Словари и журналы / Психологические журналы / p87Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

88 Todd J. Maurer et al.

subsequent skill development and how variables such as individual differences and situational conditions can moderate this relationship. However, relatively little research has examined the linkages between 360-degree feedback and subsequent developmental responses by participants, therefore little is known about which feedback recipients will respond most constructively to and about which types of work contexts are likely to foster constructive responses.

The first objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which individual differences in feedback recipients and in their work contexts are related to reactions following 360-degree feedback. Previous research has investigated the relationship between context and individual difference variables and employees’ participation in development activities (see Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Noe & Wilk, 1993); however, such relationships are not yet well understood in the 360-degree feedback process. A second objective of this study was to determine whether more developmental activity occurs in response to feedback provided by some, as opposed to other, types of raters in a 360-degree feedback intervention. This study examined supervisor, subordinate, peer, and self-ratings in relation to subsequent employee development attitudes and behaviour. It would be useful to know which raters in a 360-degree feedback intervention seem to instigate more developmental activity as a result of feedback.

Potential relationships among feedback source, person characteristics, perceived work context, and responses to 360-degree feedback

Three sets of independent variables were investigated in this study. One set included feedback ratings from: (a) the ratee (a self-rating), (b) the ratee’s supervisor, (c) the ratees’ subordinates, and (d) the ratees’ peers. Asecond set of variables included ratee individual difference variables, and the third set included perceived work context variables.

Three dependent variables were examined. Development activity can consist of a collection of learning opportunities that may be organized along different dimensions. One such dimension includes activities that occur on the job (such as receiving coaching or on-the-job training) and a second dimension includes activities that occur off the job (such as taking courses, obtaining instructional audio/video tapes, or reading career-relevant books). Other than participation in development activities, another important outcome of 360-degree feedback is one’s resulting attitude toward the feedback process. Acceptance of peer/subordinate ratings is an important issue in implementation (e.g. Bernardin, Dahmus, & Redmon, 1993; Maurer & Tarulli, 1996) and this makes attitudes a key focus. Also, attitudes have been found to be related to behaviour change following upward feedback (Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, & Cartier, 2000). Therefore, the dependent variables examined in this study were involvement in on-the-job and off-the-job development activities as well as attitudes toward the feedback system.

Feedback source

One might logically believe that the order of importance of feedback source to those being rated would reflect the traditional hierarchy of power. Ratings from one’s supervisors should be more important than those of one’s peers. In turn, ratings from one’s peers should be more important than those of one’s subordinates. Recently, however, Brutus, London, and Martineau (1999) challenged these relationships. Those authors found that in a 360-degree feedback intervention, subordinates’ negative ratings were

most highly related to the selection of developmental goals by managers being rated, followed by peer ratings, self-ratings, and supervisor ratings.

Brutus et al. (1999) explained that this may stem from differences in perceived instrumentality of the feedback sources to attaining goals (Ashford, 1986). Amanager’s effectiveness is in part a result of his/her ability to work with and through others. So ratings from those people with whom he/she more frequently interacts and on whom he/she most depends to get work done (e.g. subordinates and peers) are of great developmental value. Also, feedback from peers and subordinates is a more scarce resource (Ashford, 1993) compared with that from supervisors, and so may be valued more highly. Thus, subordinate ratings, followed by peer and supervisor ratings, may be perceived as containing valuable information that is uniquely diagnostic of a manager’s strengths and developmental needs. As a result, feedback from these sources is valued more by the manager. Accordingly, in the present study, we extended this prior research on developmental goals to attitudes and involvement in development activity. We expected that ratings from subordinates would be most directly related to attitudes and developmental responses, followed by peer ratings, self-ratings, and supervisor ratings.

