Content uploaded by Mukta Kulkarni
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mukta Kulkarni on Mar 06, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Does Constructive Performance
Feedback Improve Citizenship
Intentions and Job Satisfaction?
The Roles of Perceived
Opportunities for Advancement,
Respect, and Mood
Kristin L. Sommer, Mukta Kulkarni
Organizational experts have long touted the importance of delivering nega-
tive performance feedback in a manner that enhances employee receptivity
to feedback, yet the broader impacts of constructive feedback have received
relatively little attention. The present investigation explored the impact of con-
structive, critical feedback on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
intentions and job satisfaction. A demographically diverse sample of 128
employees drawn from a variety of organizations completed a survey online.
Employees whose supervisors used constructive feedback felt more respected
by their supervisors and perceived greater opportunities for advancement
within the organization. These variables, in turn, predicted better mood at
work, greater job satisfaction, and stronger OCB intentions. The present find-
ings highlight the importance of delivering performance feedback in a man-
ner that emphasizes problematic behaviors over personal weaknesses and
makes clear reference to standards and strategies for improvement. Implica-
tions for managerial training and human resource development are discussed.
Human resource development in the form of performance feedback is a criti-
cal managerial activity that contributes to individual and organizational effec-
tiveness (McCarthy & Garavan, 2006). Because performance appraisal
outcomes are used to make important decisions regarding role changes
and developmental needs (Youngcourt, Leiva, & Jones, 2007), the anticipation
of a performance appraisal can be particularly stressful for employees (Taylor,
Pettijohn, & Pettijohn, 1999). While a positive review is unlikely to elicit
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 23, no. 2, Summer 2012 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq.21132 177
178 Sommer, Kulkarni
hostility or withdrawal on the part of the employee, a negative review is and
thus requires skillful handling by the supervisor. Managers must provide a sup-
portive climate that allows employees to remain engaged and optimistic about
their career prospects even in the face of critical feedback.
Managerial feedback may not only allow for development of one’s knowl-
edge and abilities, but may also proffer benefits that extend well beyond
performance management. For example, inherent in the feedback process is
information regarding one’s potential for advancement within the organization
(Nurse, 2005), as well as the degree to which one is generally respected or val-
ued by the organization (e.g., Baron, 1993; Chory & Kingsley-Westerman, 2009).
Simultaneously, perceived organizational fairness, and in particular the percep-
tion that one has been treated in a respectful manner, positively influences one’s
satisfaction with the job and one’s willingness to engage in extrarole behaviors
(Blader & Tyler, 2009; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001;
Moorman, 1991; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Feedback thus has far reaching bene-
fits as well as the concurrent potential for detrimental individual outcomes.
To date, little theoretical or empirical work has directly addressed the link
between the quality of supervisory feedback and citizenship intentions and job
satisfaction, or explored the extent to which perceived respect, mood at work,
or opportunities for advancement might mediate these relationships. An exam-
ination of these relationships would offer valuable insight into the potentially
far-reaching human resource development implications of good supervisory
feedback, as well as build upon recent theoretical work linking perceived justice
and feelings of respect to workplace helping behaviors (Blader & Tyler, 2009).
The present study was designed to address the following questions:
• Does the constructiveness of negative supervisory feedback predict feelings
of respect, mood at work, perceived opportunities for career advancement,
job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship 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 organizational citizenship intentions?
Research on performance appraisals has taken many forms. For example,
prior streams of research have focused on (a) the appraisal instrument and its
psychometric properties (Conway & Huffcutt, 1997; Feldman, 1981;
Kavanagh, MacKinney, & Wolins, 1971); (b) various cognitive processes and
associated biases of users of the instrument (Feldman, 1981; Fried, Levi, Ben-
David, & Tiegs, 1999; Roberson, Galvin, & Charles, 2007); (c) the quality of
the appraisal or feedback system in terms of its impact on strategic organiza-
tional outcomes and individual effectiveness (Fombrun & Laud, 1983); (d) the
application and outcomes of appraisals in specific contexts such as for sales
performance (Taylor, Pettijohn, & Pettijohn, 1999) or in hospitals (West,
Guthrie, Dawson, Borrill, & Carter, 2006); and (e) the specific psychosocial
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
outcomes of the appraisal for recipients of the appraisal (Baron, 1988, 1993;
Chory & Kingsley-Westerman, 2009). It is this last stream with which we
engage and contribute to via the present study.
In the literature review that follows, we review the major taxonomies of con-
structive and destructive performance feedback. We then discuss what we per-
ceive as being two important and immediate reactions to destructive feedback:
perceived opportunities for advancement within the organization, and perceived
respect. The potential links between these factors and more distal outcomes of
constructive feedback, including mood, job satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are then discussed. We conclude our review with
a description of the theoretical model that was examined in the present study.
Constructive Performance Feedback
Several taxonomies of constructive or supportive feedback have been pro-
posed. Albrecht and Adelman (1987) argued that supportive communication
in organizations conveys information for framing of cause–effect contingen-
cies; serves an instructional purpose; increases skill level of the receiver; offers
acceptance and reassurance; and includes nonverbal communication that
conveys a positive tone and reassurance. Based on in-depth interviews with
managers, Cameron and Whetten (1998) suggested that supportive feedback
is problem oriented, congruent, and descriptive. It validates the speaker, is
direct and specific, has a logical conjunctive progression, and includes sup-
portive listening. Baron (1993) argued that constructive feedback is that which
is specific in content, devoid of threats and internal attributions for poor per-
formance, considerate, timely/prompt, and delivered in an appropriate setting.
Collapsing across these theoretical models, we considered constructive feed-
back to be feedback whose content (a) emphasizes problematic behaviors over
personal weaknesses, (b) makes explicit reference to standards for perfor-
mance, and (c) provides clear strategies for remedying poor performance.
Prior work has linked the absence of one or more features of constructive
feedback to relatively poor responses to feedback. Taylor and colleagues (1999)
have argued that poorly conducted appraisals lower performance and nega-
tively influence morale and satisfaction. In three studies, Shapiro, Buttner, and
Barry (1994) found that the specificity and sensitivity with which explanations
were provided for a job rejection positively predicted perceived adequacy of
explanations. Research by Bies and colleagues (Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Bies,
Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988) revealed that the perceived adequacy of explana-
tions for bad outcomes is associated with enhanced perceptions of fairness and
reduced conflict between managers and subordinates. In a similar vein, Baron
(1988) found that criticism that was nonspecific and implied internal causes for
poor performance led to higher anger and tension on the part of feedback recip-
ients and stronger intentions to respond to future conflict with avoidance.
Recipients of destructive feedback also made greater concessions in negotiation
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 179
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
180 Sommer, Kulkarni
with the criticizer, reported lower self-efficacy and set lower performance goals
on future tasks. Overall, research reveals that failure to engage in elements of
constructive feedback disrupts employee morale and encourages the avoidance
rather than approach of future performance goals (Ilgen & Davis, 2000).
