Article presentation (bauer)

THE SUPERVISOR FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT IS EMPOWERING, BUT NOT ALL THE TIME: FEEDBACK ORIENTATION AS A CRITICAL MODERATOR

Gabriel, Frantz, Levy, & Hilliard (2014)

Presented by Samuel E. Dunham

The Gameplan

Prior Research Feedback Environment Empowerment The Study Implications and Future Research Avenues

Why Should We Care?

There may be more factors to consider before trying to foster a certain feedback environment

There may be situations where the feedback environment can negatively impact employees

We may need to understand how employees utilize and desire feedback to determine how the feedback environment may affect them

Prior Research

Research has found many positive effects for organizations that support the use and solicitation of feedback Enhanced affective organizational commitment (Norris-

Watts & Levy, 2004) Reduced perceptions of politics (Rosen, Levy, & Hall, 2006) Role clarity (Whitaker, Dahling, & Levy, 2007) Increased task and contextual performance (Whitaker et al.,

2007)

Theoretical Gaps

Does the feedback environment affect employee motivation? Psychological empowerment

Are there factors/conditions that can attenuate the feedback to outcome relationship?

Does the feedback environment have effects over time on employee empowerment? Is the feedback relevant in occupational contexts with more

challenging work demands?

Feedback Environment

Feedback environment – the contextual aspects of day-to-day supervisor-subordinate and coworker-coworker feedback processes (Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004) Previous research focused on the extent that employees

perceived that supervisors frequently provided different forms of feedback (Herold & Parsons, 1985) Scales lacked proper validation Inconsistent results Focused only on one type of feedback (positive/negative)

Focus of the article is on supervisor-subordinate relationship in regard to feedback

The Feedback Environment

Source credibility Feedback quality Feedback delivery Frequency of favorable feedback Frequency of unfavorable feedback Source availability Promoting feedback seeking

Empowerment

Psychological empowerment – the extent to which individuals feel as though they have high levels of control over their work environments (Spreitzer, 1995)

Structural empowerment – focus is on actual management practices and job design features like skill variety and task identity (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990)

Emphasis of psychological empowerment is on the cognitions of the individuals in a given work context and reflects a state of motivated effort to shape one’s work environment

Dimensions of Psychological Empowerment

Meaning Competence

Self-determinat

ion Impact

Dimensions of Psychological Empowerment Meaning – reflects the alignment between an employee’s job

demands, work goal, or purpose and his/her beliefs, values, and standards

Competence – reflects an individual’s perceived level of self-efficacy on the job, or level of mastery

Self-determination – reflects an individual’s level of choice in the different tasks and actions he/she pursues in the workplace

Impact – reflects the extent to which individuals perceive having a voice in influencing the strategic or administrative functions of the organization

Methods

212 correctional facility organization employees (full-time) Out of 252

Employees were in front-line positions 58.5% female and 65.6% Caucasian Average organizational tenure – 5.88 years Average tenure with current supervisor – 2.44 years Employees provided data at two time points 3 months apart Employees had 3 weeks to complete the survey and have it sent to

the researcher Only participants who completed the first survey were given the

second survey

Measures

Time 1 Supervisor feedback environment

The Feedback Environment Scale (FES) Feedback orientation

The feedback orientation scale Time 2

Psychological empowerment The Psychological Empowerment Scale

Control Tenure with one's current supervisor (in years)

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 – The supervisor feedback environment at Time 1 positively relates to meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact at Time 2

Hypothesis 2 – Time 1 feedback orientation moderates the relationship between Time 1 supervisor feedback environment and Time 2 meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact; the positive relationship between supervisor feedback environment and the dimensions of empowerment will be stronger when feedback orientation is high and weak when orientation feedback is low

Results Recap

H1 was partially supported Perceptions of the supervisor feedback environment positively

predicted meaning and impact Did not positively predict competence or self-determination

H2 was mostly supported Feedback orientation moderated the relationship between supervisor

feedback environment perceptions and the following factors: Meaning Competence Self-determination

No significant interaction for impact

Discussion

The feedback environment may not be enough to increase perceptions of psychological empowerment an employee feels in their job Based on H1 findings

Meaning Employees high in feedback orientation are more likely to find

meaning in their work in a positive feedback environment Competence and Self-Determination

A positive feedback environment can have a negative influence on performance for those low in feedback orientation May reduce feelings of autonomy and self-efficacy

Implications

Feedback orientation among individuals must be considered

The feedback environment fostered by supervisors cannot be ‘one size fits all’

Gauging the feedback orientation of employees may be helpful to supervisors

Supervisor feedback environment can positively influence the level of impact employees feel in their work

Limitations and Future Directions

Self-report measures were used Cross-lagged panel designs should be examined in

future research Utilize experience sampling methodology or daily diary

reports Sample came from unique work context

Discussion Questions

There is no mention of how the feedback orientation scores were dichotomized into the high and low feedback orientation categories. How does this affect your interpretation of the study findings?

In an organization that relies on minimum wage workers (e.g., fast food), is it important to gauge the feedback orientation trend among the employees? These organizations are normally characterized by high

turnover, monotonous work, and little to no autonomy