Feedback Dynamics Are Critical to Improving Performance Management Systems

Abstract

Colquitt, Murphy, and Ollander-Krane (Adler et al., 2016) argue that performance ratings are problematic in part because of the problems associated with feedback: Ratees dislike and dismiss performance feedback, raters are reluctant to provide tough feedback, and organizations do not enact research findings about improving feedback processes (Adler et al.). Discarding performance ratings on these grounds is effectively “throwing out the baby with the bath water,” given that we know quite a lot about how to improve the delivery and receptivity of feedback. Our commentary is intended to briefly illustrate ways to leverage research on feedback receptivity to improve performance management systems. Specifically, we focus on (a) cultivating supportive feedback environments, (b) integrating employee coaching into performance management systems, and (c) attending to the characteristics of feedback recipients to understand how they process feedback.

Full text

Industrial and Organizational Psychology
http://journals.cambridge.org/IOP
Additional services for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
Feedback Dynamics Are Critical to Improving Performance Management Systems
Nitya Chawla, Allison S. Gabriel, Jason J. Dahling and Kajal Patel
Industrial and Organizational Psychology / Volume 9 / Issue 02 / June 2016, pp 260 - 266
DOI: 10.1017/iop.2016.8, Published online: 04 July 2016
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1754942616000080
How to cite this article:
Nitya Chawla, Allison S. Gabriel, Jason J. Dahling and Kajal Patel (2016). Feedback Dynamics Are
Critical to Improving Performance Management Systems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
9, pp 260-266 doi:10.1017/iop.2016.8
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/IOP, IP address: 128.196.127.118 on 05 Jul 2016

260    .
DeNisi, A. S., & Peters, L. Y. (1996). Organization of information in memory and the per-
formance appraisal process: Evidence from the eld. Journal of Applied Psychology,81,
717–737.
Ledford, G., Benson, G., & Lawler, E. (in press). A study of cutting edge performance man-
agement practices: Ongoing feedback, ratingless reviews, and crowd-sourced feedback.
WorldatWork Journal.
Feedback Dynamics Are Critical to Improving
Performance Management Systems
Nitya Chawla and Allison S. Gabriel
University of Arizona
Jason J. Dahling and Kajal Patel
The College of New Jersey
Colquitt, Murphy, and Ollander-Krane (Adler et al., 2016)arguethatper-
formance ratings are problematic in part because of the problems associated
with feedback: Ratees dislike and dismiss performance feedback, raters are
reluctant to provide tough feedback, and organizations do not enact research
ndings about improving feedback processes (Adler et al.). Discarding per-
formance ratings on these grounds is eectively “throwing out the baby with
thebathwater,”giventhatweknowquitealotabouthowtoimprovethe
delivery and receptivity of feedback. Our commentary is intended to briey
illustrate ways to leverage research on feedback receptivity to improve per-
formance management systems. Specically, we focus on (a) cultivating sup-
portive feedback environments, (b) integrating employee coaching into per-
formance management systems, and (c) attending to the characteristics of
feedback recipients to understand how they process feedback.
By focusing on feedback receptivity, we align with research that articu-
lates that the best performance management involves regular, ongoing com-
munication with employees. Studies consistently highlight that continuous
feedback is more likely to change employee behaviors (Pulakos, Hanson,
Arad, & Moye, 2015), especially if given following eective or ineective
performance episodes. This is true regardless of whether the feedback is pro-
videdformallyorviainformaldailyfeedbackexchanges.Thus,pursuingthe
Nitya Chawla and Allison S. Gabriel, Department of Management and Organizations,
University of Arizona; Jason J. Dahling and Kajal Patel, Department of Psycholog y, The College
of New Jersey.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nitya Chawla, Depart-
ment of Management and Organizations, University of Arizona, 1130 East Helen Street, Mc-
Clelland Hall 405, Tucson, AZ 85721-0108. E-mail: nityac@email.arizona.edu