Feedback and Perceived Career Advancement
Opportunities
Constructive performance feedback serves the general function of aligning
employee task behavior with organizational goals and can clarify and reinforce
specific skills and competencies required for career advancement (Huselid,
1995). Performance feedback that serves a clarifying function or is anchored
in behavioral detail allows employees to better understand their roles and work
contexts. Indeed, such feedback is so important that people not only wait to
receive it formally or informally from their supervisors but often actively seek
it (Ashford & Cummings, 1985). Because employees need to understand how
appraisal feedback applies to their current or changed role requirements in
order to better advance their careers within organizations (Youngcourt, Leiva, &
Jones, 2007), destructive feedback should undermine perceived opportunities
for advancement.
Feedback and Perceptions of Fairness
The quality of supervisory feedback is also likely to impact perceptions of fair-
ness, particularly the belief that one has been treated in a respectful manner
(Baron, 1993). Below, we briefly define the various types of justice discussed
in the broader organizational justice literature. We then describe those studies
most relevant to current investigation.
Distributive justice is defined as the perceived fairness of outcomes,
whereas procedural justice refers to the fairness of the processes used to arrive
at outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Interactional justice refers to quality
of interpersonal treatment when procedures are implemented (Bies & Moag,
1986). Interactional justice has been subdivided into interpersonal justice
(characterized by perceived respect, dignity, and politeness) and informational
justice (defined by the presence of explanations for decisions) (Greenberg,
1990, 1993). However, more recent models place both forms of interactional
justice under the broader umbrella of procedural justice (Blader & Tyler,
2003a, 2003b; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Tyler & Bies, 1990).
Prior research has uncovered relationships between various features of neg-
ative performance feedback and perceived justice. Based on earlier theorizing by
Geddes and Linnehan (1996), Chory and Kingsley-Westerman (2009) identified
four dimensions of negative feedback: clarity (explicit vs. ambiguous); construc-
tiveness (constructive vs. destructive); cognizance (high vs. low knowledge
of conditions of performance); and consistency (clear vs. mixed/inconsistent
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
standards of evaluation). The authors asked employees from various organiza-
tions to rate negative performance feedback along these four dimensions
and then complete three measures of organizational justice. The findings
revealed that constructiveness was strongly related to interactional justice and
moderately related to distributive and procedural justice. Consistency was
equally and strongly predictive of distributive and procedural justice followed
by interactional justice. Clarity and cognizance showed weak relationships with
all three justice variables. Thus, consistency (reflected by clear and consistent
standards for performance) and constructiveness (characterized by sensitivity
to subordinates’ feelings) emerged as feedback dimensions most critical to
perceived fairness.
In another study, Leung, Su, and Morris (2001) manipulated interpersonal
fairness by having participants imagine a supervisor who was or was not
respectful and considerate when giving feedback. They found that interper-
sonal fairness resulted in greater acceptance of negative feedback and more
positive attitudes toward the supervisor and organization. In a follow-up sur-
vey study, the authors found that fair interpersonal treatment reduced the
occurrence of negative dispositional attributions toward the supervisor and
improved acceptance of critical feedback.
More recently, Sparr and Sonnentag (2008) examined whether perceived
fairness predicts employee well-being and perceived control by way of
enhanced leader–member exchange (LMX), which is defined as high-quality
relationships between superiors and subordinates. Based on the work of
Colquitt (2001), they assessed four types of feedback-related fairness: distrib-
utive fairness (extent to which feedback reflected receiver’s actual performance
and efforts); procedural fairness (processes used to determine feedback content);
interpersonal fairness (feedback characterized by politeness and respectfulness);
and informational fairness (feedback characterized by sincerity of communica-
tion and adequate explanations). Well-being at work was defined broadly as
including job-related satisfaction, anxiety, depression, and turnover intentions.
Single justice dimensions were very similarly related to outcome variables and
therefore collapsed. Results revealed that overall fairness perceptions were
positively related to perceived control and employee well-being (except to job
anxiety), and that LMX fully mediated these relationships. The authors
concluded that feedback fairness enhances well-being through improving rela-
tionships between supervisors and employees.
Feedback and Job-Related Affect
The respect and advancement opportunities conveyed through the delivery of
constructive performance feedback are likely to impact the valence of emotions
at work. When people perceive feedback as enhancing task specific self-
efficacy and improving skills and performance, they may believe that the organi-
zation and their manager are helping them (Sun, Aryee, & Law, 2007). Feedback
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 181
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
182 Sommer, Kulkarni
that is devoid of constructive steps a person can take to improve, however, is
likely to cause stress and lowered satisfaction (Taylor et al., 1999). This
is because current and future roles remain ambiguous and hence have nega-
tive performance implications for the role incumbent.
In a similar vein, Baron (1993) suggested that increases in anger and ten-
sion following critical or negative performance feedback often stem from the
perception of being treated poorly by one’s supervisor. Critical feedback that
is constructive, or offers clear guidelines for improvement and avoids personal
attributions for poor performance, is likely to offset changes in mood associ-
ated with the (negative) valence of the feedback (Baron, 1988, 1993).
OCBs and Job Satisfaction
Accumulating evidence points to the critical role of perceived fairness—and in
particular perceptions of respectful treatment—in both OCBs and job satisfac-
tion. Briefly, OCBs are extrarole or contextual behaviors that are discretionary
in nature (Organ, 1988; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie, 1997). Altruism
includes helping internal (e.g., coworkers) and external (e.g., customers) stake-
holders with organizationally relevant tasks. Courtesy includes sharing infor-
mation and minimizing or precluding problems for others. Conscientiousness is
reflected in punctuality and extra work in the absence of remuneration (e.g.,
overtime pay). Sportsmanship is defined by the absence of destructive behav-
iors, including petty grievances for real or imagined slights. Civic virtue reflects
involvement in organizational policies and efforts to enhance organizational
functioning. Williams and Anderson (1991) proposed that these five OCB
dimensions can be separated into behaviors that benefit individuals (or OCB-Is)
versus behaviors that benefit the organization (or OCB-Os, such as civic
virtue). More recent meta-analytic work by LePine, Erez, and Johnson (2002)
revealed that the five dimensions showed inconsistent and undifferentiated
relationships with outcomes such as satisfaction, fairness, and organizational
commitment. As a result, the authors recommended treating citizenship behav-
ior as a latent rather than multidimensional construct.
Moorman (1991) found that interactional justice—defined by perceptions
of having been treated in a kind, considerate, and honest manner by one’s
supervisor—predicted supervisor-reported OCBs, whereas procedural and dis-
tributive justice remained unrelated to these behaviors. Moorman also found that
while all forms of justice predicted job satisfaction, interactional justice was the
strongest predictor. More recent studies have similarly demonstrated that per-
ceptions of respectful or courteous treatment (characterized as interactional or
interpersonal justice) predict variance in job satisfaction beyond that explained
by procedural or distributive justice alone (Collie, Bradley & Sparks, 2002; Loi,
Yang, & Diefendorff, 2009; Masterson, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000).
