反馈与管理绩效:反馈干预理论的纵向多层面现场实验

Q2 Business, Management and Accounting
Shankar T. Naskar, Prathiba Natesan Batley
{"title":"反馈与管理绩效:反馈干预理论的纵向多层面现场实验","authors":"Shankar T. Naskar,&nbsp;Prathiba Natesan Batley","doi":"10.1002/joe.22299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Feedback interventions play a vital and pervasive role in organizations. However, there is no consensus on how feedback interventions work or why their effectiveness varies over time. This study responds to the call by feedback intervention theorists to engage in primary research in organizational settings. It analyzes the impact of a feedback intervention consisting of two important characteristics—feedback source and content—by using a multilevel model framework that considers job performance scores (Level 1) nested within managers (Level 2) from a 6-year longitudinal study in a manufacturing firm in India. In a field experiment, 331 managers received 6 waves of performance feedback and were randomly assigned to a fully crossed 2 × 2 factorial field experiment with feedback source and content. Surprisingly, an external performance coach is more effective as a feedback source than an internal human resource professional; however, the latter is more effective when feedback content is considered over a longer timeframe, irrespective of the type of feedback content delivered. Furthermore, developmental feedback is not effective in the short term but has a positive impact in the long term. This study challenges the prevailing assumptions by finding empirical evidence that low-performing managers have greater performance improvements than high-performing managers. The results suggest a ceiling effect in managerial performance, as scores converged toward the end of the 6 years, highlighting the limitations of feedback interventions in organizations. We also find that the feedback source exerts more impact than the feedback content over time, suggesting a pecking order of the social context variables that affect feedback effectiveness. This study bridges the gap between theory and practice in feedback intervention theory and suggests future research avenues along with actionable recommendations for academicians and practitioners.</p>","PeriodicalId":35064,"journal":{"name":"Global Business and Organizational Excellence","volume":"44 6","pages":"35-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joe.22299","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feedback and Managerial Performance: A Longitudinal Multilevel Field Experiment of Feedback Intervention Theory\",\"authors\":\"Shankar T. Naskar,&nbsp;Prathiba Natesan Batley\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joe.22299\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Feedback interventions play a vital and pervasive role in organizations. However, there is no consensus on how feedback interventions work or why their effectiveness varies over time. This study responds to the call by feedback intervention theorists to engage in primary research in organizational settings. It analyzes the impact of a feedback intervention consisting of two important characteristics—feedback source and content—by using a multilevel model framework that considers job performance scores (Level 1) nested within managers (Level 2) from a 6-year longitudinal study in a manufacturing firm in India. In a field experiment, 331 managers received 6 waves of performance feedback and were randomly assigned to a fully crossed 2 × 2 factorial field experiment with feedback source and content. Surprisingly, an external performance coach is more effective as a feedback source than an internal human resource professional; however, the latter is more effective when feedback content is considered over a longer timeframe, irrespective of the type of feedback content delivered. Furthermore, developmental feedback is not effective in the short term but has a positive impact in the long term. This study challenges the prevailing assumptions by finding empirical evidence that low-performing managers have greater performance improvements than high-performing managers. The results suggest a ceiling effect in managerial performance, as scores converged toward the end of the 6 years, highlighting the limitations of feedback interventions in organizations. We also find that the feedback source exerts more impact than the feedback content over time, suggesting a pecking order of the social context variables that affect feedback effectiveness. This study bridges the gap between theory and practice in feedback intervention theory and suggests future research avenues along with actionable recommendations for academicians and practitioners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Business and Organizational Excellence\",\"volume\":\"44 6\",\"pages\":\"35-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joe.22299\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Business and Organizational Excellence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22299\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Business and Organizational Excellence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joe.22299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

反馈干预在组织中发挥着至关重要和普遍的作用。然而,对于反馈干预是如何起作用的,以及为什么它们的有效性会随着时间的推移而变化,目前还没有达成共识。本研究响应了反馈干预理论家在组织环境中进行初级研究的呼吁。它分析了由两个重要特征——反馈来源和内容——组成的反馈干预的影响,通过使用多层模型框架,考虑了在印度一家制造公司进行的为期6年的纵向研究中嵌套在经理(第2级)中的工作绩效分数(第1级)。在现场实验中,331名管理者接受了6波绩效反馈,并随机分配到具有反馈来源和内容的全交叉2 × 2析因现场实验中。令人惊讶的是,作为反馈来源,外部绩效教练比内部人力资源专家更有效;然而,如果在较长的时间框架内考虑反馈内容,而不考虑所交付的反馈内容的类型,则后者更有效。此外,发展性反馈在短期内并不有效,但在长期内具有积极的影响。本研究通过寻找经验证据来挑战普遍的假设,即低绩效经理比高绩效经理有更大的绩效改进。结果表明,在管理绩效中存在天花板效应,因为分数在6年结束时趋于一致,突出了组织中反馈干预的局限性。我们还发现,随着时间的推移,反馈来源比反馈内容产生更大的影响,这表明影响反馈有效性的社会情境变量存在优先顺序。本研究弥合了反馈干预理论与实践之间的差距,并为学术界和实践者提出了未来的研究途径和可行的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Feedback and Managerial Performance: A Longitudinal Multilevel Field Experiment of Feedback Intervention Theory

Feedback and Managerial Performance: A Longitudinal Multilevel Field Experiment of Feedback Intervention Theory

Feedback interventions play a vital and pervasive role in organizations. However, there is no consensus on how feedback interventions work or why their effectiveness varies over time. This study responds to the call by feedback intervention theorists to engage in primary research in organizational settings. It analyzes the impact of a feedback intervention consisting of two important characteristics—feedback source and content—by using a multilevel model framework that considers job performance scores (Level 1) nested within managers (Level 2) from a 6-year longitudinal study in a manufacturing firm in India. In a field experiment, 331 managers received 6 waves of performance feedback and were randomly assigned to a fully crossed 2 × 2 factorial field experiment with feedback source and content. Surprisingly, an external performance coach is more effective as a feedback source than an internal human resource professional; however, the latter is more effective when feedback content is considered over a longer timeframe, irrespective of the type of feedback content delivered. Furthermore, developmental feedback is not effective in the short term but has a positive impact in the long term. This study challenges the prevailing assumptions by finding empirical evidence that low-performing managers have greater performance improvements than high-performing managers. The results suggest a ceiling effect in managerial performance, as scores converged toward the end of the 6 years, highlighting the limitations of feedback interventions in organizations. We also find that the feedback source exerts more impact than the feedback content over time, suggesting a pecking order of the social context variables that affect feedback effectiveness. This study bridges the gap between theory and practice in feedback intervention theory and suggests future research avenues along with actionable recommendations for academicians and practitioners.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Business and Organizational Excellence
Global Business and Organizational Excellence Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: For leaders and managers in an increasingly globalized world, Global Business and Organizational Excellence (GBOE) offers first-hand case studies of best practices of people in organizations meeting varied challenges of competitiveness, as well as perspectives on strategies, techniques, and knowledge that help such people lead their organizations to excel. GBOE provides its readers with unique insights into how organizations are achieving competitive advantage through transformational leadership--at the top, and in various functions that make up the whole. The focus is always on the people -- how to coordinate, communicate among, organize, reward, teach, learn from, and inspire people who make the important things happen.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信