A Within-Person Perspective on Feedback Seeking about Task Performance

Abstract

In organisations, feedback about multiple performance dimensions is often available. Consequently, employees have to decide on which performance dimensions they will be seeking feedback. In a lab experiment 126 students indicated on which performance dimensions they wanted to receive feedback after completing a computerized in-basket task. Results showed that partici-pants especially sought feedback about their best and most important perfor-mance dimensions. Individuals with a high learning goal orientation sought more feedback about their least important performance dimensions as com-pared to individuals with a low learning goal orientation. In general, results indicated that previous findings obtained in between-person studies of feedback seeking hold relatively well at a within-person level of analysis. The results of the current study illustrate how adopting a within-person perspective can broad-en our understanding of the feedback-seeking process in organisations.

Full text

Psychologica Belgica
2006, 46-4, 269-286.
—————
Frederik Anseel and Filip Lievens, Department of Personnel Management and Work and
Organizational Psychology, Ghent University.
Portions of this article were presented at the Annual conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, April 2004.
We w ould like to thank Marc Covents for his programming work on the computerized in-
basket exercise.
Correspondence regarding this article can be sent to Frederik Anseel, Department of
Personnel Management and Work and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Henri
Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent. E-mail: frederik.anseel@ugent.be
A WITHIN-PERSON PERSPECTIVE ON FEEDBACK SEEKING
ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Frederik ANSEEL & Filip LIEVENS
Ghent University
In organisations, feedback about multiple performance dimensions is often
available. Consequently, employees have to decide on which performance
dimensions they will be seeking feedback. In a lab experiment 126 students
indicated on which performance dimensions they wanted to receive feedback
after completing a computerized in-basket task. Results showed that partici-
pants especially sought feedback about their best and most important perfor-
mance dimensions. Individuals with a high learning goal orientation sought
more feedback about their least important performance dimensions as com-
pared to individuals with a low learning goal orientation. In general, results
indicated that previous findings obtained in between-person studies of feedback
seeking hold relatively well at a within-person level of analysis. The results of
the current study illustrate how adopting a within-person perspective can broad-
en our understanding of the feedback-seeking process in organisations.
A Within-Person Perspective on Feedback Seeking about Task Performance
In the last two decades, several studies have demonstrated that employees
in organisations do not passively wait for feedback, but often proactively
seek performance feedback themselves (for reviews, see Ashford, Blatt, &
VandeWalle, 2003; Morrison, 2002). Active feedback seeking is a valuable
self-regulation strategy for obtaining useful information about task perfor-
mance as supervisors and co-workers in organisations are often reluctant to
provide feedback to employees. Research has shown that by seeking feed-
back, employees can adjust their goal-directed behaviour (Morrison &
Weldon, 1990), better assess their capabilities (Ashford & Tsui, 1991),
enhance their future effectiveness (Renn & Fedor, 2001), and “learn the
ropes” of a new job (Morrison, 1993).
Given the importance of employee feedback seeking in organisations, a
wealth of studies have examined (a) individual dispositions such as self-effi-
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

270
cacy, self-esteem, and goal orientation (e.g., Fedor, Rensvold, & Adams,
1992; Renn & Fedor, 2001; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997) and (b) contex-
tual factors such as the presence of significant others, leadership style, and
cultural factors (e.g., Levy, Albright, Cawley, & Williams, 1995; Levy, Cober,
& Miller, 2002; Morrison, Chen, & Salgado, 2004) in attempts to identify
strategies for encouraging the frequency of feedback-seeking behaviour.
Although substantial advancements in the feedback-seeking domain have
been made over the last years, it is noteworthy that empirical studies have
looked almost exclusively at variables predicting the frequency of feedback-
seeking behaviour or, in other words, focused on employees’ decision
whether or not to seek feedback. In addition, almost all empirical studies
have relied on a between-person approach for studying the frequency of feed-
back-seeking behaviour (for noteworthy exceptions, see Morrison &
Vancouver, 2000; Trope, Gervey, & Bolger, 2003; Vancouver & Morrison,
1995).
Yet, employees in organisations are confronted with many feedback-seek-
ing options. There are several different types of feedback they can seek and
several different ways in which they can do so. For instance, in an organisa-
tional context, performance feedback is typically multi-dimensional, includ-
ing feedback information on multiple tasks, assignments, skills, and behav-
iours (Ashford & Northcraft, 2003). Individuals not only have to decide
whether they will seek performance feedback or not, but they also have to
decide on which performance dimensions they will be seeking feedback. Till
now, very little research has paid attention to feedback-seeking choices
across performance dimensions. Congruent with more general theories of
behavioural choice, it is appropriate that researchers adopt a within-person
approach when studying this kind of intra-individual decision-making
processes (Kanfer, 1990; Pelham, 1993; Stevenson, Busemeyer, & Naylor,
1990).
This study aims to examine individuals’ feedback-seeking decisions
across different performance feedback dimensions using a within-person per-
spective. Specific hypotheses are grounded in a theoretical framework delin-
eating the motivational basis of feedback-seeking behaviour (Ashford et al.,
2003). Previous studies have highlighted the important role of two motives
underlying feedback seeking (e.g., the ego-based motive and the instrumen-
tal motive). A next step is to understand how these motives not only affect
the decision to seek feedback or not, but also affect decisions about which
performance dimensions to seek feedback.
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