Fassina, Jones, and Uggerslev (2008) noted that interactional justice is
typically achieved through positive interactions with immediate supervisors,
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
whereas procedural justice is more strongly related to treatment by the orga-
nization. In line with principles of social exchange (Moorman & Byrne, 2005)
and the agent-system model of justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, &
Ng, 2001), the meta-analysis by Fassina and colleagues revealed that interac-
tional justice predicted relatively more variance in OCB-Is (benefiting one’s
supervisor and members of one’s workgroup), whereas procedural justice pre-
dicted relatively more variance in OCB-Os (benefiting the organization).
Taking a different perspective, Tyler and colleagues (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler,
Degoey, & Smith, 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992) argued that the link between pro-
cedural justice and OCBs results from social identification with one’s group
(e.g., one’s workgroup or organization), defined in large part by perceptions of
being respected and valued within the group (Blader & Tyler, 2009). Percep-
tions of respect within the group derive largely from positive interactions with
supervisors and other authority figures (Tyler et al., 1996). In support of this
reasoning, Blader and Tyler found that the effects of procedural justice on
OCBs were fully mediated by employees’ social identification with their work
groups (Study 1) and their organizations (Study 2).
What remains unclear is whether citizenship behaviors and job satisfac-
tion follow directly from perceived respect, or whether at least part of this asso-
ciation may be mediated by mood. For example, Blader and Tyler (2009) noted
that the psychological processes linking social identification (defined in part
by feelings of respect) and helping behaviors had yet to be fully understood.
There also exists a large theoretical and empirical literature linking trait affect
or mood at work to job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Lam, Yik, &
Schaubroeck, 2002) and extrarole behaviors (George, 1991; George & Brief,
1992; Motowildo, 1984; Organ, 1988; Williams & Shiaw, 1999). In fact,
George (1991) found that positive affect (PA) at work accounted for significant
variance in prosocial behaviors beyond that explained by cognitive factors,
including perceptions of fair treatment by one’s supervisor and by manage-
ment, fairness in reward distributions (distributive justice), and perceived com-
pensation relative to others. Collectively, then, these findings suggest that affect
or mood at work might explain variance in OCB intentions and job satisfac-
tion beyond that explained by respect alone.
Theoretical Model Explored in Current Research
Figure 1 depicts the theoretical causal model that was examined in the present
study. We conceived of perceived respect and opportunities for career advance-
ment as relatively immediate reactions to feedback (e.g., Ashford & Cummings,
1985; Baron, 1993; Bies & Shapiro, 1988; Bies et al., 1988); thus, these vari-
ables served as the first set of mediators in our model. Job-related affect was
conceived as a more distal response driven by perceived respect and opportu-
nities (Baron, 1988, 1993; Taylor et al., 1999); thus, PA and negative affect
(NA) served as the second set of mediators within the model. Because the
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 183
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
184 Sommer, Kulkarni
existing literature is mixed with regard to the causal pathways linking these
theoretical mediators to job satisfaction and OCBs, we explored the evidence
for several different patterns. Specifically, we anticipated that opportunities for
advancement may bear direct relationships to job satisfaction, in addition to
indirectly influencing job satisfaction through changes in mood (Dobbins,
Cardy, & Platz-Vieno, 1990; Taylor et al., 1999). Similarly, perceived respect
has been implicated as a cause of OCB intentions (Blader & Tyler, 2009) and
job satisfaction (Moorman, 1991), yet other work suggests that some of these
linkages might occur indirectly through changes in mood (George, 1991; Lam
et al., 2002). Therefore, we adopted an analytical approach that allowed us to
examine both direct and paths among our mediators and outcome variables.
We anticipated that, regardless of the precise patterns that emerged, the effects
of constructive feedback on both job satisfaction and OCB intentions would
be completely accounted for by the mediators in our model.
Our study was conducted in two phases. The purpose of Phase 1 was to
generate a list of items that would tap into the key dimensions of constructive
versus destructive feedback. The goal of Phase 2 was to test the mediational
patterns suggested within our theoretical model.
Phase 1
In Phase 1 of this research, we sought to develop a brief measure of feedback
constructiveness that included the central features of constructive or support-
ive feedback described in previous theory and research. As mentioned earlier,
we conceived of constructive feedback as performance feedback that
(a) emphasizes problematic behaviors over personal weaknesses; (b) makes
explicit reference to standards for performance; and (c) provides clear, specific
strategies for remedying poor performance. Other features of feedback, such
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Constructive
Feedback
Perceived
Respect Positive Affect OCB Intentions
Opportunities
for
Advancement
Negative Affect Job Satisfaction
Figure 1. Theoretical Model Linking Constructive Feedback to Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors
as timeliness of feedback, setting in which feedback is provided, presumed knowl-
edge level of the feedback provider, and the perception that standards are applied
consistently across feedback recipients were not reflected in our measure.
Our focus on the content of feedback was driven by several considera-
tions. First, the three features mentioned above operate in both single and mul-
tiple instances of feedback; thus, they can be assessed among employees who
have received only one performance appraisal or who have been employed for
a short period of time. Ongoing dialogue between supervisors and subordi-
nates or knowledge of how one is evaluated relative to one’s peers is not
required. Second, unlike other features of feedback (such as timing and set-
ting), these features can be completely controlled by the feedback provider and
thus easily modified within an appraisal setting. Finally, these features appear
in all taxonomies or models of appraisal feedback (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987;
Baron, 1993; Cameron & Whetten, 1998; Chory & Kingsley-Westerman;
2009), attesting to their importance in the literature.
Though a few excellent measures of performance feedback already appear
in the literature (Chory & Kingsley-Westerman, 2009; Sparr & Sonnentag,
2008), none were suitable for our purposes. This is because scale items assessed
perceptions of respectful treatment (which we sought to assess separately) or
incorporated features (like setting or assumptions regarding the supervisor’s
familiarity with job conditions) that were not under the direct control of the
feedback provider. Given our interest in human resource development (for both
employees and their managers), we wanted to focus on those features of the
feedback process that were under direct and immediate control of the supervi-
sor and could be modified or adjusted through human resource interventions.
Method
Participants and Procedure. A convenience sample of 81 managers (65
males, 5 females, 11 unknown) attending a one-year management certificate
program at a business school in India was recruited for Phase 1. Participants
were asked to think about negative feedback they had received from their
immediate supervisor over the past year. They then completed measures of
feedback constructiveness, OCB intentions, and job satisfaction. Average work
experience of participants was approximately six years post graduation. Par-
ticipants had college degrees and represented diverse professions.
