychologist, 52, Maurer, T. J., Barbeite, F.G., & Mitchell, D.R. (2002). Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvment in post-feedback management development activity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, McEvoy, G. M. (1990). Public sector managers reactions to appraisals by subordinates. Public Personnel Management, 19, Meyer, J.P. Paunonen, S.V., Gellatly, I.R., Goffin, R.D. & Jackson, D.N. (1989). Organization commitment and job performance: It s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Meyer, H. (1975). The pay for performance dilemma. Organizational Dynamics, 3, 39-

22 Reactions to feedback 22 Meyer, J.P., Paunonen, S.V., Gellaty, I.R., Goffin, R.D., Jackson, D. (1989). Organizational commitment and job performance: It s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Mowday, R. T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organizational Commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1980). Is all management development self-development? In Beck, J. & Cox, C. (Eds.), Advances in Management Education. (pp ). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pearce, J.L., & Porter, L.W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, Podsakoff, P.M., & Farh, J. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, Reilly, R. R., Smither, J. W., & Vasilopoulos, N.L. (1996). A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49, Russell. M. & Karol. D. (1994). 16 PF Administrator s Manual. IPAT. Champaign, IL. Schaible, T. (1970). Group cohesion, feedback acceptance and desirability: Functions of the sequence and valence of feedback. Unpublished Master's thesis, West Virginia University (as cited in Morran, K., & Stockton, R. (1980). Effect of self-concept and group member reception of positive and negative feedback. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 3, ) Smith, R.E., & Sarason, I.G. (1975). Social anxiety and evaluation of negative interpersonal feedback. Journal of Cousulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 429. Steele- Johnson, D., Turban, D. B., Pieper, K. F. & Ng, Y.M. (1996). Exploring the role of normative-and performance - based feedback in motivational processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, Swann, W. B. & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our selfconceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, Taylor, M., Tracy, K., Renard, M., Harrison, J., & Caroll, S. (1995). Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi experiment in procedural justice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, Vance, R., Brooks, S.M., & Tesluk, P.E. (1995, May). Organizational cynicism, cynical cultures, organizational change efforts. Paper presented at the 10 th Annual Conference of the society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.

23 Reactions to feedback 23 Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L.E. (1998). The power of 360-degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston, TX: Gulf.