Pergamon

Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

Development and field test of a feedback seeking, self-

efficacy, and goal setting model of work performance
Robert W. Renna,*, Donald B. Fedorb
a
Management Faculty, Fogelman College of Business and Economics, The University of Memphis, Memphis,
TN 38152, USA
b
DuPree School of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, 755 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA

Received 8 February 2000; received in revised form 18 September 2000; accepted 30 November 2000

Abstract
This field study examined the relationships among a set of feedback seeking, social cognitive, and
goal setting constructs and the work performance of one hundred thirty-six sales and customer-service
representatives. As hypothesized, feedback seeking and self-efficacy related to two dimensions of
work performance (i.e., work quantity and work quality) through feedback-based goals. In addition,
self-efficacy and feedback seeking mediated the relationship between two individual differences (viz.,
personal control perceptions and external feedback propensity) and both dimensions of work perfor-
mance. The findings extend research on work performance by underscoring the importance of
incorporating feedback into work-related improvement goals when investigating the relationship
between feedback seeking and work performance. The findings also provide insight into the motiva-
tional processes underlying the relationship among personal control perceptions, external feedback
propensity, and work performance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. © 2001
Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The success of many performance improvement programs depends on employees’ initia-

tive to continuously improve their work quantity and quality within the system established
by management (Spencer, 1994). Indeed, managers in contemporary organizations pursuing
performance improvement objectives typically de-emphasize management control in favor of

* Corresponding author. Tel.: ⫹1-901-678-2886; fax: ⫹1-901-678-2685.

E-mail address: rrenn@memphis.edu (R.W. Renn).

0149-2063/01/$ – see front matter © 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 9 - 2 0 6 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 0 8 - 8
564 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model.

empowering employees to make work-related decisions (Blackburn & Rosen, 1993; Hene-
man, Heneman & Judge, 1997; Riordan & Gatewood, 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990).
However, it is unlikely that performance improvement programs like employee empower-
ment will lead to significant improvements in organizational competitiveness unless em-
ployees use their increased discretion to improve their own work performance.
Furthermore, managers of performance improvement programs now provide employees
with more information and feedback about operations, customers, and individual and group
performance than in the past, with the expectation that employees will use the data to solve
performance problems (Dean & Evans, 1994; Lawler, 1998). Consequently, researchers have
posited that the successful performance of jobs in organizations supplying employees with
such information rests with employees’ knowledge seeking activities and learning capabil-
ities (Anderson, Rungtusanatham & Schroeder, 1994). As with the impact of empowerment,
giving employees more information about customers, work processes, and individual and
group performance will not enhance competitiveness unless employees are motivated to
acquire and to utilize such information to enhance their own work performance. The use of
information to improve is a critical and relatively unresearched aspect of work performance.
The present field study seeks to develop and test a model of individual-level constructs
likely to be related to individual performance in work settings that downplay management
control and that provide employees with performance-related information. To accomplish
this, the present study draws from theory and research in feedback seeking, social cognition,
and goal setting. The model illustrates (see Fig. 1) that when individuals have significant
control over their own work behaviors and work in an environment where information about
operations, customers, and individual work performance is readily available, work perfor-
mance will be directly related to improvement goals created from available performance-
related information. The model also identifies antecedents to this type of goal setting.
Specifically, the model suggests that feedback seeking and self-efficacy will be directly
related to this type of goal setting, and that personal control perceptions and external
feedback propensity operate through self-efficacy and feedback seeking to affect whether
individuals will use performance-related information to set work-related improvement goals.
Understanding the relationship between the proposed constructs and work performance is
important for several reasons. Despite the fact that employees assume a vital role in the
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 565

success of performance improvement systems, there is still a great deal that needs to be
learned about how individuals acquire, process, and utilize available performance informa-
tion (Herold & Fedor, 1998). Often research neglects the potential impact individual-level
characteristics have on work performance, especially where quality is concerned (Dean &
Bowen, 1994; Stone & Eddy, 1996). However, even W. Edwards Deming, J. M. Juran, and
Philip Crosby all either explicitly or implicitly recognize that employees implement im-
provement programs and, thus, are ultimately responsible for their success (Riordan &
Gatewood, 1996).
Second, research indicates that specific, challenging goals that are accepted can enhance
performance quantity on simple tasks, but studies on the relationship between goals and
performance quality are equivocal (Locke & Latham, 1990). Furthermore, few studies have
examined the relationship between self-set work goals established from performance feed-
back and performance on complex tasks requiring attention to both work quality and
quantity. This is unfortunate because employees in most work organizations must set and
pursue multiple and sometimes conflicting goals for various dimensions of performance,
including productivity, quality, tardiness, and absenteeism—to name a few (Kanfer &
Kanfer, 1991; Vancouver, 1997).
Research suggests that when individuals pursue challenging quantity and quality goals,
they may place more emphasis on work quantity than on work quality while performing
complex tasks (Erez, 1990; Gilliland & Landis, 1992). Such tradeoffs may be influenced by
the information (e.g., instructions, feedback) received during task achievement and the
valence (e.g., rewards) associated with achieving quality and quantity goals (Gilliland &
Landis, 1992; Kernan & Lord, 1990). With more and more companies pursuing performance
improvement initiatives that emphasize providing employees with performance feedback, it
is particularly timely to examine individual-level constructs that may provide insight into
how employees use information from such systems to enhance multiple dimensions of
performance.
Third, feedback seeking has been the subject of much recent inquiry. However, only a few
studies have examined the relationship between feedback seeking and work performance,
and it is unclear whether feedback seeking relates to both work quantity and work quantity
(cf. Ashford & Black, 1996; Fedor, Rensvold & Adams, 1992; Morrison, 1993). We propose
that feedback seeking should relate to both dimensions of work performance through
feedback-based goals. Thus, an open question is whether this form of goal setting accounts
for the relationship between feedback seeking and work quantity and work quality. Goal
setting theory and social cognitive theory suggest that it does.
Fourth, studies have linked perceptions of personal control to work quantity (Greenberger,
Strasser, Cummings & Dunham, 1989), but have not addressed the relationship between
control perceptions and work quality or the psychological mechanisms through which control
perceptions are related to these performance outcomes. Clarification of these relationships
would be expected to advance theory and practice by uncovering how employees’ control
perceptions are translated into improved work performance.
Finally, the extent that employees want feedback from external sources (e.g., supervisors,
the organization, co-workers) has been the subject of recent inquiry and may be a key
individual difference for explaining variation in work performance in organizations using
566 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

information-based performance improvement programs. This is a domain specific individual

difference that was developed to better assess one’s orientation to external feedback and has
been labeled external propensity (Herold, Parsons & Rensvold, 1996). It has been linked to
feedback seeking behaviors (Fedor et al., 1992), and there is preliminary evidence that it is
related to one’s sensitivity and responsiveness to negative feedback (Herold & Fedor, 1998).
Given the importance of employees using available information (viz., negative feedback) to
make performance improvements, there is an apparent role for assessing individuals’ interest
in acquiring and using performance feedback.