Measures
Constructive Feedback. Participants were asked to think about negative or
critical feedback they had received from their supervisors over the past year.
They were told to focus on weaknesses that were discussed as part of their for-
mal performance reviews, as well as any critical feedback they received from
supervisors on an ongoing (daily) basis. They then completed 10 items devel-
oped to tap into the three features of constructive feedback mentioned earlier.
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 185
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
186 Sommer, Kulkarni
(As noted earlier, we did not incorporate feedback features that deviated from
the content of the feedback.) Agreement with items was assessed along five-
point scales (1 ⫽strongly disagree to 5 ⫽strongly agree). A Principal Com-
ponents Analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation yielded three components
exceeding an eigenvalue of 1. Examination of component loadings indicated
that all but three items loaded on the first factor. These three items were
removed, and a second PCA resulted in a one-component solution with an
eigenvalue of 4.00, accounting for 57% of the variance. Final scale items and
PCA loadings are provided in Table 1. Items were averaged to provide an over-
all index of constructive feedback (␣⫽0.87).
Phase 2
Phase 2 provided a full test of all our theoretical linkages within a new, and more
ethnically and professionally diverse sample of respondents. We sought to deter-
mine the extent to which perceived respect, mood at work, and perceived career
advancement mediated the effects of constructive feedback on OCB intentions
and job satisfaction. In addition to assessing and controlling for several demo-
graphic variables, we included two additional control variables in our study: dis-
tributive justice [perceived fairness of formal appraisal rating(s) received] and
procedural justice [perceived fairness of feedback procedures]. While we antic-
ipated that the constructiveness of the feedback would drive responses to feed-
back independently of the perceived fairness of the outcome (or distributive
justice), we felt it was important to test this directly. Further, we felt it was impor-
tant to establish that respectful treatment was a better predictor of responses to
feedback than the perceived fairness of feedback procedures (procedural justice).
Method
Participants and Procedure. Respondents were solicited by sending e-mail
messages to former graduate students as well as colleagues working in nonuni-
versity settings. These initial contacts were asked to forward the email solicitation
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Table 1. Constructive Feedback Scale Items and PCA Loadings, Phase 1
The negative or critical feedback that I typically receive
from my supervisor . . . PCA Loading
. . . focuses on identifiable problems and behaviors upon 0.89
which I can take action.
. . . suggests that my weaknesses can be overcome or remedied. 0.82
. . . makes reference to clear, legitimate standards for acceptable behavior. 0.82
. . . is very specific and detailed. 0.75
. . . makes reference to specific situations or incidents that are problematic. 0.63
. . . is so vague that I do not know what to change (reverse-scored) 0.78
. . . makes clear reference to the behaviors that I need to fix. 0.87
to others who might meet the eligibility criteria. This method of soliciting
participants is referred to as the snowball method (Patton, 1990) and is used
to enlarge a sample pool that is of theoretical interest. The snowball method
allowed us to obtain a more random sample of participants than that used
in Phase 1, thereby improving our ability to generalize our findings across
settings and individuals. To be eligible for participation, respondents had to be
at least 18 years old and employed at their current jobs long enough
to have received feedback from their supervisors. The e-mail solicitation
included a brief description of project and a link to an anonymous Web-based
survey.
The final sample consisted of 128 employees (53% male, 46% female, 1%
unspecified) working in a variety of organizations in Malaysia (0.8%), the
United Arab Emirates (1.6%), Singapore (14.0%), the United States (39.0%),
and India (43.0%). Two respondents (1.6%) did not indicate their country of
origin. Respondents self-identified as Asian (69%), Caucasian (24%), Hispanic
(3%), African American (1%) or members of some other racial/ethnic group (3%).
Respondents ranged in age from 19 to 59 years, with a median age of 33 years.
Organizational tenure ranged from 1 month to 31 years, with a median tenure
of 3 years, 2 months. Nearly half (45.3%) of our respondents held master’s
degrees. Others reported having some graduate/professional school training
(25.0%), a bachelor’s degree (16.4%), a doctoral degree (6.3%), some college
training (3.0%), or they did not report their educational background (4.0%).
Measures. Unless otherwise noted, items were assessed along scales of 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items within each variable were aver-
aged for analyses.
Constructive Feedback. Participants completed the same seven-item mea-
sure used in Study 1. A PCA with Varimax rotation resulted in one factor
accounting for 63% of the variance. Items were averaged to provide an over-
all measure of constructive feedback (␣⫽0.90).
Opportunity for Advancement. Two items (reverse-scored) drawn from
Nelson, Basu, and Purdie (1998) were used to assess opportunities for
advancement within the organization: “There are insufficient opportunities
for advancement in this organization” and “I do not have the opportunity to
develop myself for the future.” Reliability was acceptable (␣⫽0.73).
Respect. Respect was measured using six items drawn from Tyler et al.
(1996). Sample items included “My supervisor values me as a member of the
organization” and “My supervisor respects the work I do.” Internal consistency
was high (␣⫽0.96).
Mood at Work. Mood was measured using the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS) created by Watson, Clark, and Tellegan (1988). Ten items
assessed PA (e.g., excited, enthusiastic), and 10 items assessed NA (e.g., upset,
hostile). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they tended
to experience each emotion while at work, on a scale of 1 (very slightly or not
at all) to 5 (extremely). Internal consistency for both scales was 0.91.
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 187
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
188 Sommer, Kulkarni
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction items were drawn from the Job Diagnos-
tic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). These five items measured overall
satisfaction with the job and intentions to stay in the job. Example items
included “Most people would be satisfied with this job” and “I am thinking of
quitting my job” (reverse scored). Participants reported their agreement with
each item on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (␣⫽0.81).
OCB Intentions. OCB intentions were assessed with an 11-item scale cre-
ated by Williams and Shiaw (1999). This scale assesses the five types of OCBs:
altruism, courtesy (combined under the label consideration), sportsmanship,
civic virtue, and conscientiousness. Example items include “A colleague seems
to be having some work problems. Your workload is rather heavy. How likely
are you to volunteer your help?” Participants indicated their responses on
scales of 1 (not at all likely) to 7 (extremely likely). Following the recommen-
dation of LePine and colleagues (2002), we treated OCB as a latent construct
and collapsed across all items. (␣⫽0.77).
Control Variables. Respondents reported sex, age, organizational tenure (in
months), and country of residence. They also completed a single-item mea-
sure of distributive justice. Specifically, they were asked to think back to their
last formal performance appraisal and the rating(s) they received. They were
asked to indicate how well these ratings reflected their actual performance
“regardless of how well or poorly the feedback was delivered.” Participants
chose among three options: Rating was (1) worse than I deserved, (2) what I
deserved, (3) better than I deserved. Those who had not received numerical
ratings were asked to skip this section. Finally, they completed a single-item
measure of procedural justice by rating along five-point scales (1 ⫽strongly
disagree to 5 ⫽strongly agree) their agreement with the item: “The feedback
procedures used by my supervisor are fair.”