Regarding the direction of these relationships, one might logically reason that receiving positive feedback will result in having a positive evaluation of the feedback system that provides this information. Past research on feedback interventions has shown that positive feedback is related to higher degrees of pleasantness (Kluger, Lewinsohn, & Aiello, 1994) and more favourable evaluations of the feedback source as well as the feedback itself (Albright & Levy, 1995). Also, theories such as control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981) and feedback intervention theory (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) suggest that when people detect a negative discrepancy between their performance and a standard, they become motivated to reduce the discrepancy (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Typically, people eliminate the discrepancy by trying to make their performance match the standard. In the context of performance feedback, performance ratings have been found to be negatively related to developmental goals (Brutus et al., 1999). Therefore, in the present study, we hypothesized that 360-degree ratings should be positively related to employee attitudes toward the feedback system and negatively related to involvement in developmental activity in response to the feedback. Conversely, lower ratings should lead to less favourable reactions (attitudes), but to greater efforts toward development.

One purpose of 360-degree feedback is to heighten the manager’s self-awareness of his/her skills. This is partially accomplished by allowing the manager to compare his/her own self-ratings to those of other raters. Thus, the discrepancy between self and others might be an important aspect of the 360-degree feedback intervention. Managers who rate themselves highly but who receive low ratings from others might become distressed by the negative discrepancy between their rating and the feedback (Taylor, 1991). As a result, individuals presented with negative feedback from others tend to rate the feedback less favourably (Albright & Levy, 1995). Furthermore, the distress motivates individuals to reduce the negative discrepancy (Johnson & Ferstl, 1999; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Therefore, in the present study, we hypothesized an interaction effect between self-ratings and the ratings of others in relation to attitudes and developmental activities. That is, higher self-ratings in conjunction with lower ratings by others would result in more negative attitudes and higher developmental activities; however, lower self-ratings in combination with higher ratings by others would result in more positive attitudes and fewer developmental activities.

90 Todd J. Maurer et al.

Person characteristics

This study looked at five individual difference variables that may influence one’s responses to 360-degree feedback. These variables were: performance goal emphasis, learning goal emphasis, implicit theory of ability, self-efficacy, and age.

The first and second person characteristics examined in this study were performance goals and learning goals (e.g. Dweck & Leggett, 1988). These general constructs (which have been found to be independent of one another) have been receiving increasing attention in organizational settings (Brett & Vandewalle, 1999). The present study provided an excellent opportunity to examine this concept in relation to 360degree feedback. An employee’s learning-goal emphasis can be distinguished here from a short-term, immediately-focused, performance-goal emphasis. In the latter, longterm self-development may be sacrificed for immediate performance results. In the former, taking time and investing effort in learning is key. Those who emphasize learning goals should have more positive attitudes toward learning and should invest more in learning and development activities. Therefore, it was expected that an individual emphasis on learning goals would be positively related to employee attitudes and involvement in development activities in the current study. Conversely, emphasizing performance goals should be negatively related to employee attitudes toward a learning and development-oriented feedback intervention. Likewise, performance goals should be negatively related to involvement in learning and development activities after 360-degree feedback.

Dweck and Leggett (1988) describe an important reason why people display an emphasis on performance goals or learning goals: essentially, it is differences in people’s beliefs about the malleability of human abilities. Implicit theories about abilities can be distinguished into two types. In ‘entity theory’, ability is conceptualized as a fixed trait that can be measured or evaluated. That is, ability is a static entity one possesses and carries through life as a finite, non-changeable quality. The other type of implicit theory of ability is incremental theory. Here, ability is conceptualized as malleable, and constantly evolving in an incremental fashion through an individual’s efforts.

Thinking of ability as finite and unchanging results in striving to gain favourable judgments about performance and one’s level of ability. Each challenging situation is seen as a test or evaluation of one’s ability, and one can either pass or fail. Therefore, people with an entity theory tend to pursue performance goals in challenging tasks. With incremental theory, however, each challenging situation is viewed as an opportunity to incrementally improve or add to one’s capabilities. Therefore, people with an incremental theory tend to pursue learning goals.