2. Model development

In this section the rationale underlying the proposed relationships depicted in Fig. 1 are
developed. The section begins by briefly reviewing research on the relationship between
feedback seeking and work performance. The review leads to the hypothesis that feedback-
based goal setting and self-efficacy perceptions mediate the relationship between feedback
seeking and work performance. The section then turns to personal control perceptions and
external propensity, explaining how these two individual-level constructs may operate
through feedback seeking and self-efficacy to affect feedback-based goal setting and work
performance. Although Fig. 1 distinguishes between work quality and quantity, throughout
the model development section the general term “work performance” is used for the sake of
parsimony. However, the analyses and discussion will distinguish both dimensions of work
performance.

2.1. Feedback seeking

Whether employees exploit available information about customers, work processes, and
individual and group performance is likely to depend initially on the degree to which
employees seek and acquire the information (Anderson, Rungtusanatham & Schroeder,
1994). Therefore, employees’ feedback seeking tendencies may be an important determinant
of work performance in work settings where such information is readily available. Feedback
seeking represents active monitoring and inquiry of information concerning job performance
(Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Monitoring involves observing the environment (e.g., written
documents, public performance reports) and the behavior of others (e.g., co-workers) to gain
information about one’s job performance. Inquiry, by contrast, includes directly asking
sources in the work environment (e.g., supervisors and co-workers) about their perceptions
of one’s work behaviors. Employees seek feedback through monitoring and inquiry to
facilitate achievement of goals important to them, to discern the relative importance of
multiple goals within work settings, and to evaluate their own competence (Ashford &
Cummings, 1983). Feedback seeking research to date has focused largely on identifying
antecedents of feedback seeking, such as tenure (Ashford, 1986), the perceived cost and
value of seeking feedback (Ashford & Northcraft, 1992; Fedor et al., 1992), performance
expectations and feedback context (Northcraft & Ashford, 1990), and goal orientation
(VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997).
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 567

While feedback seeking is believed to offer the potential for improving performance, only
a couple of studies have examined whether feedback seeking enhances job performance.
Morrison (1993) found that newcomers’ feedback seeking correlated positively with a
longitudinal composite measure of job performance, measured as technical proficiency,
working paper documentation, managing responsibilities, professional characteristics, and
overall performance. Ashford and Black (1996), however, discovered that newcomers’
feedback seeking was unrelated to self-report measures of job performance. The Ashford and
Black performance measure required respondents to rate their own job performance along
several dimensions, including overall performance, ability to get along with others, ability to
get the job done on time, quality of performance, and achievement of work goals. These two
studies indicate that feedback seeking may not be consistently related to job performance.
However, neither study distinguished between work quantity and work quality, nor did the
studies investigate potential mediating mechanisms of the feedback seeking-job performance
relationship.
The present model proposes that feedback seeking should relate to job performance
through the mediating mechanism of feedback-based goal setting. Goal setting studies
indicate that goals mediate the relationship between feedback and performance, and that
behavior change will likely be a direct result of the degree to which performance feedback
is used to set personal improvement goals (Locke, Cartledge & Koeppel, 1968; Locke &
Latham, 1990). Furthermore, research indicates that personal goal setting mediates the
relationship between normative information (i.e., information about performance relative to
others) and performance of cognitive tasks (Earley & Erez, 1991; Mathieu & Button, 1992).
In addition, Bandura (1991) proposes and a study by Bandura and Cervone (1983)
demonstrates that performance monitoring is associated with higher performance for indi-
viduals who use the acquired information to set progressive improvement goals. Bandura
(1991) also argues that individuals who pay close attention to their performance are inclined
to set higher goals even when they are not required to do so. He adds that individuals who
monitor their performance are especially likely to set improvement goals when the infor-
mation enhances self efficacy, is informative, and/or when individuals care about the
work-behavior for which the feedback relates. Thus, goal setting theory and social cognitive
theory both suggest that improvement goals established from performance feedback should
intervene in the relationship between feedback seeking and work performance. Further,
social cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy may partially mediate the relationship
between feedback seeking and the degree to which individuals use performance feedback to
set improvement goals (Bandura, 1991). If feedback seeking results in positive performance
feedback, then feedback seeking may enhance self-efficacy which, in turn, should lead to
higher improvement goals (Lee & Bobko, 1994; Phillips & Gully, 1997). In contrast, if
feedback seeking leads to negative performance feedback, then feedback seeking may lower
self-efficacy and, thus, result in lower goals. Therefore, it is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 1: Feedback seeking will be indirectly related to work performance through
improvement goals established from performance feedback. Specifically, feedback
seeking will be positively associated with personal improvement goals, and personal
improvement goals will be positively related to work performance.
568 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy will partially mediate the relationship between feedback

seeking and the use of performance feedback to set improvement goals.