271
Studying Feedback Seeking at a Within-Person Level of Analysis
The question whether to use a between-subjects design or a within-person
design is a much debated issue in the behavioural sciences (e.g., Allport,
1937; Bem, 1983; Rosenzweig, 1986; Runyan, 1983). In recent years, con-
sensus has been reached that these different levels of analysis are both legit-
imate avenues of study and are in fact both necessary for developing a thor-
ough understanding of human behaviour (e.g., Fleeson, 2004; Rosenzweig &
Fisher, 1997; Van Kampen, 2000). Several scholars have argued that the
choice for between- versus within-person designs should depend on the
research question and the theoretical framework under study (e.g., Cervone,
2005; Keren & Raaijmakers, 1988). For instance, after reviewing a number
of studies in personality psychology taking a within-person approach,
Pelham (1993) concluded that important questions about the relations among
multiple traits within a person can only be addressed using within-person
designs. In line with this conclusion, we argue that the research question in
this study (“About which performance dimensions do people seek feed-
back?”) is more consistent with a within-person approach.
Studies examining feedback seeking in organisations have traditionally
adopted a between-person approach wherein respondents are asked to pro-
vide self-reports of the frequency of their feedback-seeking behaviour in the
past (e.g., Ashford & Cummings, 1985; Renn & Fedor, 2001; Roberson,
Deitch, Brief, & Block, 2003; VandeWalle, Challagalla, Ganesan, & Brown,
2000). In this research tradition, differences in feedback seeking across per-
sons are examined. For instance, a typical research question in previous stud-
ies (e.g., Morrison & Cummings, 1992) has been: “Do people with high per-
formance expectations seek more feedback than people with low perfor-
mance expectations?”. This question is important from an organisational per-
spective because it points to strategies for organisations to encourage feed-
back seeking.
Despite the usefulness of a between-person approach, there are also limi-
tations. For example, consider John who has an opportunity to seek feedback
after completing a managerial assessment instrument. When considering
feedback seeking, John will probably not ask himself how his preference for
feedback about his Coordinating abilities compares with the preference for
feedback about Coordinating of his colleagues. Instead, he is very likely to
ask himself whether he prefers to receive feedback about his Coordinating
abilities or about his Information Management abilities. This example helps
to illustrate that people’s everyday evaluations and decisions are typically
made from their own frame of reference rather than from the perspective of
researchers (who typically compare evaluations and decisions with those
made by other people). It should be clear that research showing, for instance,
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

272
a positive relationship between performance expectations and feedback seek-
ing, does not automatically enable to conclude that similar effects will be
found at the within-person level when multiple performance dimensions are
available. Research on self-motives in social psychology has shown that
within-person designs are more appropriate to investigate this kind of idio-
graphic decision making (Pelham, 1993).
The current study is a first step to better comprehend how individuals
direct their attention to specific performance dimensions. Previous studies
adopting a within-person perspective in the feedback-seeking domain (e.g.,
Morrison & Vancouver, 2000; Vancouver & Morrison, 1995) have shed new
light on how individuals selectively seek different types of information (e.g.,
task, role, social, organisational, performance) and utilise different sources.
The current study further extends this line of work by taking a closer look at
feedback seeking across performance dimensions. Morrison and Vancouver
(2000) conceptualised feedback seeking about performance as a unidimen-
sional activity, whereas research suggests that performance is a multidimen-
sional construct, consisting of various performance dimensions (e.g.,
Borman & Brush, 1993; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Tett,
Guterman, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000). It remains unclear to what extent peo-
ple differentiate between these different performance dimensions when seek-
ing feedback and whether the same factors drive feedback-seeking behaviour
across performance dimensions as feedback seeking across different types of
information.
The focus of the present study is also important from a practical perspec-
tive. Not all performance dimensions are equally valued by an organisation.
Organisations are looking for development of these individual competencies
that closely align with the competencies required by their strategic intent
(e.g., Huselid, 1995; Wright, Dunford, & Snell, 2001). Therefore, a better
understanding of feedback-seeking decisions across performance dimensions
in organisations is crucial. Insight in this decision process might assist organ-
isations in designing strategies that direct employee feedback seeking
towards the specific performance dimensions that are valued in the organisa-
tion and that contribute to the overall effectiveness of the organisation. For
instance, when participating in a developmental assessment centre, partici-
pants can seek feedback about a number of different dimensions (e.g., inter-
personal, leadership, sales, analytical skills) that are targeted by the various
assessment exercises (e.g., in-basket simulations, role-play, presentations)
(Abraham, Morrison, & Burnett, 2006). A particular organisation might be
especially interested in developing employees’ leadership skills and there-
fore like to stimulate feedback seeking after assessment towards those spe-
cific performance dimensions. When we know which factors drive these
feedback-seeking decisions, organisations might develop interventions to
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