Very little research has addressed this variable in an employee development context, and the current study provided a unique opportunity to explore it within an organizational setting. Individuals with an incremental theory should generally regard negative information about their skills as useful feedback for developing strategies for improving future effectiveness. Individuals with an entity theory should generally regard negative information about their performance as diagnostic of their deficiencies, resulting in negative responses. Therefore, it was expected that an incremental theory of ability would be positively related to employee attitudes toward the feedback system and to involvement in development activities, while an entity theory would be negatively related to employee attitudes and development activities.

A fourth person characteristic is self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) for development, which is the degree to which one believes he/she is capable of improving his/her

skills. Research has shown that self-efficacy is a key predictor of intentions and choice to perform a behaviour or pursue a task, as well as persistence, thoughts, and feelings during the task (Bandura, 1997; Gist & Mitchell, 1992; Sadri & Robertson, 1993). People who believe that they can improve their skills and abilities should feel favourably toward a feedback system that informs them of the skills or abilities that need improvement (Maurer & Tarulli, 1996). Those with high self-efficacy for development should also be more highly motivated and thus seek participation in development activities. Therefore, we expected that high self-efficacy for development will be related to employee attitude and development activities following 360-degree feedback.

Note that implicit theory of ability is related conceptually to self-efficacy, but is also distinct. While implicit theory of ability reflects people’s beliefs about whether it is possible for people in general to be able to change their abilities, self-efficacy for development reflects the individual’s belief that he/she can change his/her own abilities. The latter judgment may reflect resources and constraints on the individual as he/she considers his/her own prognosis for change. An analogy might be that some individuals believe that it is possible for people to lose weight, but they do not think that they themselves have the capability to do it for various reasons (e.g. not enough will power, energy, etc). Given this conceptual distinction, both constructs were simultaneously addressed in this study to determine whether they provide unique, empirical predictions.

The fifth person characteristic examined in this study was the age of an employee, which can be an important factor in employee development. The literature suggests that older employees engage in development activities less than younger employees (see Cleveland & Shore, 1992; Salthouse & Maurer, 1996). Because such relationships have been suggested and because the average age of workers is increasing in the workplace, the present study investigated the relationship between age and employee development. Age was predicted to have a negative relationship with participation in development activities following feedback.

Work contexts

Three aspects of an employee’s work context are particularly relevant to employee development and were examined in this study: (a) perceived organizational emphasis on development, (b) perceived social support for development, and (c) perceived developmental resource availability.

First, an organization’s policies and/or orientation towards development are important in facilitating development (Maurer & Tarulli, 1994). If an organization emphasizes skill development on the part of the employee, the employee is more likely to invest more of his/her own time and resources into learning and development. This relationship has been found in previous studies on employee development outside of a 360-degree feedback context (Kozlowski & Farr, 1988; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994) and is proposed in the current study. Thus, the extent to which an organization is perceived to emphasize development will be positively related to employee attitudes and development following feedback.

Second, support from one’s supervisors and peers can be a factor that influences employee development. Each group can support an employee in different ways. Supervisors can provide feedback as well as resources and time to attend training. Peers can be supportive by doing things like providing feedback and encouraging use

92 Todd J. Maurer et al.

of newly acquired skills. Support from both groups may influence attitudes toward employee development (Hazucha, Hezlett, & Scheider, 1993; Maurer & Tarulli, 1996; Noe & Wilk, 1993). To the extent that an individual perceives support for development from both supervisors and peers, he/she will be more likely to participate in development activities and have more positive attitudes toward a developmental feedback intervention.

Third, employees do not always control the situational constraints that facilitate development (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Lack of time or resources provided by the organization may restrict one’s involvement in development activities (Maurer & Tarulli, 1996). In contrast, an organization that has little restriction on opportunities for development will promote employee participation in development (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Thus, employees’ perceptions that the organization provides sufficient time and resources for development will be positively related to employee attitudes and development activities.

