Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360° feedback

Abstract

This study investigated the factors that influence leaders’ reactions to 360° feedback and the relationship of feedback reactions to subsequent development activities and changes in leader behavior. For leaders with low ratings, those who agreed with others about their ratings were less motivated than those who received low ratings and over rated themselves. For leaders with high ratings, agreement between self and other did not influence their motivation. Individuals with more favorable attitudes toward using feedback were more motivated following feedback. We found minimal support for hypothesized relationships between personality characteristics and reactions to feedback. Leaders’ reactions to feedback were not related to the number of follow-up activities they reported, but were related to the degree of change in ratings over time.

Introduction

Three hundred and sixty degree feedback, the process in which direct reports, peers, and supervisors provide anonymous feedback to recipients, continues to grow in popularity (Waldman & Atwater, 1998). The APA Monitor (July, 1995) extolled the benefits of these feedback methods for heightening managers’ awareness of their strengths and weaknesses, fostering an atmosphere of constructive dialogue, and providing an incentive for change. Numerous studies have reported improved leadership and increased leader self-awareness following 360 or upward feedback interventions (e.g., Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995; Reilly, Smither, & Vasilopoulos, 1996).

Positive behavior change and increased self-awareness are not the only outcomes that may result from 360° feedback. Kluger and DeNisi’s (1996) review of the effects of feedback on performance raised the issue that performance improvement is not the only result that can be expected from feedback interventions. In fact, they concluded that in over one-third of the cases, feedback actually resulted in decreased performance. Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, and Cartier (2000) found that improvement following an upward feedback intervention only resulted for 50% of the supervisors who received it. These results suggest that a better understanding of how and why managers react to developmental feedback is needed. Many questions remain as to the factors that influence which managers will benefit from the feedback and why some managers do not improve after this feedback process.

Recent theorizing in the area of 360° feedback (London & Smither, 1995) points to the importance of managers’ cognitive evaluations of and emotional reactions to their feedback because they exert important influences on how managers ultimately respond. Salient features of the feedback itself or characteristics of feedback recipients (e.g., attitudes, personality or self-efficacy) may impact how feedback recipients react to their feedback and their subsequent use of the feedback.

The immediate reactions managers have to 360° feedback are important because the ways an individual “feels” about and reacts to the feedback may influence how or whether the individual changes his or her behavior in response to the feedback. Theoretical work on antecedents of affect (Higgins, 1987; Lazarus, 1991), and on individuals reactions to feedback (Taylor, Fisher, & Ilgen, 1984) suggests that negative feedback leads to negative affect whereas positive feedback leads to positive affect. Brett and Atwater (2001) supported this notion to some extent in their study of reactions to 360° feedback. They found that individuals reacted to negative 360° feedback with anger and discouragement, though positive feedback did not result in positive affect. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors that influence leaders’ reactions to feedback and the relationships between reactions and subsequent development activities and behavior change. (Note we use the term leader in this study to refer to an individual holding a supervisory or “leadership” position).