2.2. Personal control and external feedback propensity

Figure 1 shows the relationship between personal control perceptions and work perfor-
mance to be mediated by feedback seeking and self-efficacy. Greenberger and Strasser
(1986) define personal control perceptions as beliefs about one’s ability to change the
environment in a desired direction (Greenberger & Strasser, 1986, p. 165). Research indi-
cates that individuals who believe they exert influence over the work environment shape
organizational entry, work methods and procedures, and decisions involving pay and pro-
motions (Ashford & Black, 1996; Bell & Staw, 1986). In addition, when individuals perceive
an inability to exercise control over the environment, they have been found to experience
withdrawal (Abramson, Seligman & Teasdale, 1978), stress (Thompson, 1981), learned
helplessness (Seligman, 1975), and performance decrements (Bazerman, 1982).
These findings suggest that individuals with higher personal control perceptions tend to be
more proactive in shaping their work environment than individuals with lower control
perceptions. Consequently, personal control perceptions would be expected to affect perfor-
mance in work settings that provide employees latitude in decision making and that provide
employees with performance-related information. Specifically, individuals who perceive low
control over the work environment may be less likely to proactively seek performance
information than their high control counterparts. This expectation is based on the notion that
they tend to doubt their ability to use this information to develop goals and actions that will
have an impact on their own work performance. In contrast, employees who perceive greater
control over the work environment should be more confident in their ability to incorporate
performance feedback into goals and actions that will lead to positive changes and, thus,
should seek such feedback with greater frequency.
Hypothesis 3: Feedback seeking will mediate the relationship between perceptions of
personal control and work performance. Specifically, personal control perceptions will
be positively associated with feedback seeking which, in turn, will be related to work
performance through personal improvement goals established from performance feed-
back (Hypothesis 1).
Self-efficacy beliefs may also contribute to the relationship between personal control
perceptions and work performance. Gist and Mitchell (1992) propose that self-efficacy is
determined by information cues regarding the variability of a performance determinant (i.e.,
low vs. high), the locus of a performance determinant (i.e., external vs. internal), and control
over a performance determinant (i.e., high vs. low). Gist and Mitchell suggest that holding
constant perceptions about the variability and locus of performance determinants, self-
efficacy should increase as individuals perceive greater personal control over the causes of
their own performance. In contrast, they argue that self-efficacy should decrease as individ-
uals attribute the determinants of performance to uncontrollable circumstances. This line of
reasoning is consistent with results of a study by Bandura and Wood (1989), which found
that individuals who perceived low personal control displayed low perceived self-efficacy
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 569

and lowered their performance goals (quantity). On the other hand, those who perceived high
control reported high self-efficacy and set more challenging goals. Thus, personal control
perceptions may be positively associated with work performance through self-efficacy
beliefs that, in turn, promote the establishment of challenging personal goals and higher
performance.
Hypothesis 4: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship between perceptions of per-
sonal control and work performance. Specifically, personal control perceptions will be
positively related to self-efficacy that, in turn, will be associated with work performance
through personal improvement goals established from performance feedback (Hypoth-
esis 2).
Lastly, Fig. 1 depicts feedback seeking and the extent to which individuals use perfor-
mance feedback to set improvement goals as mediators of the relationship between external
feedback propensity and work performance. External feedback propensity represents an
individual difference regarding the desire for feedback from such sources as supervisors, the
organization, and co-workers (Herold & Parsons, 1985b). A higher external propensity for
feedback exemplifies greater desire for feedback from outside sources; whereas, a lower
external propensity typifies less desire for feedback from such sources. Because individuals
having higher external propensities want feedback from external sources, we expect them to
engage in the behavior of feedback seeking more often than those having lower external
feedback propensities.
Herold et al. (1996) found that external propensity was related positively to expressed
liking for feedback from the organization, supervisor, and co-workers. In addition, Fedor et
al. (1992) found that external propensity was correlated positively with feedback eliciting
and monitoring after controlling for tolerance for ambiguity and self-esteem. Although
research seems to support the proposed relationship between external propensity and feed-
back seeking, this research has not investigated whether external propensity may be related
to work performance. We expected the effects of one’s desire for external feedback (i.e.,
external propensity) to be manifested through the actual process of feedback seeking, and
that the effect of external propensity on work performance would occur through feedback
seeking and feedback-based goal setting (i.e., Hypothesis 1).
Hypothesis 5: Feedback seeking will mediate the relationship between external feed-
back propensity and work performance. Specifically, external feedback propensity will
be related positively to feedback seeking which, in turn, will be associated with work
performance through personal improvement goals set from performance feedback
(Hypothesis 1).

3. Method

3.1. Research site and participants

This research was conducted in a customer call center that provided nationwide sales and
service support for several hundred retail stores of a large automotive parts company
570 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

headquarted in the southeastern United States. Approximately 1 year before the present
study, the call center implemented a performance improvement program, with the goal of
enhancing sales performance and customer service quality. The program consisted of three
main elements. First, trainers educated existing and new employees about the program in
general and on the company’s new emphasis on sales performance and service quality.
Second, managers began randomly monitoring employees’ conversations with customers and
rating the quality of their calls. Third, weekly work quantity and work quality ratings
(discussed below) for all call center employees were posted in a common area for employees
to see and to use to evaluate their relative rankings on both dimensions of work performance.
A random sample of 150 full-time customer sales and service representatives was selected
by the researchers from a list provided by management of all customer sales and service
representatives working at the center. The sample represented 54% of the total population of
full-time employees. Ninety-eight percentage of the participants were men. The mean age
and education level were 35 years and 13.6 years, respectively. The mean organizational
tenure was 10 months.

3.2. Procedure

The researchers collected two types of data. First, we obtained survey data from the
participants, who completed questionnaires in large group sessions in a conference room
away from their work stations. The questionnaire included a cover letter from the company’s
vice president endorsing the research project, guaranteeing the participants that management
would not see their individual responses, and encouraging participants to complete the
questionnaire honestly and completely. Fourteen surveys contained missing data, leaving 136
usable surveys or a response rate of 88%.
Second, we obtained records of the employees’ sales performance and ratings of service
quality 1 month after the survey administration from the human resources manager. The
employees voluntarily provided us with the last four digits of their social security number,
which we used to match the survey responses to the company performance records. We told
the employees that we would only use that information to match their surveys to the
performance data; we also stated that their surveys would be held in strict confidence and that
no one in the company would see their individual responses. We did not force them to
provide us with the information. Out of the 150 employees completing the survey, only one
employee failed to provide the information We compared records with missing survey
responses (n ⫽ 14) with records with complete responses (n ⫽ 136) and found no differences
in mean scores on the measured variables or the performance measures.

3.3. Measures

3.3.1. Personal control

Personal control perceptions were measured with four items that asked participants to
indicate how often they felt they had personal control over a variety of work-related areas,
including the number of calls they received, whether a customer purchased the parts he/she
called about, their sales quantity, and their service quality (cf. Greenberger et al., 1989). The
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 571

response scale for these items was a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Never” (1) to
“Very Often” (5). LISREL 8.35 was used to perform a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
(maximum likelihood estimation) of the personal control measure. The comparative fit index
(CFI) was selected to judge overall fit because of its relatively low variation in small samples
compared with the Tucker-Lewis Index and Relative Fit Index (Bentler, 1990). Specifying
the four personal control items to load on one factor, the results indicated a moderately good
fit (CFI ⫽ 0.87), and all four items had significant factor loadings (i.e., standardized factor
loadings greater than or equal to 0.50 and t-values greater than or equal to 2). Cronbach’s
alpha for this scale was 0.71.