Each work context and person variable was also tested as a moderator of the relationship between 360-degree feedback ratings and development. Whereas ratings from others should be related to attitudes and involvement in developmental activities, ratings may have differential effects on attitudes and development as a function of one’s person and/or work context characteristics. That is, ratings might have the greatest impact on involvement in development in settings that are most conducive to development and ratings might have the least impact on development in settings that are least conducive to development. For instance, we might expect that lower ratings will lead to more developmental activities if self-efficacy for development is high or if perceived social support for development is high. Conversely, we might expect a weaker relationship between low ratings and participation in development activities if, for example, the ratee believes that it is not possible to improve one’s level of ability. Therefore, we examined how individual differences and work context variables act as moderators of relationships between feedback ratings and employee attitudes and development.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of a sample of employees from various geographic locations who participated in a 360-degree feedback programme within a large US telecommunications organization. The 360-degree feedback intervention was introduced to managers as a developmental resource offered by the organization for which participation was voluntary. Participants were rated on 27 different skill dimensions by themselves, their supervisors, at least three peers, and at least three subordinates with whom ratees had frequently interacted during the previous 9-month period. The dimensions were developed through a company-wide job analysis. These dimensions are also used in other human resource programmes within the company (e.g. performance appraisal, selection). Items in the feedback survey were behavioural descriptors (e.g. ‘Prepares written materials efficiently’), and possible responses were made on a 5-point scale (1=‘Not at all’ to 5=‘Very great’). An in-house processor compiled the ratings. Feedback was used for developmental purposes only.

Participants received their feedback during a day-long class dedicated to helping them to understand and utilize their feedback. They were first taught how to interpret their feedback by going through a sample report together, and then they received their own report. Guided by certified trainers, they were taught how to create a development plan as well as how to pursue relevant development opportunities through the various resources and activities available to them. Participants received feedback from subordinates and peers in the form of average scores on each dimension; they did not see how individual peers or subordinates had rated them. This

feedback system was tailored for use within this organization from a larger database and set of skill dimensions developed by a large human resources consulting firm. The reports received by feedback recipients also included normative data on a national US sample for each dimension, allowing them to compare their scores to the norms.

Participants received two research surveys in the mail that measured the individual difference and context variables as well as the dependent variables. The first research survey was sent an average of 9 months after the class. The second research survey was mailed 1 month after the first research survey (10 months after the class) to participants who returned the first survey. This allowed sufficient time for participants to engage in developmental activities. The Time 1 survey contained the individual difference and context variables, and the Time 2 survey contained the dependent variables in this study. The measures were separated in time to reduce potential consistency bias (due to things like mood or other temporary effects) that might have occurred had the independent and dependent variables been measured at the same time in the same survey (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Of 743 surveys mailed out at Time 1, 305 surveys were returned for a response rate of 41%. Of the 305 Time 2 surveys mailed out, 150 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 49%. Results of t-tests showed that there were no significant differences in feedback ratings (for any of the rater groups) between those who participated in the research surveys and those that did not. Also, there was no significant difference in the Time 1 research variables between those who returned the Time 2 survey and those who did not, which helped alleviate concerns about selective attrition and participation. For the final data set, 93 participants were men, 55 participants were women and 2 participants did not provide this information. The mean age of the sample was 42 (SD=7.35) years.

Feedback measures

Feedback ratings were provided on 27 skill dimensions. In previous studies on feedback, factor and reliability analyses revealed that a single factor reasonably accounted for the feedback ratings (Maurer & Palmer, 1999; Smither et al., 1995). In the current study, principal axis factoring with oblique rotation revealed one main factor loading for all feedback dimensions within each of the four types of raters. Coefficient a values for the self, supervisor, subordinate and peer ratings were .98, .99, .99, and .99, respectively. Therefore, ratings by each of the four types of raters were averaged across the performance dimensions, resulting in four overall variables: mean ratings by self, supervisor, peers, and subordinates.