     261
strategies outlined below can drive employee engagement and performance
while also removing the surprise, discomfort, and ineectiveness that sours
managers and subordinates on performance management.
Strategy 1: Cultivate Supportive Feedback Environments
As an important starting point for improving the regular, ongoing perfor-
mancedialoguebetweensupervisorsandsubordinates,organizationsshould
improve the overall feedback environment. The feedback environment aims
at cultivating supportive, informal supervisor–subordinate feedback rela-
tions on a day-to-day basis (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004)andencompasses
seven facets of feedback experiences that managers can systematically im-
prove: (a) source credibility, which concerns judgments about the qualica-
tions of the feedback sources; (b) feedback quality, which concerns the per-
ceived value/utility of the feedback itself; (c) feedback delivery,whichcon-
cerns the tactfulness of how feedback is provided; (d) frequency of favor-
able feedback, which concerns whether positive feedback is provided when
warranted; (e) frequency of unfavorable feedback, which concerns whether
negative feedback is provided when warranted; (f) source availability,which
concerns access to desired feedback sources; and (g) promotion of feedback
seeking, which concerns the active encouragement of seeking feedback from
one’s supervisor(s). Importantly, the feedback environment is often assessed
from the perspective of an individual employee evaluating his/her direct su-
pervisor.
Given its informal nature, the feedback environment can sidestep the
problems associated with rigid, formal performance management systems
(Dahling & O’Malley, 2011). Fortunately, improving such perceptions is
fairly straightforward: Managers can become more accessible for feedback
conversationsandremindsubordinatesthatfeedbackseekingisencouraged
and supported. Greater feedback environment perceptions are related to
many positive outcomes that make such eorts worthwhile, including re-
duced perceptions of organizational politics (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006)and
increased role clarity (Whitaker, Dahling, & Levy, 2007), which Colquitt,
Murphy, and Ollander-Krane (Adler et al.) noted are key problems with
performance management systems. Feedback environment perceptions also
predict improved work attitudes and engagement (Gabriel, Frantz, Levy, &
Hilliard, 2014; Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004) as well as higher ratings of em-
ployee task performance and citizenship behaviors (Norris-Watts & Levy,
2004;Whitakeretal.,2007). Moreover, the importance of the feedback en-
vironment underscores the necessity for supervisors to incorporate positive
feedback into their daily feedback sessions, a point Pulakos and colleagues
(2015) note as being underutilized. We agree, as positive feedback can not
only motivate employees but also encourage them to continue working with

262    .
more vigor, determination, and creativity (Zenger & Folkman, 2013). All in
all, by enhancing the eectiveness of informal feedback-related processes en-
capsulated in the feedback environment, we suspect that the formal ratings
canevolvetobecomemoreeective.
Strategy 2: Develop and Foster Employee Coaching Programs
Emerging research on employee coaching also underscores how regular, in-
formal performance dialogues between supervisors and subordinates can
contribute to eective performance management. Employee coaching in-
volves tailored performance feedback, eective behavioral modeling, and
strategic goal setting to help subordinates overcome individual challenges
(Dahling, Taylor, Chau, & Dwight, 2016;Liu&Batt,2010). Coaching dif-
fers from training and formal performance appraisals because it is individ-
ualized, open-ended, and developmental, but it complements performance
management by giving employees on-demand feedback and opportunities to
address performance issues before poor ratings occur (Dahling et al., 2016).
To this end, employee coaching can stem from a formal organizational policy
or an informal practice adopted by individual managers toward their subor-
dinates.
When it comes to integrating employee coaching initiatives with broader
performance management systems, research indicates that coaching predicts
objective indices of performance. For example, Dahling et al. (2016)com-
pared the eects of coaching frequency (i.e., how often managers coached
individual subordinates) and coaching skill (i.e., the quality of coaching per-
formed by managers) on sales goal attainment in a pharmaceuticals organi-
zation. Results indicated that coaching skill improved performance directly
and indirectly through improved role clarity for employees; coaching fre-
quency did not signicantly predict performance. Therefore, more benets
will be reaped if organizations focus resources on developing managers to
engage in eective coaching versus monitoring how much time managers
spend coaching or providing feedback. Moreover, in complex work envi-
ronments, employees likely face daily challenges surrounding how to best
use their time when pursuing multiple goals. Providing coaching that helps
employees monitor goal progress can be fruitful in making employees more
aware beyond just providing negative feedback when goals are not met (Gre-
gory, Beck, & Carr, 2011).
As a note, part of eective coaching lies in the delivery of performance
feedback. When feedback is given considerately, employees are more likely
to react positively and believe they have been treated well (Wang, Burlacu,
Truxi llo, Ja m e s, & Yao, 2015). This is important, as information received
in an interaction characterized by good interpersonal treatment results in a
higher likelihood of information being translated into action (van den Bos,