Analyses. We conducted three sets of analyses. First, we regressed all pro-
posed mediators and outcome variables on constructive feedback while control-
ling for sex of respondent, age of respondent, tenure within the organization,
country of residence, and distributive justice. This preliminary analysis was done
to establish significant relationships between constructive feedback and each of
our criterion variables, and to ensure that these relationships could not be attrib-
uted to characteristics of the respondents or the perceived fairness of the
appraisal outcome. Second, we used hierarchical multiple regression analyses to
test the theoretical model advanced in the introduction.1Specifically, we tested a
model in which (a) perceptions of respectful treatment and opportunities for
advancement are relatively immediate responses to feedback; (b) job-related affect
is more distal response as mediated by perceived respect and opportunities for
advancement; (c) job satisfaction and OCBs are consequences of job-related
affect, perceived respect, and opportunities for advancement. Finally, we con-
ducted a series of post-hoc analyses to rule out an alternative explanation for
the results of our multiple regression analyses, namely, that perceptions of pro-
cedural justice rather than respect drive reactions to constructive feedback.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Results
In the following section we discuss findings for the three sets for analyses
described above.
Preliminary Analyses. Table 2 presents the correlations among all vari-
ables. Among our 128 respondents, 17 (13%) failed to report sex, age, coun-
try of residence, or tenure within the organization. Further, only 96
respondents (75%) reported having received a formal performance rating at
work. Because our interest was in ensuring that feedback effects could not be
attributed to the perception that one received unfairly negative outcomes, we
collapsed across respondents who reported that their ratings were what they
deserved (N⫽74) and those who reported that their ratings were better than
they deserved (N⫽7). This resulted in 84% of respondents reporting fair
(deserved or better than deserved) outcomes and 16% reporting unfair (unde-
served) outcomes. This distributive justice variable was dummy coded and,
along with sex, age, organizational tenure, and country of residence (U.S. ver-
sus non-U.S.), entered as a control variable in the analyses reported in Table 3.
As can be seen, the beta weights associated constructive feedback remained
significant and virtually unaltered. Thus, the link between constructive feed-
back and all other variables could not be explained by demographic variables
or perceptions of unjust outcomes.
Hierarchical Regression Analyses. Tests of the direct and indirect rela-
tionships reflected in our theoretical model are presented in Table 4. Media-
tion was explored using a process of joint significance testing (e.g., Judd &
Kenny, 1981; MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002), an
extension of Baron and Kenny’s (1986) simple mediation approach that allows
for a test of two (or more) sequential mediators in the same model. This
approach requires one to first establish a significant relationship between the
predictor variable and the outcome variable. Then, each variable in the pro-
posed causal chain must predict the variable that follows it, while controlling
for the variables that precede it. Evidence of mediation is reflected by a non-
significant relationship between the predictor and outcome variable after con-
trolling for all potential mediators.
Step 1 of Table 4 (as well as the left-hand column of Table 3) reflects the
direct (zero-order) relationships between feedback and all remaining variables
in the model. This establishes that feedback is significantly related to both job
satisfaction and OCB intentions, thereby meeting the first criterion for media-
tion. In Step 2, we entered (along with feedback) perceived respect and oppor-
tunities for advancement, which served as our first set of mediators. Entering
both variables simultaneously allowed us to examine the unique variance
accounted for by each of these (correlated) mediators. Perceived respect was
significantly related to PA, NA, and job satisfaction, whereas opportunities for
advancement predicted only PA and job satisfaction. This established signifi-
cant paths between respect and both PA and NA, and between opportunities
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 189
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Table 2. Phase 2 Correlations
123456789101112
1. Sex —
2. Age 0.01 —
3. Tenure (months) 0.11 0.55** —
4. Distributive Justice ⫺0.15 0.04 0.06 —
5. Procedural Justice 0.01 ⫺0.01 0.14 0.40** —
6. Feedback 0.03 ⫺0.08 ⫺0.05 0.43** 0.62** (0.90)
7. Opp. for ⫺0.09 0.11 ⫺0.02 0.35** 0.35** 0.39** (0.73)
Advancement
8. Respect 0.07 0.00 0.12 0.54** 0.60** 0.64** 0.32** (0.96)
9. Positive Affect ⫺0.05 0.10 0.03 0.33** 0.36** 0.44** 0.44** 0.55** (0.91)
10. Negative Affect 0.07 ⫺0.17 ⫺0.22* ⫺0.28** ⫺0.41** ⫺0.45** ⫺0.32** ⫺0.52** ⫺0.53** (0.91)
11. Job Satisfaction ⫺0.15 0.21* 0.13 0.43** 0.46** 0.50** 0.54** 0.56** 0.57** ⫺0.58** (0.81)
12. OCB intentions ⫺0.10 0.21* 0.09 0.22* 0.14 0.28** 0.23* 0.28** 0.59** ⫺0.40** 0.45** (0.77)
Mean — 32.80 53.63 1.91 3.52 3.39 3.32 3.79 3.44 1.88 3.30 4.80
SD — 9.13 62.04 0.47 1.01 0.86 1.06 0.94 0.82 0.78 0.87 0.89
Note. Reliability estimates (alpha) appear on the diagonal.
*p⬍0.05; **p⬍0.01.
for advancement and PA. Finally, in Step 3, we added PA and NA to the mod-
els, thereby testing the significance of the paths between affect at work and the
outcome variables. Results revealed support for these secondary mediational
paths. They additionally showed that once job-related affect was entered into
the model for job satisfaction, perceived respect was no longer a significant
predictor of job satisfaction. This indicates that the link between respect and
job satisfaction observed in Step 2 was fully mediated (explained) by mood at
work. By contrast, opportunities for career advancement continued to exert a
direct effect on job satisfaction when controlling for PA and NA. Collectively,
the proposed mediators fully accounted for the effects of feedback on job sat-
isfaction and OCB intentions, such that the effect of feedback on these out-
come variables was reduced to nonsignificance (b⫽0.10) after accounting for
all mediators. The final causal models are provided in Figures 2 and 3.
Post-hoc Analysis. Because respect or interpersonal treatment is often con-
ceptualized as part of overall procedural fairness (Cropanzano & Greenberg,
1997; Tyler & Bies, 1990), we wanted to ensure that our findings revealing
perceived respect as a mediator of the relationship between feedback and job-
related affect were in fact specific to feelings of respect by the supervisor and
not more general perceptions that feedback procedures were fair. Thus, we
repeated Step 2 of our hierarchical regression analyses for PA and NA, substi-
tuting procedural justice for respect. Results revealed that procedural justice
predicted no significant variance in PA (b⫽0.18, t⫽1.66, p⫽0.10). Proce-
dural justice did predict significant in NA (b⫽⫺0.27, t⫽⫺2.35, p⬍0.05),
but the effect size was smaller than that associated with respect (b⫽⫺0.35).