273
influence these decisions (e.g., by changing employees’ implicit beliefs, see
Heslin, Latham, & VandeWalle, 2005).
In sum, this study addresses a question that has not been previously stud-
ied. It looks at individuals’ feedback-seeking decisions when feedback about
multiple performance dimensions is available after completing an assessment
centre exercise. This study also employs a methodological approach that has
not typically been used in the feedback-seeking literature. Rather than
assessing between-person relationships, it assesses relationships at a within-
person level.
Feedback Seeking Across Performance Dimensions
The Ego-Based Motive
In a recent review of research on feedback-seeking behaviour in organisa-
tions, Ashford et al. (2003) presented the main motives that underlie feed-
back seeking. One of these motives is the ego-based motive to protect and
enhance one’s ego. The ego-based motive, also known as a self-enhancement
motive, has a long tradition in social psychology (Sedikides & Strube, 1997).
Across diverse measures and situations, this literature offers sound support
for the self-enhancement motive. People seek, process, remember, and judge
self-related information in a manner that will place the self in the best possi-
ble light. These findings have also been confirmed in feedback-seeking
research in organisations. Employees avoid seeking feedback if they expect
the feedback to be negative or threatening (Morrison & Cummings, 1992;
Northcraft & Ashford, 1990). Similarly, when people are self-confident and
expect feedback to be positive, they seek feedback more frequently (Ashford,
1986). On the basis of these findings about frequency of feedback seeking,
we expect to find a similar pattern when people can choose between feedback
about several performance dimensions. We expect that people will be more
likely to seek feedback about those performance dimensions they think they
are best at, because feedback about these dimensions will most likely be
favourable and ego-enhancing.
Hypothesis 1: People will seek more feedback about their best perfor-
mance dimensions as opposed to their worst performance dimensions.
The Instrumental Motive
A second motive identified by Ashford et al. (2003) is the instrumental
motive to achieve a goal or perform well. People seek feedback because it
has informational value that can help them to meet goals and regulate their
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

274
behaviour. Support for the existence of the instrumental motive stems from
research on antecedents that are known to make the instrumental value of
feedback more salient. One of the antecedents that highlights the instrumen-
tal value of feedback is the importance of goal-attainment. The higher the
importance of goal-attainment to the performer, the more frequently the per-
former seeks feedback (Ashford, 1986; Tuckey, Brewer, & Williamson,
2002). On the basis of these findings, we hypothesise that when confronted
with a choice between several performance dimensions when seeking feed-
back, people will be more likely to seek feedback about dimensions that are
personally important to them as opposed to dimensions that have low per-
sonal importance. This would occur because important traits and abilities are
closely associated with people’s goals and ambitions (Pelham, 1991).
Important traits are instrumental for achieving long-term desired outcomes
and thus, diagnostic information about these traits is highly valued (Trope,
1986).
Hypothesis 2: People will seek more feedback about their most important
performance dimensions as opposed to their least important performance
dimensions.
On the basis of the role of the instrumental motive, we expect that indi-
viduals’ learning goal orientation will interact with the importance of the per-
formance dimensions in predicting feedback-seeking decisions across per-
formance dimensions. Recently, goal orientation has received a lot of atten-
tion in the performance feedback area. Goal orientations are personal goal
preferences in achievement-related situations. Two broad classes of underly-
ing goals have been distinguished: (a) a learning goal orientation to develop
competence by acquiring new skills and mastering new situations, and (b) a
performance goal orientation to demonstrate and validate the adequacy of
one’s competence by seeking favourable judgments and avoiding negative
judgments about one’s competence (VandeWalle, 2003). Especially the for-
mer has been very successful in predicting feedback-seeking behaviour:
Learning goal orientation has consistently been found to be related to the fre-
quency of feedback seeking (Tuckey et al., 2002; VandeWalle & Cummings,
1997; VandeWalle et al., 2000). The relationship between learning goal ori-
entation and feedback seeking can be explained by the instrumental motive:
“A learning goal orientation (…) increases the salience of the instrumental
motive, and accordingly, feedback-seeking behavior” (Ashford et al., 2003,
p. 778). As importance already activates an instrumental motive, we expect
this effect to be more pronounced for people with a high learning orientation.
Hypothesis 3: People with a high learning goal orientation will seek more
feedback about the most important performance dimensions than people with
a low learning goal orientation.
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