Managers’ reactions to feedback may depend not only on the feedback itself (e.g., whether it is positive or negative), but also on the extent to which the feedback is discrepant from the manager’s self-view. For example, control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982) and feedback intervention theory (FIT) (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) suggest that behavior is regulated by comparisons of feedback to goals or standards. One of the goals or standards an individual may use is their self-appraisal or self-rating. When a discrepancy between behavior and a standard is noted, according to FIT, people are motivated to reduce the discrepancy. Taylor et al. (1984) propose that when self and other ratings are discrepant the individual may be motivated to make changes to bring their evaluations from others in line with their self-view. However, cognitive or behavior change is only one possible response to discrepant feedback. Another option for reducing discrepancies is to rationalize or discount the feedback (Taylor et al., 1984). Consistent with the above argument that positive feedback is preferable, individuals who received feedback that was consistent with their own self-view believed the feedback was more informative and desirable (Pearce & Porter, 1986; Swann & Read, 1981). Even feedback that was satisfactory rather than high resulted in a significant drop in manager’s organizational attitudes that persisted over time (Pearce & Porter, 1986). Pedler and Boydell (1980) found that rationalization was the result of feedback that was very disconfirming of one’s self-view, i.e., more negative than expected. In a review of negative self-efficacy and goals, Bandura and Locke (2003) asserted that when feedback is perceived as a shortfall or goal discrepancy, perceived self-efficacy drops, self-set goals decrease, and self-satisfaction declines. Brett and Atwater (2001) found that over-ratings on a 360 instrument (self-ratings that were higher than those from others) were related to negative reactions as well as to perceptions that the feedback was not accurate. This was not the case for those who gave themselves lower ratings than they received from others. Consistent with the findings of Brett and Atwater (2001) we expect over-raters to express more negative reactions than under-raters. In addition, because over-raters are more likely to experience negative reactions and perceive feedback as inaccurate, we expect over-raters to engage in fewer follow-up activities than those who do not over-rate.

• H1. Leaders who over-rate experience fewer positive emotions, more negative emotions, less motivation and engage in fewer follow-up activities than those who do not over-rate.

Research on recipients’ reactions to feedback has investigated how an individual’s dispositions may impact their reactions to feedback. For example, individual differences such as self-esteem (Shrauger & Rosenberg, 1970) and social anxiety (Smith & Sarason, 1975) have been shown to be related to the ways in which feedback is perceived and used. Rather than merely exploring the relationships between a large number of personality traits and reactions to feedback, we chose to use a construct-oriented approach similar to that advocated by Hough and colleagues (e.g., Hough & Paullin, 1994; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Based on the literature we review below, we hypothesized that emotional stability, openness, trust, and self-efficacy would be related to reactions to feedback.

Individuals who score high on emotional stability are predisposed to manage events and emotions in a balanced adaptive way and are less likely to report negative feelings (Russell & Karol, 1994). Low emotional stability is associated with feeling anxious, fearful, worried, insecure, and with a predisposition to experience negative emotions (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2000; McCrae, 1990). Low emotional stability has been conceptualized as heightened sensitivity to negative stimuli (Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Tellegen, 1985). Individuals low in emotional stability responded with stronger emotional responses to broken promises (Ho, Weingart, & Rousseau, in press). Thus, individuals who are low on emotional stability may have more negative reactions to feedback, particularly if it is perceived as negative or less positive than expected.

• H2a. Controlling for sign of feedback, individuals who are lower on emotional stability have more negative emotional reactions to feedback, fewer positive reactions, are less motivated, and engage in fewer follow-up behaviors than those who are higher on emotional stability.

Argyris (1968) and Schaible (1970) noted that more open, less defensive group members are more likely to be accepting of feedback than closed or defensive group members. Openness to experience is the tendency to be perceptive, thoughtful, curious, broad-minded, and creative (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Judge & Bono, 2000). Open individuals have a strong need for change and are better able to understand and adapt to others’ perspectives (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae, 1996).

Barrick and Mount (1991) reported that openness to experience was a valid predictor of training proficiency across occupations. Openness to experience may influence individuals to hold more positive attitudes toward learning experiences, to be more involved in training, and learn more. As such, we expect openness to influence how managers react to 360° feedback.

• H2b. Controlling for sign of feedback, individuals who are higher on openness to new experiences have more positive and fewer negative emotional reactions to feedback, are more motivated following feedback, and engage in more follow-up behaviors than those who are lower on openness.