     263
Wilke, & Lind, 1998). Taken together, training on eective coaching should
involve development of these interpersonal skills that can improve feedback
delivery, thereby increasing subordinate receptivity to feedback.
Strategy 3: Attend to Individual Differences That Shape Feedback Receptivity
A nal factor aecting the viability of any performance management system
involves the reactions of the subordinate recipients themselves. Importantly,
people dier in their motivation and ability to process feedback accurately.
For example, Audia and Locke (2003) pointed out that high performers are
less likely to accurately process feedback and change performance behaviors.
Indeed, employee dierences can create nuances in the system that need to
be recognized and accounted for given that the recipient is an active part
of the feedback process (Linderbaum & Levy, 2010). In our view, this as-
pect of feedback research—and performance management research, more
broadly—warrants more empirical and practical attention.
Oneimportantdierenceisfeedbackorientation(Linderbaum&Levy,
2010;London&Smither,2002). Individuals higher on feedback orientation
are more receptive to feedback, nd feedback more valuable, see feedback
more positively, process feedback more mindfully, and have a higher sense of
accountability to act on feedback (Dahling, Chau, & O’Malley, 2012;London
& Smither, 2002). Gabriel and colleagues (2014)foundthatreactionstosup-
portive feedback environments depend on one’s feedback orientation: Feed-
back environment perceptions were negatively related to aspects of empow-
erment among workers with low feedback orientation. As such, not account-
ing for such individual dierences can lead to conclusions that performance
management systems are ineective when, in fact, they need better tailoring.
Fortunately, feedback orientation is a malleable quasi-trait (Dahling et al.,
2012), and consistent, positive feedback experiences are expected to improve
feedback orientation over time.
Feedback receptivity also depends on individuals’ goal orientations: Peo-
ple who have a learning goal orientation (i.e., those focused on developing
skills) respond more favorably to performance feedback via increased moti-
vation, goal setting, and eort, whereas those with performance-prove ori-
entation (i.e., demonstrating competence) or performance-avoid orientation
(i.e., avoiding looking incompetent) tend to be less receptive to feedback
(VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). However, Davis, Carson, Ammeter,
and Treadway (2005) found that when specic (rather than general) feedback
is given, individuals low on learning orientation and high on performance
orientation can react positively, and the feedback can impact their perfor-
mance. This suggests that improving aspects of feedback may yield greater
receptivity to feedback regardless of goal orientation dierences.

264    .
Demographics are also proving to be an emerging research area. For
example, Wang and colleagues (2015) found that age shapes how people
use feedback, such that older employees were more likely to use feedback
in order to be aware of others’ views of themselves and inform the qual-
ity of their social relations at work, whereas younger employees were more
likelytousefeedbacktoimprovetheirperformanceandcareerpursuits.
Racial dierences also shape how people react to feedback; Ryan and col-
leagues (Ryan, Brutus, Greguras, & Hakel, 2000) found that racial similar-
ity between the feedback source and recipient positively inuenced the re-
cipient’s receptivity to that feedback, whereas racial dissimilarity negatively
inuenced receptivity to feedback. Combined, the aforementioned research
highlights that to accurately diagnose the eectiveness of performance man-
agement one must understand the individual feedback recipients as best as
possible.
Conclusion
Although we know a great deal about how to improve feedback exchanges,
acriticalchallengemovingforwardwillbeforscholarsandpractitioners
alike to continue exploring how feedback dynamics alter the implementa-
tion of performance management systems. Given that feedback experiences
will change from one day to the next, taking a static, single snapshot of su-
pervisor and subordinate reactions to formal ratings will likely not tell the
whole picture of whether, and in what ways, the system needs repairing.
Rather, we need to examine performance management systems via multi-
ple daily assessments of how feedback processes are being implemented. For
example, what happens when there is variability in one’s daily experience
of feedback (e.g., feedback quality varies from one day to the next)? Is this
variability worse than having consistently frustrating feedback experiences?
Rather than giving up on performance management systems, we believe that
we are at the next frontier for understanding how the dynamics surrounding
the feedback process can revamp performance management systems.
References
Adler, S., Campion, M., Colquitt, A., Grubb, A., Murphy, K., Ollander-Krane, R., & Pulakos,
E. D. (2016). Getting rid of performance ratings: Genius or folly? A debate. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(2), 219–252.
Audia, P. G., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Beneting from negative feedback. Human Resource
Management Review, 13, 631–646. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2003.11.006
Dahling, J. J., Chau, S. L., & O’Malley, A. L. (2012). Correlates and consequences
of feedback orientation in organizations. Journal of Management, 38, 530–545.
doi:10.1177/0149206310375467