3.3.2. External feedback propensity

Three items developed by Herold and Parsons (1985b) were used to measure external
feedback propensity. A sample item is, “I like getting frequent feedback from others
regarding my job performance?” A five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly
Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (5) was used to measure the three items. A single-factor
confirmatory analysis resulted in a CFI ⫽ 0.97, and Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.78.

3.3.3. Self-efficacy
Job-related self-efficacy was measured with five items similar to those used by Jones
(1986). Four items asked respondents to indicate “How often, on average, do you: Feel
confident about your ability to perform your job?, Feel that you are on top of things
concerning your job?, Feel that at work things are going your way?”, and “Feel certain you
can perform your job well?” A five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Never” (1) to
“Very Often” (5) was used to measure these items. One item asked respondents to “Indicate
the degree to which you agree with the following: I feel confident about my ability to perform
well at my job?” A task-specific measure of self-efficacy strength and magnitude was not
used because of the complexity of the participants’ jobs and a lack of well-defined perfor-
mance levels for each task that made up the participants’ jobs (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Although the present scale measured only the strength (i.e., confidence) aspect of job-related
self-efficacy, it is important to note that Lee and Bobko (1994) found that a single-item
confidence measure of self-efficacy and composite measures of self-efficacy strength and
magnitude were highly correlated, and that a single-item confidence measure correlated with
self-set goals and performance just as strongly as did composite measures of self-efficacy. A
single-factor CFA of the present five-item scale produced a CFI ⫽ 0.98. Cronbach’s alpha
for this scale was 0.78.

3.3.4. Feedback seeking

Ashford’s (1986) feedback inquiry scale and Fedor et al. (1992) feedback monitoring
measure were adapted for the present study. Specifically, we used two of the three Ashford
inquiry items and added one of our own that suited the present research setting. We reworded
the Fedor et al. monitoring measure to fit the present work situation. Feedback inquiry was
measured with three items. The items asked respondents “In order to find out how well you
are performing your present job, how often do you: Seek information from your co-workers?,
Seek feedback from your manager about your job performance?”, and “Seek feedback from
572 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

your callers about your job performance?” Items were measured with a five-point Likert-type
scale ranging from “Never” (1) to “Very Often” (5). Feedback monitoring was measured
with six items. Five items asked respondents how often they monitored performance reports
made available to them by management. For example, one item asked respondents “In order
to find out how well you are performing your present job, how often do you: Use the
performance report to size up your job performance?” These items were measured by a
five-point Likert-type response format ranging from “Never” (1) to “Very Often” (5). Item
six, “I monitor the performance report to get feedback about my job performance,” was
anchored to a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly
Disagree” (5). Because the focus of the present study was on overall feedback seeking, we
combined all items into one general feedback seeking dimension (see also Ashford & Black,
1996; VandeWalle & Cummings, 1997). The one-factor model provided an acceptable fit
(CFI ⫽ 0.86), and all items had significant factor loadings (i.e., standardized factor loadings
greater than 0.50, and t-values greater than 2). Cronbach’s alpha for the feedback seeking
scale was 0.89.

3.3.5. Feedback-based goals

The degree to which respondents set improvement goals from performance feedback was
measured with four items developed for this study. Three items asked respondents how often
they: “Set a personal goal to improve their job performance after viewing the performance
report?, ”Use feedback from their manager to establish a personal goal to improve your job
performance?, and “Use information provided by your co-workers to set a personal goal to
improve your job performance?” These items were measured with a five-point Likert-type
scale ranging from “Never” (1) to “Very Often” (5). The fourth item asked respondents how
strongly they agreed with the statement “I use the performance report to set personal goals
to improve my job performance.” The scale for this item ranged from “Strongly Disagree”
(1) to “Strongly Agree” (5). Specifying that all four items load on a single factor, the LISREL
results indicated an excellent fit (CFI ⫽ 0.96). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.74.
To examine the effects of common method variance on the relationship between the
feedback seeking and feedback-based goal measures, we compared the fit of two measure-
ment models with a ␹2 difference test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986; Vandenberg & Scarpello,
1990). The first model was a one-factor measurement model with all the feedback seeking
and feedback-based goal items specified to load on one general factor (␹2 ⫽ 478, 65 df., p ⬍
.001). Model 2 was a two-factor measurement model freely estimating the parameter
between two factors, one factor representing all the feedback seeking items and a second
factor representing the feedback-based goal items (␹2 ⫽ 441, 64 df., p ⬍ .001). If common
method variance was responsible for the covariation between the two scales, then no
difference should exist between the fit of Model 1 and Model 2. The ␹2 difference test
between the two measurement models indicated that Model 2 provided a significantly better
fit than Model 1 (⌬␹2 ⫽ 36.62, 1 df., p ⬍ .01), suggesting that common method variance did
not obscure the distinction between the two measures.
To further examine discriminant validity, we compared the fit of a measurement model
that fixed to one the parameter representing the correlation between one factor representing
all feedback seeking items and a second factor representing all feedback-based goals items
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 573

Table 1
Results of confirmatory factor analysis
Variables Factor 1 Factor 2
(feedback seeking) (feedback-based goals)
Feedback monitoring 1 .87 —
Feedback monitoring 2 .92 —
Feedback monitoring 3 .93 —
Feedback monitoring 4 .91 —
Feedback monitoring 5 .84 —
Feedback monitoring 6 .79 —
Feedback inquiry 1 .54 —
Feedback inquiry 2 .61 —
Feedback inquiry 3 .44 —
Feedback-based goals 1 — .82
Feedback-based goals 2 — .63
Feedback-based goals 3 — .53
Feedback-based goals 4 — .88
Note. Standardized loadings reported. ␾ ⫽ .66. Approximate 95% confidence interval for ␾ is 0.46 ⬍ 0.86.

