Examining the relationship between feedback and performance in a monitored environment: A clarification and extension of feedback intervention theory
Section snippets
Performance feedback
Most early feedback research focused on the mere presence or absence of feedback and ignored its complexities. This focus precluded full understanding of the feedback process (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). However, subsequent feedback research recognized that feedback is complex and multifaceted (Cusella, 1987, Ilgen et al., 1979). Research on the multidimensional nature of feedback argues the effects of feedback on performance are variable. Feedback may improve performance under some conditions.
Computer performance monitoring
Organizations have a natural interest in monitoring their employees' performance for a variety of reasons. Performance monitoring enables organizations to ensure they get what they are paying employees for. Information obtained from monitoring may also be used to provide employees with feedback and to help improve their performance. Research indicates that monitoring may enhance employee effort (Brewer, 1995), play a role in effective supervision (Komaki, 1986), and increase employee
Control
Feedback research indicates that the frequency of feedback impacts recipients' behavioral and attitudinal reactions to feedback (Ilgen et al., 1979). However, providing employees optimal amounts of feedback is a daunting challenge because individuals vary considerably in the amount and frequency of feedback they desire and find optimal (Fedor, 1991). Giving individuals control over the amount of feedback they receive may help overcome this challenge and lead to positive attitudes and behaviors.
The effect of feedback on task performance
In this section I examine the effect of interpersonal fairness and control on performance. Research indicates that perceptions of interpersonal fairness are related to a variety of organizationally relevant outcomes including satisfaction and performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). I similarly expect the perceived interpersonal fairness of feedback to influence individual's level of attention.
Kluger and Denisi's (1996) feedback intervention theory (FIT) indicates that feedback recipients
Participants and design
A total of 165 undergraduates (97 men and 68 women) participated in the study. Participants received partial course credit for their participation. The study employed a 2 × 2 × 2 between-subjects design in which the following variables were manipulated: (1) Feedback Source (Computer versus Supervisor), (2) Constructiveness (Constructive versus Destructive), and (3) Control over feedback (Control versus No control).
Procedure
On reporting to the session, participants were told that the purpose of the study was
Results
I conducted manipulation checks for feedback control and source. To assess the effectiveness of the control manipulation, a t-test was conducted on participants' perceived degree of control over feedback. As expected, participants in the Control condition reported feeling a much stronger sense of control over the feedback they received than did participants in the No Control conditions, t(164) = 10.28, p < .01, (means = 3.89 and 1.78). I tested the effectiveness of the feedback source manipulation by
Discussion
Although CPM receives considerable attention in the popular press, there is relatively little research on the relationship between monitoring and performance. In contrast, research has examined performance feedback for decades. Nevertheless, the relationship between feedback and performance is complex and questions remain. In this study, I integrated and extended research on CPM and feedback to consider the effect of three feedback attributes (control, constructiveness, and source) on monitored
References (70)
- et al.
Towards understanding fairness judgments associated with computer performance monitoring: An integration of the feedback, justice and monitoring research
Human Resource Management Review
(2005) - et al.
An examination of the effect of computerized performance monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance, and satisfaction
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2005) - et al.
Stress, computer-based work monitoring and measurement systems: A conceptual overview
Applied Ergonomics
(1992) - et al.
Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
(1983) - et al.
Operating stress and monitoring practices
Applied Ergonomics
(1992) Computer generated performance feedback in the magazine subscription industry
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1988)Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1993)- et al.
Electronic surveillance as employee control: A procedural justice interpretation
The Journal of High Technology Management Research
(1994) - et al.
Electronic communication in the workplace—Something's got to give
Business Horizons
(2000, July) - et al.
Group processes in computer-mediated communication
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1986)
Computer monitoring of work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Electronic performance monitoring: An organizational justice and concertive control perspective
Management Communication Quarterly
The effects of computer surveillance on perceptions of privacy and procedural fairness
Journal of Applied Psychology
Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring: Enhancing organizational justice
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management
Workplace testing and monitoring
Workplace monitoring and surveillance survey
November. Evaluating employees by computer
Personnel Administrator
Feedback and human behavior: The effects of knowledge of results, incentives, and reinforcement on training and performance
Personal control over aversive stimuli and its relationship to stress
Psychological Bulletin
Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance
Journal of Applied Psychology
Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
The effects of monitoring individual and group performance on the distribution of effort across tasks
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
How companies spy on employees
Fortune
Characteristics of effective employee performance review and development interviews: Replication and extension
Personnel Psychology
Effects of electronic performance monitoring on job design and worker stress Review of the literature and conceptual model
Human Factors
Computer-aided monitoring: Its influence on employee job satisfaction and turnover
Personnel Psychology
A field study of the effect of feedback frequency on performance
Journal of Applied Psychology
The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure
Journal of Applied Psychology
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research
Journal of Applied Psychology
The effects of source expertise and feedback valence on intrinsic motivation
Human Communication Research
Feedback motivation and performance
Information richness: A new approach to managerial information processing and organizational design
Cited by (34)
When humans and computers induce social stress through negative feedback: Effects on performance and subjective state
2022, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :In the literature, interpersonal fairness has been linked to task performance, organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior (Colquitt et al., 2013), which could all be impaired by automated feedback that is not perceived as fair. While the idea of interpersonal interactions between a human and a system could be counterintuitive, this was already proposed by Alder (2007). Though he found no differences in interpersonal fairness between human and computer feedback, our result could be a sign that, since his study, perceptions and attributions in society regarding automation have changed.
How feedback boosts motivation and play in a brain-training game
2015, Computers in Human BehaviorFeedback revisited: Adding perspectives based on positive psychology. Implications for theory and classroom practice
2014, Teaching and Teacher EducationCitation Excerpt :Examples of such review studies include the works by Kluger and DeNisi (1996), Black and Wiliam (1998), Hattie and Timperley (2007), and Shute (2008). The aim of feedback is generally described as being to close the gap between current performance and a goal and effective (learning-enhancing) feedback is described as specific and goal-related (Alder, 2007; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Duijnhouwer, 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Sadler, 1989; Shute, 2008). In this article, we will follow Duijnhouwer's definition of feedback (2010): “information provided by an external agent regarding some aspect(s) of the learner's task performance, intended to modify the learner's cognition, motivation and/or behavior for the purpose of improving performance” (p. 16).
The role of social support in human-automation interaction
2024, Ergonomics