275
Method
Participants
One hundred twenty-six I/O psychology master students participated in
this study. They were given extra course credit for their voluntary participa-
tion. Participants had an average age of 22.9 years (SD = 1.8); 70% were
female, 30% male.
Procedure
Participants were given the task to complete a computerized in-basket
exercise that simulated daily work activities. We chose this task because it
provides participants with a realistic environment that might instigate high
involvement and motivation. In addition, in-basket exercises are often used
for selection and development purposes in organisations. The in-basket exer-
cise used was developed by Tett, Steele, and Beauregard (2003) to measure
eight basic managerial performance dimensions that are included in a recent-
ly developed taxonomy of managerial performance (Tett et al., 2000):
Coordinating, Decisiveness, Task Focus, Composure, Information
Management, Problem Awareness, Quantity Concern, and Trustworthiness.
Prior to completing the computerized in-basket exercise, participants rated
their standing on the eight performance dimensions and the perceived impor-
tance of these dimensions in a self-assessment questionnaire. Completing the
computerized in-basket exercise took participants on average one hour. Upon
completion of the exercise, participants were told that they would have the
opportunity to read through a feedback report generated by the computer.
However, as there would not be enough time for participants to review the
report in its entirety, they were asked to specify those portions they most
wanted to examine. Next, the feedback-seeking measure was administered.
Finally, two weeks later, participants received a feedback report with quanti-
tative and narrative feedback about their actual performance on the in-basket.
Measures
To measure participants’ self-views, we used a modified version of the
Self-Attributes Questionnaire (SAQ) of Pelham and Swann (1989). This tem-
porally stable measure (four month test – retest reliability r= .77; Pelham &
Swann, 1989) taps people’s self-views on a number of different dimensions
(e.g., intellectual ability, social skills, leadership ability, discipline, etc.). For
this study, these dimensions were replaced by the eight performance dimen-
sions that are measured by the in-basket exercise. For each of the eight per-
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

276
formance dimensions, participants received a brief definition (e.g.,
Decisiveness: does not hesitate in making though decision) and the follow-
ing instruction “This questionnaire has to do with your perceptions of your
own managerial competencies. For the 8 competencies below, you should
rate yourself relative to other college students of your own age by using the
following scale”. Next, they rated themselves relative to other participants on
scales ranging from A (bottom 5%) to J (top 5%). We identified for each par-
ticipant a “worst”, and a “best” competency on the basis of their self-ratings
and only these competencies were used in subsequent analysis (see a more
detailed description of this procedure in the Appendix). In the remainder, we
will refer to this variable as self-assessed standing.
Participants also rated the extent to which each of the eight performance
dimensions was personally important to them, using 9-point scales (1 = not
at all important, 9 = extremely important). Again, we identified for each par-
ticipant a most important, and a least important competency on the basis of
their ratings and only these competencies were used in subsequent analyses
(see Appendix). In the remainder, we will refer to this variable as self-
assessed importance. Mean correlations between self-ratings and importance
ratings (r= .51) were comparable to findings in previous research (Pelham
& Swann, 1989; Visser, Krosnick, & Simmons, 2003). Although these con-
structs are moderately correlated, evidence shows that self-assessed standing
and importance reflect different constructs and have different cognitive and
behavioural consequences (Pelham, 1991; Visser et al., 2003).
Prior to working on the in-basket exercise, participants completed the aca-
demic learning goal orientation questionnaire (VandeWalle, Cron, &
Slocum, 2001). This questionnaire included four 7-point scale items (α=
.74). An example item of this scale is “I truly enjoy learning for the sake of
learning”.
Upon completion of the in-basket exercise, participants indicated which
feedback they preferred. The feedback-seeking measure (“How interested are
you in your performance on each of the 8 competencies?”) was taken from
Trope and Neter (1994, see also Trope, et al., 2003). For each of the 8 per-
formance dimensions, participants indicated how much they wanted feed-
back about that particular dimension on a 7-point scale ranging from not at
all (1) to very much (7).
Results
Given that the self-assessed standing and importance variables were non-
independent, we conducted two separate analyses for each variable. We first
examined the effect of self-assessed standing on feedback seeking. A GLM
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