(␹2 ⫽ 478, 65 df., p ⬍ .001) with a measurement model that freely estimated the parameter
(i.e., ␾) (␹2 ⫽ 441, 64 df., p ⬍ .001) (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1989, p. 132). A ␹2 difference
test indicated that the measurement model that freely estimated the correlation between the
two factors provided a significantly better fit (⌬␹2 ⫽ 37.17, 1 df., p ⬍ .001). Table 1 depicts
the maximum likelihood item loadings and ␾ for the two-factor measurement model.
Discriminant validity was also evaluated by examining the confidence intervals for the factor
correlations (Kacmar & Carlson, 1997). For each factor correlation, the 95% confidence
interval was significantly different from 1, ranging from 0.03 to 0.86. Combined, these
results suggest that the feedback seeking measure is distinct from the feedback-based goals
measure.

3.3.6. Work quantity

Work quantity was measured as an employee’s average sales per hour over a one week
period. Thus, higher scores represented higher sales per hour. The sales measures were
collected 1 month after the survey data were collected and referenced respondents perfor-
mance 1 month after survey administration.

3.3.7. Work quality

The measure of work quality was a summative measure of participants’ ratings on 20
service quality criteria, including adherence to scripts (i.e., call protocols), sales procedures,
and general helpfulness toward the customer. Supervisors evaluated 12 to 15 subordinates
each along these criteria in a call monitoring format whereby they randomly listened to
conversations subordinates had with customers. Although the employees knew supervisors
monitored calls, they were unaware of exactly when their supervisor monitored their
conversations. The quality rating could range from unacceptable (0) to outstanding (100). To
calculate the measure of work quality for this study, we averaged between 9 to 12 overall
574 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

Fig. 2. Structural path estimates of hypothesized model.

quality ratings for each participant over the course of a month. The averaged ratings referred
to service quality ratings 1 month after the collection of the survey data.

4. Results

The correlation results were examined to determine whether the demographic variables’
potential influence on work quantity and quality needed to be controlled in the hypothesis
tests. As seen in Table 2, age, education, tenure, and gender were not significantly related to
either performance measure. Therefore, the demographic variables were excluded from the
structural equation analysis.
We tested the proposed model with structural equations analysis, using a covariance
matrix as input. Scale scores rather than individual items were used as manifest indicators of
the constructs for two reasons. First, using scale scores provided a higher sample size to
estimator ratio than was possible using individual items (Shore, Barksdale & Shore, 1995;
Williams & Hazer, 1986). Second, Jöreskog & Sörbom (1989) suggest that it is difficult to
obtain adequate fit indexes for models with a large number of latent variables despite strong
theory behind proposed relationships. Measurement error was incorporated by setting the
path from a construct to its manifest indicator (i.e., scale score) to the product of the square
root of the scale reliability and its standard deviation, and by setting the error variance to the
product of the variance of the scale score and one minus the reliability.
The proposed model (i.e., Fig. 1) reproduced the covariance matrix very well (␹212 ⫽
17.67, CFI ⫽ 0.97, Tucker-Lewis Index ⫽ 0.95, Goodness of Fit Index ⫽ 0.96, Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index ⫽ 0.92, Root Mean Square Residual ⫽ 0.05). Because the proposed
model provided a very good overall fit, we examined the value and significance levels of the
hypothesized paths. Hypothesis 1 predicted that feedback seeking would be indirectly related
to work performance through personal improvement goals established from performance
feedback. As seen in Fig. 2, the maximum-likelihood estimate for the path from feedback
seeking to feedback-based improvement goals was significant and positive (t ⫽ 12.3, p ⬍
.05). In addition, the estimates for the paths from feedback-based improvement goals to work
quantity (t ⫽ 4.7, p ⬍. 05) and from feedback-based improvement goals to work quality (t ⫽
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 575

2.3, p ⬍ .05) were also significant and positive. The structural equations explained 16% and
5% of the variance for work quantity and work quality, respectively.
To provide an additional test for mediation, we performed a ␹2 difference test between a
model adding two paths from feedback seeking to work quantity and work quality (␹2 ⫽
14.74, 10 df to the fit of the hypothesized model (␹2 ⫽ 17.67, 12 df. The additional direct
effects paths did not improve the fit of the model (⌬ ␹2 ⫽ 2.93, 2 df., ns). These results
provided support for Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between feedback
seeking and the use of performance feedback to establish improvement goals. As seen in Fig.
2, the estimate representing the path from feedback seeking to self-efficacy was not signif-
icant (t ⫽ 1.71, ns). Because the results failed to reject this null hypothesis and the present
sample was relatively small, we calculated the power of the significance test for this estimate
(Bollen, 1989, p. 344). The LISPOWER program provided by Scientific Software indicated
that the power of this test was 0.93, which exceeds the recommended 0.80 value. Therefore,
the results failed to support Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 stated that feedback seeking will mediate the relationship between percep-
tions of personal control and work performance. As shown in Fig. 2, the estimate for the path
from personal control perceptions to feedback seeking was significant and positive (t ⫽ 5.4,
p ⬍ .05). This result combined with the results that supported Hypothesis 1 indicated that
personal control perceptions were positively related to work quantity and work quality
through feedback seeking and feedback-based goal setting.
Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-efficacy also would mediate the relationship between
perceptions of personal control and work performance. As depicted in Fig. 2, the path
estimates provided support for this hypothesis. Personal control perceptions were sig-
nificantly and positively associated with self-efficacy (t ⫽ 6.3, p ⬍ .05), and the estimate
for the path from self-efficacy to feedback-based improvement goals (t ⫽ 2.9, p ⬍ .05)
indicated that self-efficacy was significantly and positively related to work quantity and
work quality through feedback-based goals. For hypotheses 3 and 4, we compared the fit
of a model adding two paths from personal control perceptions to work quantity and
work quality (␹2 ⫽ 16.54, 10 df.) to the fit of the hypothesized model. The difference was
not significant (⌬ ␹2 ⫽ 1.13, 2 df., ns). Thus, these results provided support for
Hypotheses 3 and 4.
Hypothesis 5 stated that feedback seeking would mediate the relationship between
external feedback propensity and work performance. As shown in Fig. 2, the estimate of
the path from external feedback propensity to feedback seeking was positive and
significant (t ⫽ 4.3, p ⬍ .05), indicating that higher external feedback propensity was
related to more frequent feedback seeking. This result, along with the evidence for
Hypothesis 1, indicated that external feedback propensity was positively related to work
quantity and work quality through feedback seeking and feedback-based goals. For
hypothesis 5, we compared the fit of a model including two paths from external feedback
propensity to work quantity and work quality (␹2 ⫽ 13.50, 10 df.) to the hypothesized
model. Again, the ␹2 difference test was not significant (⌬ ␹2 ⫽ 4.17, 2 df., ns). Thus,
Hypothesis 5 was supported.
576 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Study variables
1. Personal control 3.33 .86
2. External propensity 4.33 .67 .11
3. Self-efficacy 4.19 .52 .46** .13
4. Feedback seeking 3.67 .80 .40** .38** .39**
5. Feedback-based 3.73 .79 .46** .31** .42** .62**
goals
6. Work quality 84.61 9.07 .05 .08 .19* .15 .20**
7. Work quantity 137.34 39.88 .24** .01 .30** .37** .27** .14
Control variables
8. Age 34.97 11.22 ⫺.16 .03 .06 ⫺.12 .06 ⫺.01 ⫺.15
9. Gender .94 .32 .21** .00 .19* ⫺.07 ⫺.06 ⫺.07 .10 .00
10. Education 13.63 2.19 ⫺.12 ⫺.08 .03 .02 .01 .11 .06 .29** .00
11. Tenure .83 .36 .04 .01 .11 ⫺.06 ⫺.00 .10 .09 .11 .06 .17*
Note. N ⫽ 136.
* p ⬍ .05.
** p ⬍ .01.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to develop and test a model of individual-level constructs
likely to explain work performance in settings that provide individuals discretion over
work-related decisions and information about their work performance, work processes, and
customers. We argued that a combination of feedback seeking, social cognition, and goal
setting constructs may provide valuable insights into individual performance in such envi-
ronments. The present results offered support for all but one of the predicted relationships.
As hypothesized, feedback seeking was positively related to work performance through
feedback-based goals. In addition, personal control perceptions, external propensity, and
self-efficacy were related to work performance through this type of goal setting. In contrast
to what was predicted, feedback seeking was unrelated to self-efficacy perceptions.
Feedback seeking related positively to work quantity and work quality through the goals
employees established from available performance reports and from performance feedback
provided by managers, co-workers, and customers. Morrison (1993) found that feedback
seeking was positively related to composite ratings of work performance. However, Ashford
and Black (1996) failed to find support for a feedback seeking-work performance relation-
ship. Because previous research drew into question a feedback seeking-work performance
relationship, the present study contributes by showing that feedback seeking is positively
related to separate measures of work quantity and work quality gathered 1 month after the
feedback seeking measures were collected.
Another contribution stems from investigating the mechanisms through which feedback
seeking relates to work quantity and work quality. Theory suggests that feedback seeking
should enhance performance by facilitating the achievement of goals, by helping individuals
discern the relative importance of multiple goals, and by providing information that assists
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 577