Trust is an attitude or expectation that one can rely on the motives, intentions or actions of other individuals to be favorable toward, or at least not detrimental to one’s interests (Dirks, 2000; Korsgaard, Brodt, & Whitener, 2002; Kramer, 1999; Robinson, 1996). A lack of trust, or distrust, is viewed as “a lack of confidence in the other, a concern that the other may act so as to harm one, that he does not care about one’s welfare or intends to act harmfully, or is hostile” (Grovier, 1994, p. 240). Individuals who are predisposed to be distrustful may challenge the motives and intentions of those providing them feedback on their leadership behavior. Fein (1996) investigated the effects of distrust on judgment and suggested that distrust may trigger more complex attributional analyses that consider the potential motives and causes that influence people’s behaviors. A distrustful person may question the motives of colleagues and direct reports in rating them and may be overall distrustful of the feedback. These individuals would likely react more negatively to the feedback and be less likely to engage in follow-up activities such as meeting with rater groups. As such, we expect the following.

• H2c. Controlling for sign of feedback, those who are more distrusting have fewer positive and more negative reactions to feedback, are less motivated, and engage in fewer follow-up behaviors than those who are less distrusting.

Self-efficacy is an individual’s belief in his or her capabilities and skills to organize and conduct the actions required to achieve successful performance levels (Bandura, 1986, Bandura, 1997). Individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs work as a factor in self-regulatory mechanisms, influencing level of motivation and effort (Bandura, 1990), goal setting (Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984), and attentional and cognitive processes (Bandura & Cervone, 1986; Bandura & Wood, 1989). Those with high self-efficacy focus attention on analyzing solutions to problems, whereas those low in self-efficacy are preoccupied with evaluative concerns and dwell on their personal failures (Bandura, 1990). Individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to cope and engage in activities in response to the challenges and adjustments at work (Raghuram, Wiesenfeld, & Garud, 2003; Saks & Ashforth, 2000). This would suggest that those high on self-efficacy would see the feedback as positive and that these individuals would be more willing to engage in follow-up activities such as meeting with rater groups or writing development plans. We hypothesize the following:

• H2d. Controlling for sign of feedback, those who are higher on self-efficacy have more positive and fewer negative reactions to feedback, are more motivated, and engage in more follow-up behaviors following feedback than those lower on self-efficacy.

The attitudes individuals hold about using the feedback they receive may be relevant to their reactions to the feedback itself. It is our contention that the feedback recipients’ attitudes toward using the feedback also will impact the way feedback is perceived and used. Herold, Parsons, and Rensvold (1996) suggested that feedback recipients’ proclivities and predispositions influence the “quality” of the feedback to that individual. To date, the attitudes individuals hold toward using 360° feedback have not been investigated in terms of their impact on the recipients’ reactions to the feedback received. We propose that those who hold more positive attitudes will have more positive reactions following feedback regardless of whether the feedback they receive is positive or negative.

• H3. Leaders with more favorable attitudes toward using feedback have more positive and fewer negative reactions to feedback, are more motivated, and engage in more follow-up behaviors following feedback regardless of the valence of the feedback received.

Reactions to feedback may represent transitory moods that may dissipate quickly. Alternatively, these reactions may set in motion activities that preclude or encourage recipients in making improvements (e.g., tossing the feedback report in the trash after the initial review or setting up a meeting with one’s manager to talk about the feedback). Thus, it is critical to assess the extent to which an individual’s reactions to feedback influence whether the feedback is used to make improvements. We can speculate based on earlier work looking at the relationship between reactions and perceptions of accuracy and usefulness that those who have negative emotional reactions to feedback would be less likely to use the feedback to make improvements. Similarly, those who react with positive emotions and motivation would be expected to use the feedback to improve. Those individuals who feel positively toward the feedback would be more likely to see the feedback as valuable and to use it in making needed changes. We hypothesize the following:

• H4a. Controlling for sign of feedback, individuals who have more positive immediate reactions to feedback show more improvements in their leadership ratings following feedback.

• Controlling for sign of feedback, individuals who have more negative immediate reactions to feedback show fewer improvements in their leadership ratings following feedback.

• Controlling for sign of feedback, individuals who have more positive attitudes toward the feedback show more improvements in their leadership ratings following feedback.