277
analysis with self-assessed standing as a within-persons factor (high vs. low)
showed that people sought more feedback about their best performance
dimensions (M = 5.76, SD = 1.31) as compared to their worst performance
dimensions (M = 5.09, SD = 1.74), F(1, 125) = 16.14, p< .001, η2= .11.
Thus, hypothesis 1 was supported.
To examine the effect of self-assessed importance and the hypothesised
moderating effect of learning goal orientation, we tested a GLM model with
self-assessed importance (high vs. low) as a within-persons factor, learning
goal orientation as a continuous covariate, the interaction effect between
these two independent variables, and feedback seeking as dependent vari-
able. We found a main effect of self-assessed importance, F(1, 124) = 8.69,
p< .01, η2= .06. People sought more feedback about their most important
performance dimensions (M = 5.78, SD = 1.28) as compared to their least
important performance dimensions (M = 4.79, SD = 1.73). Thus, hypothesis
2 was supported.
This main effect was qualified by a significant self-assessed importance x
learning goal orientation effect, F(1, 124) = 4.57, p< .05, η2= .04. For the
purpose of interpreting this significant interaction effect, median splits were
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Vertical bars denote 0,95 confidence intervals
High Low
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
6,0
6,5
Feedback-seeking
Low LGO
High LGO
Figure 1.
The interaction effect between learning goal orientation and
self-assessed importance on feedback seeking.
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

278
performed on the learning goal orientation measure. The means of this inter-
action effect are displayed in Figure 1. Both people with a low and a high
learning goal orientation sought more feedback about their most important
performance dimensions as opposed to the least important performance
dimensions. However, as shown in Figure 1, this effect was more pronounced
for people with a low learning goal orientation. Interestingly, planned com-
parisons showed that people with a high learning goal orientation sought
more feedback about the least important performance dimensions than peo-
ple with a low learning goal orientation, p< .05, while there was no differ-
ence in feedback seeking about the most important performance dimensions,
p> .05. Thus, hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Discussion
Previous feedback-seeking research typically used between-person
approaches to examine variables influencing the frequency of feedback seek-
ing. However, employees’ decision making in the feedback process is not
solely limited to the question whether to seek feedback or not. Often, feed-
back about several task performance dimensions is available and employees
have to choose between the various performance dimensions when seeking
feedback. Because little is known about this decision-making process, we
built on previous models delineating how different motives affect the fre-
quency of feedback-seeking behaviour for studying feedback seeking across
performance dimensions (e.g., Ashford et al., 2003; Tuckey et al., 2002).
In general, the results of the current study indicate that previous findings
about motives of feedback-seeking behaviour hold relatively well when dif-
ferent performance dimensions are available for seeking feedback. First, we
found support for the ego-based motive as one of the main drivers of intra-
individual feedback-seeking decisions. Individuals especially sought feed-
back about the performance dimensions they thought they were best at. This
finding supports previous research indicating that people seek feedback to
enhance their self-image by seeking feedback when performance expecta-
tions are high (Morrison & Cummings, 1992; Northcraft & Ashford, 1990).
Second, our results point out that an instrumental motive also drives feedback
seeking across performance dimensions. Participants preferred to receive
feedback about the most important dimensions as opposed to the least impor-
tant dimensions. This finding blends well with a similar within-person study
of information-seeking behaviour in organisations. Morrison and Vancouver
(2000) found that employees seek more of a given type of information to the
extent that they perceive that information of that type is important. So, organ-
isations should try to convince employees about the importance of perfor-
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