individuals in evaluating their competence (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Unfortunately,

few—if any—studies have examined whether these motivational mechanisms explain the
feedback seeking-performance relationship. Thus, the present finding advances knowledge
by providing needed support for a fundamental hypothesis: that seeking feedback should
improve performance because it can facilitate the establishment and achievement of perfor-
mance goals.
Besides facilitating goal processes, Ashford and Cummings (1983) theorize that feedback
seeking may also enhance performance by helping individuals evaluate and modify compe-
tency judgments. In the present study, the hypothesis that feedback seeking would be related
to performance through competency judgments (i.e., self-efficacy) was not supported. There
are at least two possible explanations for the lack of support for this hypothesis. First, the
present employees may have attributed the feedback obtained by monitoring the performance
reports or by inquiring from others to external factors rather than their own ability (McFar-
land & Ross, 1982). By attributing past performance to external factors, the present em-
ployees may have decided that the feedback had little or no implications for their own
work-related competence.
Second, personal control perceptions may explain the lack of support for this hypothesis.
That is, personal control perceptions may override the influence that acquired performance-
related information has on self-efficacy. For instance, negative feedback may not depress
self-efficacy as long as one believes that she or he can control the workplace elements (e.g.,
the number of sales calls made during an eight hour shift) implicated in the negative
feedback. This explanation finds support in the fact that the bivariate correlation between
feedback seeking and self-efficacy was significant and positive before the structural equa-
tions analysis controlled the common variance in this relationship shared with personal
control perceptions. Further research is needed, however, before any firm conclusions can be
drawn about whether competency evaluations are another motivational construct through
which feedback seeking affects performance.
As hypothesized, feedback seeking mediated the relationship between personal control
perceptions and external feedback propensity and work performance. First, the amount of
control the present employees perceived having over their work processes and outcomes
related positively to their feedback seeking efforts which, in turn, related positively and
indirectly to their work quantity and work quality. This finding was consistent with the
reasoning that individuals with high perceived control would seek feedback because they
believed they could use the acquired information to modify the work environment in a way
that would allow them to improve their own work performance. This finding contributes by
extending the influence of personal control perceptions to work quality, and by providing
insight into two mediating processes (viz., feedback seeking and feedback-based goal
setting) through which control perceptions can affect work performance (cf. Greenberger,
Strasser, Cummings & Dunham, 1989). An obvious practical implication is that organiza-
tions with performance improvement programs may profit from empowering employees and
from ensuring employees believe they control critical workplace factors that impact their
work outcomes.
Second, employees with a greater desire for feedback from external sources (i.e., higher
external feedback propensity) used feedback seeking and feedback-based goals to enhance
578 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

their work performance to a greater degree than did those with less desire for feedback from
others. This finding suggests that individuals interested in acquiring and using performance
feedback may make better use of available information (e.g., performance reports) in
organizations with performance improvement initiatives than those less interested in obtain-
ing performance feedback from outside sources. Further research seems warranted on the
potential relationship between this individual difference and work performance, especially as
more organizations adopt performance improvement programs that rely heavily on employ-
ees’ own initiatives to acquire and use feedback to address performance-related problems
(Dean & Evans, 1994). Future research should also investigate the impact that performance
expectations, context, and impression management concerns may have on individuals’
willingness to translate the desire for external feedback into actual feedback seeking behavior
(Ashford & Northcraft, 1992; Levy, Albright, Cawley & Williams, 1995; Morrison & Bies,
1991; Northcraft & Ashford, 1990).
Finally, the present employees’ self-efficacy judgments mediated the relationship between
their control perceptions and their work performance. This finding suggests that the employ-
ees who believed they controlled the determinants of their work performance were more
confident about performing their jobs well than those employees with weaker control beliefs.
In addition, the results suggest that those employees who believed they could perform their
jobs well (i.e., high self-efficacy) set higher improvement goals that, in turn, enhanced their
work quantity and work quality. This finding supports Gist and Mitchell’s (1992) argument
that self-efficacy should be enhanced by the belief that one has personal control over the
determinants of his or her performance. It is also consistent with the Bandura and Wood
study (1989) that showed individuals with low perceived control had lower self-efficacy and
lower performance goals (quantity) than did their higher perceived control counterparts.
Along with the support obtained for hypothesis 3, the present findings suggest that both
self-efficacy and feedback seeking may be important motivational mechanisms through
which perceptions of personal control are translated into improved performance.