Research surveys measures

Factor analysis reflected the intended grouping of the research items into measures of interest in the study. Because of intercorrelations of scales and conceptual overlap/closeness, some context and some dependent variables were combined as indicated below. The reliability coefficient is shown for each scale. For all scales, except where noted otherwise, possible responses were made on a 5-point scale (1=‘Strongly disagree’ to 5=‘Strongly agree’).

Developmental emphasis (9 items, a=.83)

This scale measured perceptions of the degree to which the organization emphasized investing in learning and development or in maximizing immediate performance. Three items were previously used by Maurer and Tarulli (1996). A sample item is ‘‘Our organization emphasizes that employees should learn new things, even if it means taking some time away from immediate performance goals’’. Two other scales created for this study were aggregated because of intercorrelations with the scale and conceptual closeness. One of the scales measured organizational emphasis on development for the future rather than current job performance (e.g. ‘‘Learning activities within the company are designed to be valuable to careers in the future, not just in current jobs’’). The second scale measured employees’ perceptions of the company’s emphasis on learning and development activities (e.g. ‘‘This organization emphasizes employee learning to its employees’’). Higher scores corresponded to higher learning emphasis by the organization compared with performance emphasis. Thus, the scale provided an overall index of learning/ development emphasis.

Social support for development (8 items, a=.85)

This scale measured the extent to which participants perceived that coworkers and supervisors supported development. Four supervisor support items were previously used by London (1993)

94 Todd J. Maurer et al.

to assess supervisor support for career development. Four items used by Maurer and Tarulli (1996) were adapted to measure the extent to which peers, direct reports, customers, and coworkers supported employee efforts to improve. Scales that measured support from coworkers and supervisors were intercorrelated and were therefore combined. A sample item for coworker support is ‘‘People I work with are supportive of my efforts to improve on the [feedback] dimensions’’. A sample item for supervisor support is ‘‘My supervisor provides me with ongoing feedback’’. High scores reflect a high level of support and low scores reflect a low level of support.

Developmental resources (9 items, a=.77)

Developmental resources consisted of items from two intercorrelated, conceptually related scales. The first scale measured whether developmental resources/options were available to ratees. Asample item of this scale is ‘‘Development options or learning materials can be obtained by me that will assist in improving performance on the [feedback] dimensions’’. The second scale measured situational constraints, which could restrict or prevent employees from developing. A sample item of situational constraints is ‘‘There is time available for me to work on improving my performance on the [feedback] dimensions’’. High scores indicate a high degree of resource availability and time, and low scores indicate a low degree of resource availability and time. Six items were previously used by Maurer and Tarulli (1996).

Performance goal emphasis (3 items, a=.75)

This scale measures the extent to which a person values maximizing current performance over learning for the future. A sample item is ‘‘I would much rather try to maximize my current job performance than to learn things that may be valuable in the future’’. High scores reflect a stronger performance goal emphasis.

Learning goal emphasis (2 items, a=.76)

This scale measures the extent to which a person values learning for the future, even if it may detract a little from maximizing current performance. Asample item is ‘‘I occasionally take time to learn new things, even if it may cost a little in terms of immediate job performance’’. High scores reflect higher learning goal emphasis.

Implicit theory (3 items, a=.93)

This scale was developed by Dweck, Chiu, and Hong (1995). Belief in entity theory means that one believes that ability is unchangeable; belief in incremental theory means that one believes that ability is mutable. Asample item is ‘‘You have a certain amount of intelligence and you can’t really do much to change it’’. High scores reflect support for entity theory while low scores reflect support for incremental theory.