279
mance dimensions that are crucial for organisational effectiveness in order to
encourage feedback seeking in the direction of organisational goals.
The role of learning goal orientation in influencing the instrumental
motive was not supported. While learning goal orientation qualified the
effect of importance on feedback seeking as expected, results showed that
participants with a high learning goal orientation sought more feedback
about the least important performance dimensions than participants with a
low learning goal orientation. One possible explanation for this unexpected
finding is that importance makes the instrumental motive so salient in the
feedback-process that it overrides the effect of learning goal orientation. For
both people with a low and a high learning goal orientation, obtaining feed-
back about their most important competencies might be crucial for their
future development and performance. A learning goal orientation adds little
to the salience of the instrumental motive when seeking feedback about
important dimensions, as the importance of these dimensions already acti-
vates the instrumental motive to a high degree. In contrast, when seeking
feedback about their least important competencies, it might be that especial-
ly learning goal oriented individuals are interested to obtain feedback for fur-
ther development. People with a low learning goal orientation are less inter-
ested in obtaining feedback about their least important competencies as they
are less focused on developing competence by acquiring new skills and mas-
tering new situations. A second explanation might be that we did not take
performance goals into account in the current study. Individuals with a per-
formance goal orientation seek to demonstrate and validate the adequacy of
their ability by seeking favourable judgments and avoiding negative judg-
ments about their ability (VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). Performance-
oriented individuals can be motivated either to “outperform” others and to
demonstrate their competence and superiority, or to avoid failure and to avoid
looking incompetent. One typical finding is that especially a performance-
approach (also called “prove”) goal orientation is positively related to per-
formance (for reviews, see Elliot,1999; Pintrich, 2000) suggesting that indi-
viduals with a performance-approach orientation tend to exert much effort
and to work hard in order to accomplish their goal of performing better than
others. When seeking feedback about their most important goals, participants
might have also been driven by performance-approach goals to demonstrate
their competence on the assessment task and outperform others. Recent
research suggests that striving to outperform others (performance goal orien-
tation) is not necessarily inconsistent with trying to attain task mastery
(learning goal orientation) and these goal orientations may interact in pre-
dicting individual responses in achievement situations (Van Yperen &
Janssen, 2002). Of course, these are tentative explanations. In this study, we
focused exclusively on the concept of learning goal orientation as it more
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

280
closely parallels the feedback-seeking framework of Ashford and Cummings
(VandeWalle et al., 2000). Future research should take both learning and per-
formance goal orientations into account to further test the different explana-
tions proposed to account for the unexpected interaction effect. Future
research might also examine whether performance goals interact with indi-
viduals’ self-assessed standing as research suggests that individuals with a
performance-avoidance goal orientation might be more driven by the ego-
based motive when seeking feedback (Janssen & Prins, in print).
This study is not without limitations. A first concern deals with generalis-
ability. In this study, we undertook substantial efforts to create a situation and
a task that were as realistic as possible for the participants. For instance, the
design of our task corresponds closely to organisational practice where peo-
ple are provided with feedback about various performance dimensions on one
single occasion, for instance upon completion of developmental assessment
centres, 360-degree feedback, and self-assessment tools. However, it should
be acknowledged that some organisational realities could not be simulated.
Furthermore, in the current study, participants sought feedback about individ-
ual performance. However, organisations are increasingly using teams to
organise the work environment. Therefore, an important question for future
research is whether organisations can encourage employees to seek feedback
about team performance instead of individual performance by emphasizing
the importance of team work (e.g., by rewarding team performance).
A second drawback was that we measured individuals’ intentions to seek
feedback and not actual feedback-seeking behaviour. Previous research has
shown that employees’ feedback-seeking intentions are sometimes reconsid-
ered and modified in a public environment because of fear for face-loss (e.g.,
Levy et al., 1995). In the current study, participants expressed their interest
in obtaining feedback in a private computerized environment and thus, expe-
rienced very little feedback-seeking costs. Future research might want to
examine within-person feedback decisions in a more realistic public envi-
ronment. It would be interesting to see whether initial feedback-seeking
intentions towards specific performance dimensions will be modified to other
performance dimensions when the actual feedback-seeking act takes place in
the presence of significant others (colleagues, supervisor, etc.).
In conclusion, recently several calls have been made stressing that more
research using within-person designs is needed to gain a better insight in
human behaviour (e.g., Fleeson, 2004). The results of the present study indi-
cate that previous findings obtained in between-person studies of feedback
seeking hold relatively well at a within-person level of analysis. This further
highlights the relevance of the current study as these results offer additional
evidence for the complementarity of the between-person and within-person
approaches in studying human cognition and behaviour.
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

281
References
Abraham, J.D., Morrison, J.D., & Burnett, D.B. (2006). Feedback seeking among
developmental assessment center participants. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 20, 383-394.
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Ashford, S.J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465-487.
Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass:
A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of
Management, 29, 773-799.
Ashford, S.J., & Cummings, L.L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instru-
mental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 58, 67-79.
Ashford, S.J., & Northcraft, G.B. (2003). Robbing Peter to pay Paul: Feedback, divi-
sion of attention, and goal attainment. Human Resource Management Review,
13, 537-559.
Ashford, S.J., & Tsui, A.S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The
role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 251-280.
Bem, D.J. (1983). Constructing a theory of the triple typology: Some (second)
thoughts on nomothetic and idiographic approaches to personality. Journal of
Per sonality, 51, 455-577.
Borman, W.C., & Brush, D.H. (1993). More progress toward a taxonomy of manage-
rial performance requirements. Human Performance, 6, 1-21.
Campbell, J.P., McCloy, R.A., Oppler, S.H., & Sager, C.E. (1993). A theory of per-
formance. In N. Schmitt & W.C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organi-
zation (pp. 35-70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cassidy, J., Ziv, Y., Mehta, T.G., & Feeney, B.C. (2003). Feedback seeking in chil-
dren and adolescents: Associations with self-perceptions, attachment represen-
tations, and depression. Child Development, 74, 612-628.
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes.
Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423-453.
Elliot, A.J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goal.
Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.
Fedor, D.B., Rensvold, R.B., & Adams, S.M. (1992). An investigation of factors
expected to affect feedback seeking: A longitudinal field study. Pe r sonnel
Psychology, 45, 779-805.
Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The
challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 13, 83-87.
Heslin, P.A., Latham G.P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person
theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 842-856.
Huselid, M.A. (1995). The impact of human resources management practices on
turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 635-672.
Janssen, O., & Prins, J. (in press). Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of
feedback information. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

