Feedback, self-esteem and performance in organizations.

W e examine whether private feedback about relative performance can mitigate moral hazard in competitive environments by modifying the agents' self-esteem. In our experimental setting, people work harder and expect to rank better when told that they may learn their ranking, relative to cases when feedback will not be provided. Individuals who ranked better than expected decrease output but expect a better rank in the future, whereas those who ranked worse than expected increase output but lower their future rank expectations. Feedback helps create a ratcheting effect in productivity, mainly because of the fight for dominance at the top of the rank hierarchy. Our findings suggest that organizations can improve employee productivity by changing the likelihood of feedback, the reference group used to calculate relative performance, and the informativeness of the feedback message

Exploring the structural relationships between personality and 360-degree feedback

The process of using multiple sources or raters (i.e., self, supervisor, peers, subordinates, and others) in the assessment of managerial performance has been used pervasively in organizations with the primary goal of motivating behavioral change through feedback (Bracken, Timmrick, & Church, 2001). Multi-source or 360-degree feedback programs are especially suited to help measure behaviors related to performance and assess outcomes, such as leadership, interpersonal relationships, coaching, and communication (London & Smither, 1995). Typically, 360-degree feedback dimensions are measured by meta-categories of behavior called competencies.Bartram (2005) stated that these competencies could be defined as the search for characteristics that separate the best workers from the rest, usually related to characteristics, such as personality traits, that span across all jobs. However, DeNisi and Kluger (2000) stated that problems arise when managerial feedback is related to components of the ideal self (e.g., traits or individual differences) rather than feedback related to performance. Spencer and Spencer (1993) proposed two kinds of competencies: skill-based competencies and trait-based competencies. Due to the negative outcomes associated with feedback disrupting the ideal self (i.e., decreased self-esteem, self-efficacy, and productivity), the present study sought to test whether 360-degree feedback competencies are related to personality traits of a person. Moreover, the present research tested Schmidt and Hunter\u27s (1996) claim that interpreting the 360-degree feedback ratings as inter-rater correlations serving as reliability coefficients between ratings could represent a method of assessing the construct validity of 360-degree feedback ratings. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the present research modeled 360-degree feedback competencies by averaging across rater types (with and without self-ratings) and hierarchically across feedback items. Confirmatory models were then transformed into structural models in which personality characteristics of the Big Five were hypothesized to globally predict trait-based competencies, while not predicting skill-based competencies. The present study indicates that hierarchical confirmatory models of the 360-degree feedback competencies have the most clear fit indices and validity coefficients. Mixed results were found for the hypothesis of personality characteristics of the Big Five predicting trait-based competencies, while the hypothesis regarding skill-based competencies was not supported. Detailed findings and implications of the research are discussed

The Impact of Past Performance on Expectations of Future Success: An Investigation of Australian Managers

Competition among firms for market share and differential advantage is at an all-time high [3]. Moreover, investment in research and development (R&D) is seen as a major strategy in attaining and maintaining any competitive edge [4]. Little is known, however, about how experiencing poor performance in R&D endeavors affects managers\u27 perceptions of future opportunities for success in his or her company. Do managers believe that success breeds success, while poor performance is an indication of continued problems in the future? Or do managers believe that poor past performance is unrelated to future performance? Additionally, are some individuals prone to experience feelings of loss of control, while other individuals believe that they can influence future outcomes? When considering the importance of R&D endeavors to competitive strategy, these questions deserve attention and constitute the focus for this paper

Respect in Organizations: Feeling Valued as “We” and “Me”

Research suggests that organizational members highly prize respect but rarely report adequately receiving it. However, there is a lack of theory in organizational behavior regarding what respect actually is and why members prize it. We argue that there are two distinct types of respect: generalized respect is the sense that “we” are all valued in this organization, and particularized respect is the sense that the organization values “me” for particular attributes, behaviors, and achievements. We build a theoretical model of respect, positing antecedents of generalized respect from the sender’s perspective (prestige of social category, climate for generalized respect) and proposed criteria for the evaluation of particularized respect (role, organizational member, and character prototypicality), which is then enacted by the sender and perceived by the receiver. We also articulate how these two types of respect fulfill the receiver’s needs for belonging and status, which facilitates the self-related outcomes of organization-based self-esteem, organizational and role identification, and psychological safety. Finally, we consider generalized and personalized respect jointly and present four combinations of the two types of respect. We argue that the discrepancy between organizational members’ desired and received respect is partially attributable to the challenge of simultaneously enacting or receiving respect for both the “we” and the “me.

Servant Leadership and its Relationships with Core Self-Evaluation and Job Satisfaction

Servant leadership is a growing topic in the leadership literature. Our study considered servant leadership’s relationship to two outcomes, core self-evaluation and job satisfaction. The former is particularly noteworthy because if servant leadership predicts core self-evaluation this would confirm that servant leadership affects important changes in employees as people, a central tenet of servant leadership. In addition, if servant leadership predicts core self-evaluation, this could add to the question of whether core self-evaluation is a non-changeable personality trait or is potentially malleable. We conducted a field study of three firms and found that servant leadership predicts both core self-evaluation and job satisfaction, and that core self-evaluation also predicts job satisfaction. This study contributes to servant leadership, and in general to values-based leadership, by observing a predictive relationship to core self-evaluation, which potentially adds new information about the impact servant leadership can have on individuals. This study confirms the findings of previous authors who found that servant leadership predicts job satisfaction

Psychological Influences on Referent Choice*

This article discusses the psychological influences on referent selection. The nature of contemporary work environments, ones characterized by instability and uncertainty, may create increased needs on the part of individuals for comparative information. Individuals use social comparisons for managing both uncertainty and environmental change, and for making critical decisions about one\u27s job. Most literature on referent selection can be categorized along two basic schema: identification of the types of referents that exist and examination of the outcomes that result from referent selection. Studies have identified a multitude of potential referents, primarily drawn from the outcomes being examined, including pay referents, referents linked with one\u27s occupation, education, age and job, and referents derived from an employee\u27s social network

Motivating Strategies Leaders Employ to Increase Follower Effort

The purpose of this research was to determine which motivating strategies followers desire from their leaders and what motivating strategies are actually displayed by their leaders to increase followers’ effort. Additionally, this research assessed the followers’ level of self-reported extra effort and the amount of extra effort followers perceive their leaders exert. From this data, conclusions were drawn regarding the relationships between followers’ self-reported extra effort and the followers’ perception of their leaders’ extra effort. This quantitative research study was conducted via LinkedIn using Survey Monk ey and is based on Keller’s 42 item ARCS Model (attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction). Regression analysis of the survey responses indicated that: 1) Followers perceive their leaders are not displaying the level of motivating strategies desired; 2) The amount of extra effort that followers perceive that their leaders exert is significant in predicting the amount of extra effort that followers exert; and 3) Followers’ perception is that leaders’ extra effort is less than followers’ extra effort. The findings suggest that leaders should be more aware of the motivating strategies that followers desire and demonstrate those strategies since leaders’ extra effort is a significant predictor of followers’ extra effort. Additionally, leaders should also exert the level of effort that they desire from their followers

Girls Share Their Voice

Looks at the past and current leadership development needs of girls in Southern New Jersey and Philadelphia and offers recommendations for change