Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions

Abstract

We would like to thank Michael M. Harris and Filip Lievens for their comments on an earlier version of this paper and Marc Covents for his programming work on the webbased work simulation. The aim of the current study is to shed new light on the inconsistent relationship between performance-approach goals and feedback reactions by examining feedback type as a moderator. Results of a field experiment (N = 939) using a web-based work simulation task showed that the effect of achievement-approach goals was moderated by feedback type. Relative to individuals pursuing mastery-approach goals, individuals pursuing performance-approach goals responded more negatively to comparative feedback but not to task-referenced feedback. In line with the hypothesized mediated moderation model, the interaction between achievement goals and feedback type also indirectly affected task performance through feedback reactions. Providing employees with feedback is a key psychological principle used in a wide range of human resource and performance management instruments (e.g., developmental assessment centers, multi-source/360 degrees feedback, training, selection, performance appraisal, management education, computer-adaptive testing, and coaching). The current study suggests that organizations need to strike a balance between encouraging learning and encouraging performance, as too much emphasis on comparative performance (both in goal inducement and in feedback style) may be detrimental to employees' reactions and rate of performance improvement. The achievement goal approach to achievement motivation has emerged as a highly influential framework for understanding how people define, experience, and respond to competence-relevant situations (Elliot, 2005). Although there are some differences among achievement goal theorists regarding the exact nature and functioning of these goals, they generally agree that three achievement goals can be distinguished (e.g., Elliot and Church, 1997;VandeWalle, 1997). Mastery-approach (MAp) goals imply that the individual is focused on the development of one's competence and thus, involve an emphasis on intrapersonal standards. The purpose of mastery-approach goal individuals is to learn and to improve on the task at hand, and ultimately, to achieve complete mastery of the task. Performance goals, in contrast, are grounded in interpersonal standards and may either emphasize the attainment of competence relative to others, or the avoidance of incompetence relative to others.These goals are referred to as performance-approach (PAp) goals and performanceavoidance (PAv) goals, respectively (Elliot, 2005).The general picture arising from two decades of research is that MAp goals are most adaptive for learning outcomes, whereas PAv goals are consistently associated with unwanted effects (e.g., Elliot, 1999Elliot, , 2005Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).For PAp goals, the story has been mixed. Some studies reported that these goals were associated with positive outcomes such as persistence, effort, task int...

Uvedba 360-Stopinjskega ocenjevanja odnosa in obnašanja specializantov

“…Pomembno je pravilno dajanje odziva. Končni cilj MSF je razvoj posameznika in/ali organizacije (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15).…”

Educational management and the extent of Thai undergraduates' learning and performance behaviour: an international view

“…By contrast, a motivational climate that is characterised by learning, development and cooperation may enhance trustworthy and honest behaviour . Therefore, it is necessary to encourage learning and performance, so that the individual making an initiative in performance improvement does not become demoralised (Anseel et al, 2011). With differences in culture, students who define success through interpersonal standards may not view the pursuit of performance goals as being maladaptive.…”

Lower Performance Evaluation Practice Ratings for Teachers of Disadvantaged Students

“…If other teachers improve as well, this teacher could find that her or his rating has stayed the same or even declined. Last, there is some evidence that changing the focus to interpersonal comparison could be counterproductive to using ratings to motivate improvement (Anseel, Van Yperen, Janssen, & Duyck, 2011;DeNisi & Kluger, 2000;Luffarelli, Gonçalves, & Stamatogiannakis, 2016). At the least, both adjusted and unadjusted score would have to be provided to teachers if they are expected to use the results to improve their practice.…”