282
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory in I/O psychology. In M. Dunette & L.M.
Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.).
Vol. 1. (pp. 75-170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press, Inc.
Keren, G.B., & Raaijmakers, J.G. (1988). On between-subjects versus within-sub-
jects comparisons in testing utility theory. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 41, 233-247.
Levy, P.E., Albright, M.D., Cawley, B.D., & Williams, J.R. (1995). Situational and
individual determinants of feedback seeking: A closer look at the process.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 23-37.
Levy, P.E., Cober, R.T., & Miller, T. (2002). The effect of transformational and trans-
actional leadership perceptions on feedback-seeking intentions. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1703-1720.
Morrison, E.W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,
sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589.
Morrison, E.W. (2002). Information seeking within organizations. Human
Communication Research, 28, 229-242.
Morrison, E.W., Chen, Y.R., & Salgado, S.R. (2004). Cultural differences in new-
comer feedback seeking: A comparison of the United States and Hong Kong.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 1-22.
Morrison, E.W., & Cummings, L.L. (1992). The impact of feedback diagnosticity and
performance expectations on feedback seeking behavior. Human Performance,
5, 251-264.
Morrison, E.W., & Vancouver, J.B. (2000). Within-person analysis of information
seeking: The effects of perceived costs and benefits. Journal of Management,
26, 119-137.
Morrison, E.W., & Weldon, E. (1990). The impact of an assigned performance goal
on feedback seeking behavior. Human Performance, 3, 37-50.
Northcraft, G.B., & Ashford, S.J. (1990). The preservation of self in everyday life:
The effects of performance expectations and feedback context on feedback
inquiry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 42-64.
Pelham, B.W. (1991). On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance
of self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 518-530.
Pelham, B.W. (1993). The idiographic nature of human personality: Examples of the
idiographic self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64,
665-677.
Pelham, B.W., & Swann, W.B. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: The
sources and structure of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 672-680.
Pelham, B.W., & Swann, W.B. (1994). The juncture of intrapersonal and interper-
sonal knowledge: Self-certainty and interpersonal congruence. Per sonality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 349-357.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M.
Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
451-502). San Diego: Academic Press.
Renn, R.W., & Fedor, D.B. (2001). Development and field test of a feedback seeking,
self-efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance. Journal of
Management, 27, 563-583.
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

283
Roberson, L., Deitch, E.A., Brief, A.P., & Block, C.J. (2003). Stereotype threat and
feedback seeking in the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 176-188.
Rosenzweig, S. (1986). Idiodynamics vis-à-vis psychology. American Psychologist,
41, 241-245.
Rosenzweig, S., & Fisher, S.L. (1997). “Idiographic” vis-à-vis “idiodynamic” in the
historical perspective of personality theory: Remembering Gordon Allport,
1897-1997. Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 405-419.
Runyan, W.M. (1983). Idiographic goals and methods in the study of lives. Journal
of Personality, 51, 413-437.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M.J. (1997). Self-evaluation: To thine own self be good, to
thine own self be sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better.
In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 29. (pp.
209-269). New York: Academic Press.
Stevenson, M.K., Busemeyer, J.R., & Naylor, J.C. (1990). Judgment and decision-
making theory. In M. Dunette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Vol. 1. (pp. 75-170).Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychology Press, Inc.
Swann, W.B., Pelham, B.W., & Krull, D.S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable
truth: Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of
Per sonality and Social Psychology, 57, 782-791.
Tett, R.P., Guterman, H.A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P.J. (2000). Development and con-
tent validation of a “hyperdimensional” taxonomy of managerial competence.
Human Performance, 13, 205-251.
Tett, R.P., Steele, J.R., & Beauregard, R.S. (2003). Broad and narrow measures on
both sides of the personality-job performance relationship. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 24, 335-356.
Trope, Y. (1986). Self-enhancement and self-assessment in achievement behavior. In
R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior (pp. 350-378). New York: Guilford.
Trope, Y., Gervey, B., & Bolger, N. (2003). The role of perceived control in over-
coming defensive self-evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
39, 407-419.
Trope, Y., & Neter, E. (1994). Reconciling competing motives in self-evaluation: The
role of self-control in feedback seeking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 646-657.
Tuckey, M., Brewer, N., & Williamson, P. (2002). The influence of motives and goal
orientation on feedback seeking. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 195-216.
Vancouver, J.B., & Morrison, E.W. (1995). Feedback inquiry: The effect of source
attributes and individual differences. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 62, 276-285.
VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior.
Human Resource Management Review, 13, 581-604.
VandeWalle, D., Challagalla, G.N., Ganesan, S., & Brown, S.P. (2000). An integrat-
ed model of feedback-seeking behavior: Disposition, context, and cognition.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 996-1003.
VandeWalle, D., Cron, W.L., & Slocum, J.W., Jr. (2001). The role of goal orientation
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