This reassured us that respectful treatment, and not general beliefs about the
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 191
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Table 3. Correlates of Constructive Feedback (Phase 2)
Controlling for Tenure,
Age, Sex, Country of
Residence, and
Distributive Justice
bt (125 ) bt (79 )
Distributive Justice 0.43 4.47** — —
Procedural Justice 0.62 8.69** 0.66 7.79**a
Opportunity for Advancement 0.39 4.75** 0.29 2.71*b
Respect 0.62 8.88** 0.49 5.54**
PA 0.44 5.42** 0.36 3.32**
NA ⫺0.45 ⫺5.60** ⫺0.46 ⫺4.54**
Job Satisfaction 0.50 6.45** 0.48 5.30**
OCB Intentions 0.28 3.28** 0.24 2.07*b
Note.adf ⫽77. bdf ⫽78. PA ⫽positive affect. NA ⫽negative affect.
*p⬍0.05; **p⬍0.01.
Table 4. Results of Multiple Regression Analyses and Joint Significance Testing
First Set of Mediators Second Set of Mediators Outcome Variables
Opp. for Perceived OCB Job
Advancement Respect PA NA Intentions Satisfaction
Predictors in model btbtbtbtbtbt
Step 1a
Feedback 0.39 4.75** 0.62 8.88** 0.44 5.42** ⫺0.45 ⫺5.60** 0.28 3.28** 0.50 6.45**
Step 2b
Feedback 0.02 0.21 ⫺0.13 ⫺1.28 0.14 1.24 0.14 1.54
Opp. for advancement 0.30 3.76** ⫺0.16 ⫺1.85 0.13 1.35 0.38 5.08**
Respect 0.42 4.53** ⫺0.35 ⫺3.53** 0.14 1.25 0.33 3.85**
Step 3c
Feedback 0.10 1.11 0.10 1.22
Opp. for advancement ⫺0.08 ⫺1.00 0.27 3.76**
Respect ⫺0.18 ⫺1.85 0.15 1.71
PA 0.62 6.88** 0.21 2.66**
NA ⫺0.17 ⫺2.04* ⫺0.27 ⫺3.53**
*p⬍0.05; **p⬍0.01. adf ⫽126. bdf ⫽120. cdf ⫽118. PA ⫽positive affect. NA ⫽negative affect.
fairness of feedback procedures, underlay broader affective responses to con-
structive feedback.
Discussion
The performance appraisal process is arguably one of the more important tools
an organization can employ to maximize the potential of its workforce
(McCarthy & Garavan, 2006; Taylor et al., 1999). Constructive feedback—or
feedback that promotes the ability for change through reference to specific,
problematic behaviors and acceptable standards for behavior—is necessary to
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 193
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Constructive
Feedback
Perceived
Respect
Positive Affect
OCB Intentions
Negative Affect
Figure 2. Final Empirical Model Linking Constructive Feedback to
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) Intentions
Figure 3. Final Empirical Model Linking Constructive
Feedback to Job Satisfaction
Constructive
Feedback
Opportunities
for
Advancement
Positive Affect
Perceived
Respect
Negative Affect
Job Satisfaction
194 Sommer, Kulkarni
ensure that employees remain receptive to feedback and confident in their
long-term prospects for success within the organization (cf. Baron, 1988; Bies &
Shapiro, 1988; Bies et al., 1988; Ilgen & Davis, 2000).
The present study was anchored in the practically important notion that
performance feedback is a critical input into individual and organizational
effectiveness (McCarthy & Garavan, 2006). It also aimed to fill gaps in our the-
oretical understanding of potential links between the quality of supervisory
feedback and citizenship intentions and job satisfaction, and the psychologi-
cal mechanisms through which these relationships occur. Drawing from prior
work on appraisal feedback and organizational justice (e.g., Baron, 1993;
Chory & Kingsley-Westerman, 2009; Moorman, 1991; Loi et al., 2009; Nurse,
2005), we proposed that recipients of constructive feedback would perceive
greater opportunities for advancement and feel more respected by their super-
visors, and that these variables in turn would explain differences in job satis-
faction and OCB intentions. We further anticipated that some of these
proposed causal relationships would be mediated or explained by differences
in affect or mood at work.
The findings from our survey revealed that constructive feedback pre-
dicted both OCB intentions and job satisfaction. Both perceived opportunities
for career advancement and perceived respect were influential variables driving
these responses to constructive feedback. Specifically, both variables partially
mediated the link between constructive feedback and PA at work, and PA in
turn showed significant relationships with job satisfaction and employees’ inten-
tions to engage in citizenship behaviors. Perceived respect also predicted NA at
work, and NA predicted overall job satisfaction. Despite the clear affective con-
sequences of constructive feedback, perceived opportunities for advancement
continued to exert a direct impact on job satisfaction, even when mood was
taken into account. This suggests that even when employees are generally
experiencing positive moods at work, beliefs that their professional opportu-
nities are limited will compromise their overall satisfaction with their jobs.
It is important to note that the observed correlates of constructive feed-
back could not be attributed to the perceived fairness of the rating(s) that one
received. Indeed, the vast majority of respondents reported that their ratings
were deserved or better than deserved, and yet those whose feedback was not
constructive in nature still reported more negative outcomes at work. These find-
ings dovetail with those from the broader justice literature revealing that people
will accept as fair outcomes that do not favor them so long as they are treated with
respect and dignity (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler et al., 1996; Tyler & Lind, 1992).
We also ruled out an additional alternative explanation for our findings,
namely, that the mediating role of perceived respect in the link between feedback
constructiveness and affect at work could be understood in terms of the fairness
of the feedback procedures. Compared to perceived respect, procedural justice
(under which respectful treatment has been subsumed; Blader & Tyler, 2003b)
was weakly related or unrelated to mood at work. These findings support the
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
suggestion of Fassina and colleagues (2008) that interactions with supervisors
drive perceptions of interactional justice, whereas experiences with the
organization drive perceptions or procedural justice.
The present research was intended to expand upon prior work examin-
ing the psychosocial outcomes of high quality performance appraisals. Our
findings converge nicely with prior theoretical and empirical work highlight-
ing the affective bases of both job satisfaction (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000)
and citizenship behaviors (George, 1991; George & Brief, 1992), as well as the
vital role of interpersonal fairness in affective reactions to constructive versus
destructive feedback (Baron, 1988, 1993). They also build on more recent
findings by Blader and Tyler (2009) by suggesting that relationships between
one’s social identity at work (operationalized in part by perceived respect) and
OCBs may result from a predominant positive mood state that employees
develop and maintain over time.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research. Although our study
findings pointed to some noteworthy conclusions, our methods also suffered
from limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, our study
is open to the typical criticisms of single-source, self-report data, including
common method variance and the possibility that impression management
concerns or other personality variables may have inflated the effect sizes
observed here. We acknowledge the possibility, for example, that one’s citizen-
ship intentions or behaviors might be viewed differently by one’s supervisors,
resulting in weaker correlations between OCBs and their theorized
antecedents. Future studies that solicit evidence of citizenship intentions or
behaviors from alternative sources can address some of the weaknesses of the
current approach.