5.1. Practical implications

Feedback-based goals related positively to both measures of work performance, but the
proposed relationships explained more variance in the work quantity measure (i.e., 16%)
than the work quality measure (i.e., 5%). This finding provides some insight into two key
issues related to goal setting and performance improvement programs that are focused on
enhancing both dimensions of work performance.
First, some quality advocates (viz., Deming and his followers) have argued that goal
setting that is directed by management and that focuses on numerical quotas (e.g., MBO) is
counterproductive to quality programs (Shalley & Mone, 1998). We fear that this argument
may have been interpreted by some as an indictment against the use of all types of goal
setting in quality-oriented organizations. Our results seem to suggest that at least one form
of goal setting—self-set improvement goals based on performance feedback—may facilitate
rather than harm quality initiatives. Our findings, thus, appear to fall more in line with the
view of those quality experts who support the use of certain types of goal setting in quality
improvement programs (e.g., Crosby, 1996) versus the view of others who suggest that goal
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 579

setting per se is harmful to quality initiatives. We recognize, however, that ours is the first
study to investigate the relationship between this type of goal setting and work quality, and
that more research on feedback-based goal setting and work quality is clearly needed before
any firm conclusions can be reached.
Second, this finding sheds light on the relationship between goals individuals establish for
themselves without outside intervention (e.g., management) and more than one dimension of
performance (Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991). Namely, our findings suggest that the present
employees’ improvement goals may have placed greater emphasis on work quantity than on
work quality. This finding is consistent with previous research that indicates individuals
place more emphasis on work quantity than work quality when performing complex tasks
(e.g., Erez, 1990). Because the present study did not include experimental controls, we can
only speculate about why this may have occurred.
We suspect that the present employees’ self-set goals may have emphasized work quantity
because the organization’s performance appraisal was weighted towards work quantity rather
than work quality. The present researchers learned this from the human resources manager
during discussions following the data collection phase of this study. According to the
manager, performance appraisal scores were determined by a formula that summed the
values obtained by multiplying work quantity by 75% and work quality by 25%. By making
work quantity a larger percentage of the total performance appraisal score, the performance
appraisal system may have cued employees to the greater relative importance of work
quantity and increased the attractiveness of achieving higher sales versus higher service
quality (Gilliland & Landis, 1992; Kernan & Lord, 1990). Consequently, we postulate that
the employees’ self-set goals may have emphasized quantity over quality because they knew
that their appraisals and, more importantly, their compensation was influenced more by work
quantity. It follows from this supposition that organizations adopting performance improve-
ment programs may need to attend to their appraisal and compensation plans to ensure they
reflect the desired balance.

5.2. Limitations

No study is without limitations, and the present one is no exception. Judging directionality
for the hypothesized mediated relationships is virtually impossible with cross-sectional data
(James, Muliak & Brett, 1982). However, the hypothesized mediated relationships were
theory driven and consistent with findings from previous studies that examined portions of
the proposed model (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Fedor et al., 1992). We certainly encourage
future longitudinal studies involving these constructs. All the individual-level predictors
were measured at the same time and with the same survey. While we tested for the biasing
effects of common method variance on the relationship between feedback seeking and
feedback-based goals, the present sample size precluded testing the effects of common
method variance on a full measurement model. Thus, common method variance may have
inflated the relationships among these variables. Common method variance was less of a
threat to the findings for the two work performance measures. The ratings of work quality
580 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

and quantity came from another source and were gathered 1 month after the survey was
conducted.
The study was conducted with a set of employees who had a good deal of control over
their work performance. The employees had free access to performance feedback reports
that provided information about their work quantity and quantity, and the employees had
the autonomy to improve their work performance by adjusting their work behaviors in
response to the performance feedback. While this was the type of work setting the
present researchers desired for testing the present model, the present results may not
generalize to work settings where employees have less influence over work processes.
The feedback-based goal setting measure did not distinguish between goal types. Thus,
future research may explain more variance in work quantity and quality by developing
separate measures for feedback-based quantity goals and feedback-based quality goals. We
could not test all possible individual-level predictors that may be related to work perfor-
mance. In designing the present study, theoretically relevant variables were selected and
tested, but there are obviously other predictors that deserve future research. Finally, it was
not possible to gather earlier assessments of the employees performance to also investigate
their performance improvement. This is clearly a worthwhile step for future research on this
model.

6. Conclusion

The most important conclusion of the present field study is that feedback seeking,
social cognitive, and goal setting constructs have a complex but predictable relationship
with work performance. We hope this study will stimulate future research on other
potential antecedents of feedback-based goal setting and on the direct and indirect
relationship between feedback seeking and multiple measures of work performance. For
instance, all the theories used to inform this research suggest that individuals need to use
information collected from feedback seeking to form improvement goals and/or to
correct inappropriate goal-related strategies for feedback seeking to have a positive
effect on performance (Ashford & Cummings, 1983; Bandura, 1991; Locke & Latham,
1990). Future studies, therefore, need to investigate whether employees’ use of perfor-
mance-related information to form strategy improvements is another mechanism through
which feedback seeking enhances work performance (cf., Wood, 1999). From a practical
standpoint, the present study suggests that organizations implementing performance
improvement initiatives should prosper from encouraging employees to seek feedback
and from training employees how to use the information collected from feedback seeking
to establish personal work-related improvement goals.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the editor, two anonymous reviewers and Bob Vandenberg for their
helpful comments during the preparation of this manuscript.
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 581

Robert W. Renn (Ph.D. Georgia State University) is an associate professor of organizational

behavior in the Fogelman College of Business and Economics at The University of Mem-
phis. His current research interests include self-regulation in work settings, telecommuting,
and managing turnover of information technology employees.
Donald B. Fedor is an Associate Professor in the Organizational Behavior group at the
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. He received his Ph.D. in Business Adminis-
tration from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. His research includes inves-
tigations of change management, responses to performance feedback, knowledge manage-
ment, political behavior, and training performance.

