The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR
42,1

Putting feedback-seeking into

context: job characteristics and
feedback-seeking behaviour

50

Joe Krasman
Faculty of Business and Information Technology,
University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, Canada
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper is to examine the influence of job characteristics on
feedback-seeking behaviour. In particular, this study focuses on the job dimensions of the job
characteristics model ( JCM).
Design/methodology/approach A survey was completed by 113 full-time employees from
various industries.
Findings Three of the seven job dimensions significantly impacted feedback-seeking behaviour
and explained 11.3 percent of the variance. Feedback-seeking behaviour was increased by feedback
from agents, decreased by task identity and autonomy, and unaffected by skill variety, task
significance, feedback from the job, and feedback from others.
Practical implications The way jobs are designed may impact how frequently people seek
feedback about their performance. Organizations should consider these relationships in promoting
feedback-seeking behaviour in the workplace and in carrying out job redesign efforts.
Originality/value By considering job characteristics, this study increases the knowledge of
contextual factors that influence feedback-seeking behaviour. Most of the research to date has
focussed on individual factors. By considering feedback-seeking behaviour, this study increases the
knowledge of outcomes that result from job characteristics. Most of the research to date has focussed
on the original four outcomes of the JCM.
Keywords Feedback-seeking behaviour, Job characteristics, Job design, Job characteristics model,
Feedback, Individual behaviour, Skills
Paper type Research paper

Personnel Review
Vol. 42 No. 1, 2013
pp. 50-66
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483481311285228

1. Introduction
What influences peoples behaviour at work characteristics of the person,
characteristics of the situation, or both? Scholars have debated and discussed this
question extensively for decades (e.g. Terborg et al., 1980; Sternberg and Vroom, 2002).
Based on their review of the literature, Ashford et al. (2003) asked this same question
about feedback-seeking behaviour. The authors noted the abundance of research that
has examined individual factors that influence feedback-seeking behaviour and the
lack of research that has considered contextual factors. As they wrote: Over the past
20 years, there have been sporadic calls to move beyond individual factors and focus
on the context in which feedback-seeking takes place [...] Because of the relative lack of
attention given to context factors thus far in the feedback-seeking literature, these
represent an opportunity for future research (pp. 783-784).
The author wishes to thank Lisa Fiksenbaum, Rob Cribbie, and Stephanie Krasman for their
assistance and support.

Proactively seeking feedback about ones performance is important because

passively waiting to receive this information from others can be ineffective. For
example, it is difficult for supervisors to know the exact moments on the job when each
of their staff requires or desires feedback (Dobbins et al., 1990). Even when they do,
research has shown that they are reluctant to give feedback if the message is negative
(Fisher, 1979). They delay, distort the message to make it more positive, or refrain from
giving it altogether. Consequently, individuals and organisations have much to gain
from promoting feedback-seeking behaviour in the workplace. Indeed, research has
shown that feedback-seeking behaviour leads to many positive outcomes including
higher job performance, job satisfaction, and organisational citizenship behaviour, and
lower turnover intentions (Morrison, 1993; Whitaker et al., 2007).
Understanding how context in particular influences feedback-seeking behaviour is
important because contextual variables are often more amenable to change than
individual variables. For example, personality traits such as self-esteem and extraversion
are fixed at least in the short-term and physical characteristics such as gender and
ethnicity are entirely permanent (Funder, 2001). Indeed, each of these individual variables
has been shown by prior research to influence feedback-seeking behaviour (Fedor et al.,
1992; Krasman, 2010; Miller and Karakowsky, 2005; Roberson et al., 2003). If
feedback-seeking behaviour is to be promoted in the workplace to the fullest extent
possible, it is crucial to better understand how context plays a contributing role.
An important element of a persons work context is the job he or she has been hired
into and thus performs (Rousseau and Fried, 2001). In their job characteristics model
(JCM), Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980) and Oldham and Hackman (2010) identified a
set of characteristics that all jobs are comprised of to varying degrees. The purpose of this
study is to examine how these characteristics influence a persons propensity to seek
feedback about his or her job performance. In so doing, this study seeks to increase our
knowledge of contextual factors that influence feedback-seeking behaviour and inform
the context side of the person-situation debate as it relates to this topic.
In their original JCM, Hackman and Oldham (1976) identified four outcomes that
result from job characteristics high internal work motivation, high work
performance, high work satisfaction, and low withdrawal. Johns (2010) recently
reviewed the research on outcomes that has taken place since that time and found that
very few new outcomes have been identified. He criticised our knowledge as being
narrowly construed and stated that there is clearly a missing generation of
information on how job design might affect important criteria that have been studied
more recently, including OCB, corruption, learning, proactivity, and creativity (p. 366).
Feedback-seeking behaviour embodies both the learning and proactivity elements that
Johns refers to. Thus, in addition to contributing to the feedback-seeking literature, this
study also increases our knowledge of the outcomes of job characteristics.
2. Theoretical overview
2.1 Feedback-seeking behaviour
Feedback-seeking behaviour refers to the proactive search by individuals for informal,
evaluative information about their work (Ashford and Cummings, 1983). An example
of feedback-seeking behaviour is an employee asking a supervisor if he or she has
completed a particular task correctly. One distinguishing feature of feedback-seeking
behaviour is that it refers to feedback that is proactively sought. This is in contrast to