     265
Dahling, J. J., & O’Malley, A. L. (2011). Supportive feedback environments can mend broken
performance management systems. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspec-
tives on Science and Practice, 4, 201–203. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2011.01327.x
Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. R., Chau, S. L., & Dwight, S. (2016). Why does coaching
matter? A multilevel model linking managerial coaching eectiveness and fre-
quency to sales goal attainment. Personnel Psychology. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1111/peps.12123
Davis, W. D., Carson, C. M., Ammeter, A. P., & Treadway, D. C. (2005). The interactive ef-
fects of goal orientation and feedback specicity on task performance. Human Perfor-
mance, 18, 409–426. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_7
Gabriel, A. S., Frantz, N. B., Levy, P. E., & Hilliard, A. W. (2014). The supervisor feedback
environment is empowering, but not all the time: Feedback orientation as a criti-
cal moderator. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 487–506.
doi:10.1111/joop.12060
Gregory, J. B., Beck, J. W., & Carr, A. E. (2011). Goals, feedback, and self-regulation: Control
theory as a natural framework for executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 63, 26–38. doi:10.1037/a0023398
Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the
Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36, 1372–1405.
doi:10.1177/0149206310373145
Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors inuence performance: A multilevel study of
coaching and group management in technology-mediated services. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 63, 265–298. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01170.x
London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longi-
tudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12,
81–100. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(01)00043-2
Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P. E. (2004). The mediating role of aective commitment in the
relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65, 351–365. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.08.003
Pulakos, E. D., Hanson, R. M., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance manage-
ment can be xed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for com-
plex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 51–76.
doi:10.1017/iop.2014.2
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in the context of
the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 211–220. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.211
Ryan, A. M., Brutus, S., Greguras, G. J., & Hakel, M. D. (2000). Receptivity to assessment-
based feedback for management development. Journal of Management Development,
19, 252–276. doi:10.1108/02621710010322580
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale: Construct
denition,measurement,andvalidation.Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64, 165–184. doi:10.1177/0013164403258440
van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A.M.,&Lind,E.A.(1998). When do we need procedural fairness?
The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449–
1458. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. J. (2001). The role of goal orientation
following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629–640.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.629

266  .    
Wang, M., Burlacu, G., Truxillo, D., James, K., & Yao, X. (2015). Age dierences in feedback
reactions: The roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1296–1308. doi:10.1037/a0038334
Whitaker, B. G., Dahling, J. J., & Levy, P. E. (2007). The development of a feedback environ-
ment and role clarity model of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 33,
570–591. doi:10.1177/0149206306297581
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2013, March). The ideal praise-to-criticism ratio. Harvard Business
Review.Retrievedfromhttps://hbr.org/2013/03/the-ideal-praise-to-criticism
How Will Getting Rid of Performance Ratings
Affect Managers?
Christopher J. Lake and Alexandra Luong
University of Minnesota Duluth
Amid the debate about getting rid of formal performance ratings, the prac-
tical implications for managers should be carefully considered. Adler et al.
(2016) acknowledged some implications for managers who evaluate their
subordinates with the traditional formal review. However, they do not fully
explore the implications for managers when organizations trade formal
performance reviews for frequent, less-formal performance conversations,
which are a very popular alternative (Meinert, 2015;Rock&Jones,2015;
Wilkie, 2015). It is possible that organizations will benet when formal per-
formance reviews are removed; however, upon discussing this issue with a
panel of human resources executives and organizational development prac-
titioners, we were struck by their concern for how abandoning formalized
review procedures would aect managers. This panel represented a wide ar-
ray of industries (healthcare, retail, manufacturing, energy, academia, and
the nonprot sector), and their organizations used a variety of performance
procedures, including formalized annual reviews and informal performance
conversations. The goal of this commentary is to guide thinking, with the
help of our practitioner-oriented panel, toward some of the obstacles man-
agers may face in having to provide more frequent informal performance
conversations.
Christopher J. Lake and Alexandra Luong, Department of Psychology, University of Min-
nesota Duluth.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher J. Lake, De-
partment of Psychology, University of Minnesota Duluth, 1207 Ordean Court, Duluth, MN
55812. E-mail: lakec@d.umn.edu