284
following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 629-640.
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L.L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orienta-
tion on the feedback-seeking process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390-
400.
Van Kampen, D. (2000). Idiographic complexity and the common personality dimen-
sions insensitivity, extraversion, neuroticism, and orderliness. European Journal
of Personality, 14, 217-243.
Van Yperen, N.W., & Janssen, O. (2002). Fatigued and dissatisfied or fatigued but sat-
isfied? Goal orientations and responses to high job demands. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 1161-1171.
Visser, P., Krosnick, J.A., & Simmons, J.P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and
behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: A new approach
to testing the common-factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 118-141.
Wright, P.M., Dunford, B.B., & Snell, S.A. (2001). Human resources and the resource
based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27, 701-721.
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

285
Appendix
In this study, we adopted a within-persons perspective to examine feed-
back seeking from the frame of reference of the feedback-seeker. An exam-
ple might help to illustrate the specific analytic approach that was adopted
for the research question under study. Consider a student who has an oppor-
tunity to seek feedback after completing a management test. Let us assume
that on a 9-point scale with a theoretical mean of 5, the average self-rating
for college students is 7 for their Decisiveness skills and 3 for their Problem
Awareness skills (i.e., assume that most college students think they are bet-
ter in Decisiveness and worse in Problem Awareness than most of their
peers). Now, consider Jane who rates her Decisiveness as a 6 (below average)
and Problem Awareness as a 4 (above average). Which dimension should
Jane seek feedback about to feel good about herself assuming that she is dri-
ven by the ego-based motive? From Jane’s perspective, she is best in
Decisiveness and thus to feel good, she should seek feedback about this
dimension. However, from a traditional between-person perspective, Jane
should seek feedback about Problem Awareness because she rates herself
higher on this dimension than the group average, whereas her rating about
Decisiveness is below group average.
To e xamine feedback-seeking decisions across performance dimensions
from the above-described frame of reference of the participants, we followed
a procedure that was developed by Pelham (1991, see also, Cassidy, Ziv,
Mehta, & Feeney, 2003; Pelham, 1993; Pelham & Swann, 1994; Swann,
Pelham, & Krull, 1989). We identified for each participant a “worst”, and a
“best” performance dimension on the basis of their self-ratings (self-assessed
standing). For instance, consider three participants whose highest, and low-
est self-ratings of the eight performance dimensions are 9-1 (participant 1),
9-7 (participant 2), and 3-1 (participant 3), respectively. The best perfor-
mance dimensions would have received a rating of 9, 9, and 3 from these par-
ticipants. The worst performance dimension would have received a rating of
1, 7, and 1 from these participants. As can be noted in this example, not all
three participants have a low self-rating for their worst performance dimen-
sion. Still, for each participant the performance dimension that was selected
as “worst” was the performance dimension that received the lowest self-rat-
ing from their own frame of reference. Next, the feedback-seeking prefer-
ences attributed by the participants to each of these dimensions was assessed.
Only the feedback-seeking ratings for these two performance dimensions
(which may be different for each participant) were used in the analyses.
Similarly, for each participant, a “most important”, and a “least important”
dimension were identified on the basis of their importance ratings, and
accordingly, the feedback-seeking ratings for these two performance dimen-
ANSEEL & LIEVENS
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM

286
sions were used in the analyses. Thus, in line with Pelham (1991), we
obtained feedback-seeking scores for self-assessed standing (low and high),
and self-assessed importance (low and high).
Received July, 2005
Revision Received October, 2006
Accepted January, 2007
FEEDBACK SEEKING ABOUT TASK PERFORMANCE
Anseel.ps - 3/9/2007 13:28 PM