Second, use of a cross-sectional, correlational design leaves open the pos-
sibility of causal relationships that deviate from the ones proposed here. For
example, past weak OCBs could have an impact on the feedback that one
receives, though we suspect that this would come in the form of more nega-
tive or critical feedback rather than less constructive feedback per se. Neverthe-
less, our current design makes it difficult to rule out such possibilities entirely.
Third, although our feedback measure was high in face validity and reli-
able across Phases 1 and 2 of our research (which made use of convenience
and random samples, respectively), we acknowledge the importance of more
fully examining the construct validity of this instrument. For example, our
measure should correlate highly with the “clarity” and “constructiveness” feed-
back dimensions developed by Chory and Kingsley-Westerman (2009), but
show little to no association with the frequency with which one is criticized at
work (Baron, 1990, Study 2). Evidence of convergent and discriminant valid-
ity would strengthen the conclusions offered here.
Finally, while our method allowed for a very wide reach across countries,
age groups, industries, and organizations, maximizing generalizability,
we acknowledge the importance of conducting studies within organizational
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 195
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
196 Sommer, Kulkarni
settings. Characteristics of organizations such as social comparisons among
coworkers and the overall quality of relationships between supervisors and
subordinates might exacerbate or attenuate the observed effects. For example,
it would be fruitful to study how comparisons with coworkers impact percep-
tions of equity and thereby one’s perceived value within the organization.
Destructive feedback may not be as detrimental to felt respect if such feedback
is perceived as commonplace. By contrast, perceived discrepancies in feedback
delivery across subordinates should exacerbate one’s feelings of disrespect in
the face of destructive feedback. Future research would benefit by assessing
the perceived constructiveness of feedback within the larger social or organi-
zational context within which it is given.
Implications for Human Resource Development. The present findings
have clear implications for human resource development activities in organi-
zations. Below, we outline implications of the study for managers and super-
visors who give ongoing or periodic feedback to their employees, for human
resource development professionals, and for those employees who are recipi-
ents of the performance feedback.
Determinants of appraisal effectiveness are usually under a manager’s con-
trol, and inadequate performance appraisals result in the loss of human resource
development opportunities (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & d’Amico, 2001) and erode
the human capital of organizations. Further, the manner in which supervisors
conduct appraisals influence employees’ perception of supervisor attention to
the process (Taylor et al., 1999), which is associated with further engagement
with their work and the organization (Sun et al., 2007). Finally, good manage-
rial feedback has trickle-down effects for employee career development.
Nonconstructive feedback may have a deleterious impact on employees’
expectations of advancing within their organizations, which may discourage
them from taking advantage of training opportunities, tackling novel tasks, or
approaching mentors for advice. As Ilgen and Davis (2000) suggested, non-
constructive feedback from managers will likely predict larger withdrawal
behaviors, which likely include not only decrements in satisfaction and citi-
zenship behaviors but other efforts toward professional development.
Based on the research outlined above and present findings, we argue that
those responsible for administering feedback should be sensitive to the ele-
ments of what constitutes constructive feedback, namely, an emphasis on prob-
lematic behaviors, clear standards for performance, and strategies for remedying
poor performance. Such constructive feedback should have clear benefits to
individuals and organizations in the form of an organization that is made up
of satisfied employees who feel respected and are willing to perform the extra-
role behaviors necessary for organizational success.
The implications for human resource development professionals are
equally if not more important, as these individuals are the custodians of
the human resource development processes in organizations. Their roles
include assisting in the design and administration of appraisals, and training
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
managers and supervisors to give constructive feedback. Leveraging findings
from present research, human resource development professionals could
design programs for supervisors to develop and improve their performance
management skills, and feedback delivery skills in particular. Human resource
development activities such as training programs that center on teaching newly
promoted individuals into management positions could also include an
emphasis on providing critical feedback that is problem-focused and grounded
in explicit standards for performance.
We echo prior research (e.g., Cameron & Whetten, 1998) and argue that
with appropriate training, those in charge of administering feedback can rem-
edy performance weaknesses of subordinates by administering critical yet con-
structive feedback while simultaneously preserving positive relationships
employees and their organizations. Clarity and specificity in the appraisal
process imply that managers track goals and objectives of employees in a care-
ful and systemic manner (Taylor et al., 1999). Organizations might thus fur-
ther benefit from having human resource development professionals focus on
training managers to use constructive feedback not only during the appraisal
process but also during everyday feedback so as to increase the likelihood that
employees will display extrarole behaviors toward both their supervisors and
organizations. Research indicates that employees prefer not only periodic for-
mal appraisals but also like receiving informal everyday feedback, which they
view as being an important coaching and developmental activity (Gosselin,
Werner, & Halle, 1997).
Finally, human resource development professionals could design career
development and training sessions for recipients of feedback in terms of indi-
vidual-level performance improvements, which may eventually translate into
system-wide performance implications (Collins, Hair, & Rocco, 2009). Focus-
ing on the recipient of the feedback is of great importance. After all, even with
the best designed processes by human resource development professionals and
carefully communicated appraisals by the managers or supervisors, if the recip-
ient is not open to changes, the fruits of the constructive appraisal conversa-
tion are lost. Human resource development professionals should also thus
focus on the recipients of feedback to ensure that they understand the logic
behind the appraisal and how the appraisal helps them advance in their orga-
nization. As the present findings imply, absorbing feedback is important in
terms of both an understanding of career advancement and being satisfied with
the job, critical aspects of success in an organization.
In conclusion, the present study offers practical insights into why and how
outcomes such as job satisfaction and citizenship intentions are associated with
managerial feedback, and what managers and recipients of feedback can gain
from these findings. We believe that engagement in such theoretically and prac-
tically relevant conversations is especially important today given the increasing
importance of gaining competitive advantage through organizational talent. As
Lawler (2011) explains, the qualities of organizational performance appraisals
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 197
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
198 Sommer, Kulkarni
are a key contributor in distinguishing between organizations that perform
near expectations and those that excel as compared with their competitors.
Endnote
1. Because information regarding sex, age, country of residence, tenure within the
organization, and distributive justice was not available for all participants, these
control variables were not included within the main analyses due to a substantial loss
of power.
References
Albrecht, T. L., & Adelman, M. B. (1987). Communicating social support. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use of
the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology,58(1), 67–79.
Baron, R.A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy and
task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,73(2), 199–207.