Self-efficacy for development (3 items, a=.62)

Self-efficacy is the degree to which one believes he/she can improve on the feedback dimensions. A sample item is ‘‘I can readily improve my performance on the [feedback] dimensions’’. High scores reflect high self-efficacy, indicating one believes he/she can develop. Low scores reflect low self-efficacy, indicating one believes he/she cannot develop. The three items were previously used by Maurer and Tarulli (1996). Prior research has shown that self-efficacy can be adequately measured using this type of categorical response scale (see Maurer & Andrews, 2000; Maurer & Pierce, 1998).

Attitude (4 items, a=.92)

This scale measures one’s evaluative feeling toward the 360-degree feedback process. A sample item is ‘‘This 360-degree feedback process is a good idea’’. A high score indicates a positive evaluative feeling towards the process, and a low score indicates a negative evaluative feeling towards the process. The four items were adopted from Maurer and Tarulli (1996).

On-the-job development involvement (14 items, a=.92)

This scale measured degree of overall involvement in developmental activities (completed and planned) on the job as a result of having received 360-degree feedback. Some of the activities included working on skills on the job, asking for feedback from a manager and coworker, and receiving coaching from a manager. This scale was measured on a 5-point scale (1=‘Never’ to

5=‘More than three times’). ‘‘Practicing a skill on the job’’ was the most common/frequent form of on-the-job activity, whereas ‘‘consulting the company manager handbook’’ was the least common.

Off-the-job developmental involvement (12 items, a=.79)

This scale measured degree of overall involvement in developmental activities (completed and planned) off the job as a result of having received 360-degree feedback. Some of the activities included completing college courses, reading career-relevant books, and attending workshops or seminars. This scale was measured on a 5-point scale (1=‘Never’ to 5=‘More than three times’). ‘‘Reading a career-relevant book’’ was the most common/frequent form of off-the-job activity, whereas ‘‘attending a college course’’ was the least common.

Analysis

In order to test the hypotheses, hierarchical regression was used. The regression model consisted of seven steps. In each regression, the combined effects of self-ratings and ratings from one other source were examined together. The first step tested the effect of feedback from one of the three raters other than oneself on the dependent variable. The second step tested the effect of one’s self-rating on the dependent variable above and beyond the first step. The third step consisted of the two-way interaction between one’s self-rating and the rating in the first step. Significant interactions would indicate that the effect that one rating has on developmental outcomes depends on the relative level of the other rating (Brutus et al., 1999; Johnson & Ferstl, 1999). The fourth step included all the context and individual difference variables. The fifth step contained the two-way interactions between the ‘non-self’ rating and the individual difference and context variables. The sixth step contained the two-way interactions between one’s selfrating and the individual difference and context variables. The final step contained threeway interactions between the non-self rating, self-rating, and individual difference and context variables.

The regression was performed three ways, once placing each type of ‘other’ rating (supervisor, subordinate and coworker) in the first step in the regression equation for each of the three dependent variables (attitude, on-the-job activity, and off-the-job activity) for a total of nine unique regression analyses. This focused approach to examining self in comparison to one other rater type was chosen as being more reasonable than entering all raters and all possible interactions, which would be a very large number of terms in the equation.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between all variables are shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the results from the hierarchical regressions. Very few of the two-way and three-way interactions entered after the research variables block were significant, and therefore, in order to simplify Table 2, they are not displayed but will be discussed if significant. Significant individual variable coefficients are only interpreted if the R2 for the block is significant. It should be noted that in addition to analysing the relationship between the ratings of others and oneself by including the interaction term in the third step of the regression, polynomial regression equations were used for the purpose of analysing the relationship using surface analysis as suggested by Edwards (1994), and Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, and Fleenor (1998) (for regression equation and regression terms, see Edwards & Parry, 1993). However, these analyses did not result in significant, interpretable findings.

Finally, to test for the possibility that some participants may not have had enough time to be involved in developmental activities before responding to the survey, separate analyses were conducted to test if elapsed time (in months) since receiving their feedback moderated the relationship between the independent and dependent