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
51

PR
42,1

52

feedback that is passively received, for example, at the discretion of a supervisor.

Another distinguishing feature of feedback-seeking behaviour is that it refers to
informal that is, day-to-day feedback information. This is in contrast to formal
feedback such as that received during the performance appraisal.
Feedback-seeking can be understood as a process that is comprised of three stages
motivation, cognitive processing, and behaviour (Ashford and Cummings, 1983). In
the motivation stage, an individual develops a need or desire for feedback. This stage
establishes a benefit for seeking feedback. In the cognitive processing stage, the
individual identifies any costs that may be associated with seeking feedback and
weighs these against the benefit. For example, self costs refer to damage that can occur
to a persons self-concept (e.g. self-esteem, self-efficacy) if the feedback he or she
receives in response to seeking is negative. Impression-management costs refer to
damage that can occur to a persons public image if he or she is perceived negatively
(e.g. incompetent, anxious) by others for seeking feedback. Effort costs refer to the
physical and emotional energy a person expends in order to seek feedback. Based on an
assessment of the costs and benefits, the individual decides upon his or her behaviour
such as whether, when, how, and from whom to seek feedback. The individual then
carries out this decision in the final stage of the process behaviour.
2.2 Job characteristics model
The JCM was developed by Hackman and Oldham (1976, 1980) to explain how job
structure influences peoples work attitudes and behaviour. According to the model,
there exist five core dimensions within every job skill variety, task identity, task
significance, autonomy, and job feedback. These dimensions activate three critical
psychological states experienced meaningfulness of the work, experienced
responsibility for the outcomes of the work, and knowledge of the actual results of
the work activities. These psychological states in turn elicit four personal and work
outcomes high internal work motivation, high work performance, high work
satisfaction, and low withdrawal. Though the core job dimensions elicit several
outcomes, the JCM is most well known as a theory of motivation because of its impact
on intrinsic work motivation.
The JCM was chosen as the vantage from which to examine the influence of context
on feedback-seeking behaviour for three reasons. First, because the core job
dimensions exist within all jobs, the findings of this study should have wider
applicability than focussing on more unique or specialized job characteristics. This is
important given the lack of research on the topic. Second, whereas in the past, job
design was a one-time initiative, launched top-down, and applied identically to all
similar jobs, it is increasingly becoming an ongoing practice, initiated bottom-up, and
applied uniquely to even identical jobs (Hornung et al., 2010). Thus, job characteristics
are a relevant and timely aspect of context to focus on. Third, because an extensive
amount of research has been conducted on the JCM (Grant et al., 2010), its measures are
highly valid and reliable. This should add important strength to the study findings.
3. Influence of job characteristics on feedback-seeking behaviour
3.1 Skill variety
Skill variety refers to the degree to which a job requires a variety of different activities
in carrying out the work, involving the use of a number of different skills and talents of