Baron, R.A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four
interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(3), 235–245.
Baron, R. A. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness
in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice
in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 155–170). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,51 (6), 1173–1182.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In
R. Lewicki, B. Sheppard, & B. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations
(Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1988). Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness
judgments. Academy of Management Journal,31(3), 676–685.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organi-
zational conflict: Is it enough to say it’s not my fault? Communication Research,15(4), 381–399.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003a). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the
meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,29(6), 747–758.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003b). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component
model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review,13(1), 107–126.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Link-
ages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior.
Journal of Applied Psychology,94(2), 445–464.
Cameron, K., & Whetten, D. (1998). Developing management skills (4th ed.). Reading, MA: Addi-
son Wesley.
Chory, R. M., & Kingsley-Westerman, C.Y. (2009). Feedback and fairness: The relationship
between negative performance feedback and organizational justice. Western Journal of Commu-
nication,73(2), 157–181.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,86(2), 278–321.
Collie, T., Bradley, G., & Sparks, B.A. (2002). Fair process revisited: Differential effects of inter-
actional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology,38(6), 545–555.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Collins, M. H., Hair, J. F., & Rocco, T. S. (2009). The older-worker-younger-supervisor dyad: A
test of the reverse Pygmalion effect. Human Resource Development Quarterly,20(1), 21–41.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of
a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(3), 386–400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the mil-
lennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied
Psychology,86(3), 425–445.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Individual Differences,29(2), 265–281.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance rat-
ings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance,
10(4), 331.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through
the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and orga-
nizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 317–372). London, England: Wiley.
Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., & Platz-Vieno, S. J. (1990). A contingency approach to appraisal
satisfaction: An initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and appraisal
characteristics. Journal of Management,16(3), 619–632.
Fassina, N. E., Jones, D. A., & Uggerslev, K. L. (2008). Meta-analytic tests of relationships
between organizational justice and citizenship behavior: Testing agent-system and shared-
variance models. Journal of Organizational Behavior,29, 805–828.
Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal.
Journal or Applied Psychology,66(2), 127–148.
Fombrun, C. J., & Laud, R. L. (1983). Strategic issues in performance appraisal: Theory and prac-
tice. Personnel,60(6), 23–31.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Ben-David, H., & Tiegs, R. B. (1999). Inflation of subordinates’ performance
ratings: Main and interactive effects of rater negative. Journal of Organizational Behavior,20(4),
432–445.
Geddes, D., & Linnehan, F. (1996). Exploring the dimensionality of positive and negative per-
formance feedback. Communication Quarterly,44(3), 326–344.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology,76(2), 299–307.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good—doing good. A conceptual analysis of the mood
at work—organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,112(2), 310–329.
Gosselin, A., Werner, J. M., & Halle, N. (1997). Ratee preferences concerning performance man-
agement and appraisal. Human Resource Development Quarterly,8(4), 315–333.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost
of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(5), 561–568.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of orga-
nizational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human
resource management (pp. 79–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology,60(2), 159–170.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, pro-
ductivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,38(3), 635–672.
Ilgen, D. R., & Davis, C. A. (2000). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance feed-
back. Applied Psychology: An International Review,49(3), 550–565.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evalu-
ation. Evaluation Review,5(5), 602–619.
Kavanagh, M. J., MacKinney, A. C., & Wolins, L. (1971). Issues in managerial performance: Mul-
titrait–multimethod analyses of ratings. Psychological Bulletin,75(1), 34–49.
Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal
feedback: The role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(1), 192–201.
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 199
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
200 Sommer, Kulkarni
Lawler, E. E. III. (2011). Creating an effective appraisal system. In K. Oakes & P. Galagan (Eds.),
The executive guide to integrated talent management (pp. 79–90). Alexandria, VA: American Soci-
ety for Training and Development.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational
citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(1),
52–65.
Leung, K., Su, S., & Morris, M.W. (2001). When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fair-
ness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory
feedback. Human Relations,54(9), 1155–1187.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY:
Plenum.
Loi, R., Yang, J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A mul-
tilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(3), 770–781.
Masterson, S. S., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange:
The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Man-
agement Journal,43(4), 738–748.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A com-
parison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Meth-
ods,7(1), 83–104.
McCarthy, A., & Garavan, T. (2006). Postfeedback development perceptions: Applying the the-
ory of planned behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly,17(3), 245–267.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizen-
ship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,76(6), 845–855.
Moorman, R. H., & Byrne, Z. S. (2005). How does organizational justice affect organizational cit-
izenship behavior? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice
(pp. 355–380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Motowildo, S. J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and personal sensitivity?
Academy of Management Journal,27(4), 910–915.
Nelson, D., Basu, R., & Purdie, R. (1998). An examination of exchange quality and work stres-
sors in leader-follower dyads. International Journal of Stress Management,5(2), 103–112.
Nurse, L. (2005). Performance appraisal, employee development and organizational justice:
exploring the linkages. International Journal of Human Resource Management,16(7), 1176–1194.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S., & d’Amico, M. (2001). Characteristics of performance appraisals
and their impact onsales force satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly,12(2), 127–146.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior
and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,82(2),
262–270.
Roberson, L., Galvin, B. M., & Charles, A. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in perfor-
mance appraisal. Academy of Management Annals,1(1), 617–650.
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their per-
ceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,58(3), 346–368.
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX, and employee
well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,17(2), 198–225.
Sun, L., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource practices, citizenship
behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Academy of Management
Journal,50(3), 558–577.
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Taylor, A. F., Pettijohn, L. S., & Pettijohn, C. E. (1999). A descriptive study of topics and percep-
tions of retail sales performance appraisals. Human Resource Development Quarterly,10(3),
271–291.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Interpersonal aspects of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.),
Applied social psychology in business settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures
matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,70(5), 913–930.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegan, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(6), 1063–1070.
West, M. A., Guthrie, J. P., Dawson, J. F., Borrill, C. S., & Carter, M. (2006). Reducing patient
mortality in hospitals: The role of human resource management. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,27(7), 983–1002.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as pre-
dictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,17, 601–617.
Williams, S., & Shiaw, W. T. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects
of positive affect on employee organizational citizenship behavior intentions. Journal of Psy-
chology,133(6), 656–668.
Youngcourt, S. S., Leiva, P. I., & Jones, R. G. (2007). Perceived purposes of performance
appraisal: Correlates of individual- and position-focused purposes on attitudinal outcomes.
Human Resource Development Quarterly,18(3): 315–343.
Roles of Perceived Opportunities for Advancement, Respect, and Mood 201
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY • DOI: 10.1002/hrdq
Kristin L. Sommer is with the Department of Psychology at Baruch College and the
Graduate Center, City University of New York.
Mukta Kulkarni is with the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.
