Introduction
Gilbert believed that the most efficient starting point for diagnosing performance issues was examining environmental support in the form of information, which he called “data”; one component of data is the availability of frequent and relevant feedback to employees regarding their expected and actual job performance (Gilbert, 2007, p. 88-92).
An employee might seek out feedback from his supervisor rather than wait passively for the supervisor to give it. Does the supervisor see this proactive behavior in a positive light, as a sincere effort to understand what the supervisor wants in terms of job performance? Or does the supervisor see the employee’s feedback request as an insincere attempt to “look good” and reap positive attention?
Article
Wing, L., Xu, H., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback-seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor-attributed motives matter? Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 348-363.
Background
The authors stated that an employee may take the initiative to elicit feedback from his supervisor to better understand both the job expectations and his current level of adequacy in meeting those expectations. Such behavior is generally thought to improve the quality of the leader-member exchange (LMX), or the two-way relationship between the supervisor and employee. The authors also found studies which indicated that such feedback-seeking behavior can worsen, rather than improve, the LMX.
The response of the supervisor to feedback-seeking behavior may be affected by the perceived motive for requesting the feedback. Two possible motives for feedback-seeking behavior were identified as performance-related motives and impression management motives. Someone with performance-related motives asks for feedback in order to gather information necessary to improve his work performance. Someone with impression management motives is primarily concerned with creating a positive image in front of the boss and other employees. Earlier research indicated that a supervisor who perceives that her employee has performance-related motives is more likely to see the feedback request as a positive behavior to be valued. On the other hand, a supervisor who suspects the employee’s motives are primarily impression management will perceive feedback requests as negative behavior. These perceptions may affect the quality of the LMX between the supervisor and employee, which studies suggest may have an impact on the employee’s real or perceived performance.
Research Questions
The authors chose to examine three things through their research:
- The relationship between LMX and employees’ feedback-seeking behavior
- How supervisors interpret employees’ motives for seeking feedback and how it affects LMX
- The relationship between feedback-seeking behavior and work performance, and how LMX affects this relationship
From these avenues of inquiry, the authors developed the following hypotheses:
H1. Employees’ feedback-seeking behavior is positively related to LMX quality
H2a. The positive relationship between employees’ feedback seeking and the quality of LMX is stronger the more their supervisors interpret the behavior as driven by performance-related motives.
H2b. The positive association between employees’ feedback seeking and the quality of LMX is stronger the less their supervisors interpret the behavior as driven by impression management motives.
H3a. LMX quality mediates the interactive effects of employees’ feedback seeking and supervisor-attributed performance-related motives on employees’ work performance.
H3b. LMX quality mediates the interactive effects of employees’ feedback seeking and supervisor-attributed impression management motives on employees’ work performance.
Methods
The authors conducted two studies for this research. In the first, data from 209 supervisor-employee pairs at one large Chinese company was collected a written survey instrument; 70 unique supervisors were included, with each supervising up to 4 of the surveyed employees. Actual work performance data was unavailable for this population, so Hypotheses 3a and 3b were not tested in this study. Supervisors were asked to rate the feedback-seeking behavior and the perceived motives for requesting feedback, while employees were asked to rate the quality of the LMX between themselves and their supervisors.
In the second study, the authors focused on requests for negative feedback, meaning an employee’s request for feedback on inadequacies and behaviors requiring correction. They surveyed 240 supervisor-employee pairs (84 supervisors each with up to 5 surveyed employees) at two other large Chinese companies. The survey instruments were the same as those used in the first study except for language focusing on negative feedback. The companies provided objective performance measures for the surveyed employees, so the authors tested Hypotheses 3a and 3b as well.
Findings
The authors found that their data from both studies supported all five of their hypotheses. When a supervisor interpreted her employee’s performance-related motives for requesting feedback to be strong, the LMX between supervisor and employee is strengthened. When a supervisor interpreted her employee’s impression management motive for requesting feedback to be weak, this also strengthened the LMX. When the LMX was positive and the supervisor attributed feedback-seeking behavior to concerns about performance rather than image, actual work performance appeared to be positively affected. This positive effect on actual work performance is more likely due to a stronger positive LMX between supervisor and employee, rather than a direct result of the request for feedback. The authors noted the importance of human interactions in the work context and how they may be linked to work performance.
Discussion for OPWL-N Members
Continuing the discussion from the previous WORC article on leader-member exchange (LMX), what implications might the results of this study have for the data you obtain from a cause analysis for a performance issue? Do you have the opportunity to examine the relationship between a supervisor and her employees, especially the supervisor’s interpretation of their employees motives for feedback-seeking behaviors, to see how this impacts their access to environmental supports such as feedback?
This research also suggests that it might be reasonable and necessary for HPT practitioners to examine to what extent employees seek feedback from their supervisor and why they do so (the ‘motive’ cell in the BEM), in addition to examining whether the supervisor is providing sufficient data to their employees (the usual investigation of the ‘data’ cell in BEM).
Workplace Oriented Research Central (WORC)
Prepared by OPWL Graduate Assistant, Perri Kennedy
Directed by OPWL Professor, Yonnie Chyung
Posted on May 5, 2012