References

Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: critique and
reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49 –74.
Anderson, J. C., Rungthusanatham, M., & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of quality management underlying
the Deming management method. Academy of Management Review, 19, 472–509.
Ashford, S. E. (1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: a resource perspective. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 29, 465– 487.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: the role of desire for control. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 81, 199 –214.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating
information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370 –398.
Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: the role of impression-
management in feedback seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53, 310 –334.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice–Hall.
Bandura, A. B. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 50, 248 –287.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational
effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self
regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805– 814.
Bazerman, M. H. (1982). Impact of personal control on performance: is added control always beneficial? Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 472– 479.
Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors vs. sculpture: the role of personality and personal control
in organizations. In M. B. Author, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), The handbook of career theory (pp.
232–251). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238 –246.
Blackburn, R., & Rosen, B. (1993). Total quality and human resources management: lessons learned from
Baldridge Award-winning companies. Academy of Management Executive, 7, 49 – 66.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Crosby, P. B. (1996). Quality is still free: making quality certain in uncertain times. New York: McGraw–Hill.
Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. A. (Eds.). (1994). Management theory and total quality: improving research and
practice through theory development [Special issue]. Academy of Management Review, 19, 392–584.
Dean, J. W., & Evans, J. R. (1994). Total quality: management, organization, and strategy. Minneapolis/St. Paul:
West Publishing.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crises. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for
Advanced Engineering Study.
582 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583

Earley, P. C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1991). Delineating goal and efficacy effects: a test of three models. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76, 81–98.
Erez, M. (1990). Performance quality and work motivation. In U. Kleinbeck, H. Thierry, H. Haecker, & H. Quast
(Eds.), Work motivation. (pp. 53– 65). Hillsdale, N. J. Erlbaum.
Erez, M., & Kanfer, F. H. (1983). The role of acceptance in goal setting and task performance. Academy of
Management Review, 8, 454 – 463.
Fedor, D. B., Rensvold, R. B., & Adams, S. M. (1992). An investigation of factors expected to affect feedback
seeking: a longitudinal field study. Personnel Psychology, 45, 779 – 805.
Gilliland, S. W., & Landis, R. S. (1992). Quality and quantity goals in a complex decision task: strategies and
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 672– 681.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.
Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1986). Development and application of a model of personal control in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 164 –177.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of personal control on
performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 43, 29 –51.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., & Lee, S. (1988). Personal control as a mediator between perceptions of
supervisory behaviors and employee reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 405– 417.
Heneman, H. G., Heneman, R. L., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Staffing organizations (2nd. Ed.). Middleton, WI: Irwin.
Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1998). Individuals’ interaction with their feedback environment: The role of
domain specific individual differences. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource
management (Vol. 16, pp. 215–254). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985a). Assessing the feedback environment in work organizations: develop-
ment of the job feedback survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 290 –305.
Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985b). Individual differences in seeking and processing performance feedback
information. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles,
CA.
Herold, D. M., Parsons, C. K., & Rensvold, R. B. (1996). Individual propensities in the generation and processing
of performance feedback. Working paper. Georgia Institute of Technology.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: user’s reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kacmar, K. M., & Carlson, D. S. Further validation of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multi sample
investigation. Journal of Management, 23, 627– 658.
Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (1991). Goals and self-regulation: applications of theory to work settings. In J. G.
Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 287–326). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1990). Effects of valence, expectancies, and goal-performance discrepancies in
single and multiple goal environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 194 –203.
Lawler, E. E. (1998). Keynote address. Given at the meeting of the Academy of Management and Ernst & Young
on quality and management, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 364 –369.
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.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. (1968). Motivational effects of knowledge of results: a goal-setting
phenomenon? Psychological Bulletin, 70, 474 – 485.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241–251.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice–Hall.
 R.W. Renn, D.B. Fedor / Journal of Management 27 (2001) 563–583 583

Mathieu, J. E., & Button, S. B. (1992). An examination of the relative impact of normative information and
self-efficacy on personal goals and performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 22, 1758 –1775.
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 937–946.
Mitchell, T. R., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George–Falvy, & James, L. R. (1994). Predicting self- efficacy and
performance during skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 506 –517.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557–589.
Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback seeking process: a literature
review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522–541.
Northcraft, G. B., & Ashford, S. A. (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.
Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control
in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792– 802.
Phillips, J. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. (1996). Prevalence and prediction of positive discrepancy creation:
examining a discrepancy between two self-regulation theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 498 –511.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12, 531–544.
Riordan, C. M., & Gatewood, R. D. (1996). Putting the “E” (Employee) into quality efforts: A process model of
organizational practices, quality principles, and employee reactions In D. Fedor & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Advances
in the management of organizational quality (Vol. 1, pp. 299 –335). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Seligman, M. E. (1975). Helplessness: on depression, development, and death. San Francisco: Freeman.
Shalley, C. E., & Mone, M. A. (1998). Reconciling goals and quality: how goal setting can work with quality
management initiatives. In D. Fedor & S. Ghosh (Eds.), Advances in the management of organizational quality
(Vol. 3, pp. 57– 88). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Shore, L. M., Barksdale, K., & Shore, T. (1995). Managerial perceptions of employee commitment to the
organization. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1593–1615.
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: a comparison and critical
evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 446 – 471.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question.
Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89 –101.
Vancouver, J. B. (1997). The application of HLM to the analysis of the dynamic interaction of environment,
person and behavior. Journal of Management, 23, 723–746.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: an examination of the processes underlying
realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 60 – 67.
VandeWalle, D., & Cummings, L. L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback-seeking
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 390 – 400.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review:66. 297–333.
Williams, L. J., & Hazer, J. T. (1986). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turnover
models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 219 –231.
Williams, K. J., & Lillibridge, J. R. (1992). Perceived self-competence and organizational behavior. In K. Kelley (Ed.),
Issues, theory, and research in industrial-organizational psychology (pp. 155–184). Elsevier Science Publishers.
Wood, R. E. (1999). Self-efficacy and decision making strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Self-efficacy: theory, research, and application symposium, Chicago, IL.
Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 361–384.