the person (Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 78). Research suggests that the more a job
entails different activities, skills, and talents, the more uncertainty people will
experience about their work. For example, Dwyer and Fox (2006) showed that skill
variety is positively related to workload demands. Saavedra and Kwun (2000) argued
that skill variety is apt to promote some performance distress and showed that it
makes people less relaxed and more nervous (p. 134). Ramaswami et al. (1993) stated
that task variety may induce greater uncertainty regarding how employees should
react to the tasks multidimensional components (p. 183). Owing to this, the
researchers hypothesised and showed a negative relationship between task variety and
role ambiguity, a major predictor of feedback-seeking behaviour (Ashford and
Cummings, 1985; Gupta et al., 1999). Singh (1998) examined the nonlinear effects of job
characteristics and showed that in excess, skill variety can have an overstimulation
effect in which people become overwhelmed and have higher role ambiguity (p. 72).
Consider the uncertainty faced by an assembly line worker who performs the same job
all day everyday (i.e. low skill variety) versus a medical resident who constantly sees
new cases (i.e. high skill variety).
Ashford and Cummings (1983) stated that feedback possesses an uncertainty
reduction function and that some degree of uncertainty is in fact necessary for feedback
to be valuable to an individual (p. 373). As the level of skill variety rises and people
experience greater uncertainty, they should value and seek feedback more as a means of
alleviating it. For example, Ashford (1986) showed that uncertainty increases the value
people assign to feedback which in turn increases their propensity to seek it. Whitaker
et al. (2007) showed that feedback-seeking behaviour increases role clarity. Ashford and
Cummings (1983) proposed that routine work the exact opposite of skill variety
should decrease feedback-seeking behaviour because the amount of uncertainty is lower.
Taking all the above into account, the following hypothesis is put forth:
H1. Skill variety will increase feedback-seeking behaviour.
3.2 Task significance
Task significance refers to the degree to which the job has a substantial impact on the
lives of other people, whether those people are in the immediate organisation or in the
world at large (Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 79). For example, a job as an
ambulance driver likely has more task significance than a job as a cashier because in
the former job peoples lives are at stake.
According to the JCM, task significance activates the critical psychological state of
experienced meaningfulness of the work. It follows that when people find their work to
be meaningful, they should care more about its quality and how well it is performed.
For example, Grant (2008) recently showed that task significance increases peoples
feelings of social impact and social worth. Since feedback can assist in this regard,
people in high task significance jobs should value and seek feedback more. For
example, Ashford and Cummings (1985) showed that people with high job
involvement that is, people who identify psychologically with their work and for
whom their job is central to their identity (Lawler and Hall, 1970) seek feedback more
frequently. Similarly, Ashford (1986) showed that people who place greater importance
on the attainment of goals, value feedback more.
Based on all the above, the following hypothesis is put forth:
H2. Task significance will increase feedback-seeking behaviour.

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
53

PR
42,1

54

3.3 Task identity

Task identity refers to the degree to which a job requires completion of a whole and
identifiable piece of work, that is, doing a job from beginning to end with a visible
outcome (Hackman and Oldham, p. 78). For example, an assembly job mounting just
the legs on a chair has less task identity than one putting together all its components.
In high task identity jobs, people should be better able to self-assess the quality of
their work for two reasons. First, because they see a visible outcome at the end, they
should be able to use this knowledge as a benchmark against which to evaluate the
individual steps of their work. Second, they should have a better understanding of how
the outputs of each step should look. This is because, by virtue of completing all the
steps in a process, they are responsible for the subsequent steps for which these
outputs are inputs.
Because of the greater self-assessment opportunities afforded by high task identity
jobs, people should require feedback less and thus be less likely to seek it. A field
experiment with financial service workers by Campion and McClelland (1991) supports
this hypothesis. The researchers found that workers who had enlarged jobs and thus
completed more steps of their workflow for example, coding and keying versus just
coding or keying were better able to catch errors in their work.
Based on all the above, the following hypothesis is put forth:
H3. Task identity will decrease feedback-seeking behaviour.
3.4 Autonomy
Autonomy refers to the degree to which the job provides substantial freedom,
independence, and discretion to the individual in scheduling the work and in
determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out (Hackman and Oldham, 1980,
p. 79). For example, a chef job where the incumbent chooses how to prepare the food
has more autonomy than one where these decisions are made by the restaurant owner.
According to the critical psychological states of the JCM, people in high autonomy
jobs feel greater personal responsibility for the outcomes of their work because they
have more authority to decide how their work is to be carried out (Hackman and
Oldham, 1980). As such, any negative feedback they receive in response to seeking
should be more hurtful to their self-concept since it more greatly reflects their own
shortcomings in making decisions. For example, Tolli and Schmidt (2008) showed in a
lab experiment that subjects who made internal attributions (i.e. took responsibility)
about negative feedback they received at time 1, had lower self-efficacy (i.e. More
damage to their self-concept) at time 2. Similarly, research has shown that when people
make internal attributions about their failures, they experience negative emotions that
are directed at the self such as guilt (Hong and Chiu, 1992). Because of these higher
self-costs, people in high autonomy jobs should be less likely to seek feedback.
In high autonomy jobs, people are not only granted greater authority to make
decisions on their own, they are required and expected to do so (Langfred and Moye,
2004). As Hackman and Oldham (1980) describe, In all, the idea is to advance
employees from a position of highly restricted authority to one of reviewed authority
and, eventually, to near-total authority for their work (p. 139). Seeking feedback may
suggest that one is incapable of fulfilling this job requirement since one solicits help in
making decisions rather than operating independently. Thus, people in high autonomy
jobs should perceive higher impression-management costs and be less likely to seek

feedback. In support of this hypothesis, research has shown that higher-level and
longer-tenured employees are less likely to seek feedback because they feel it detracts
from the expectations others have of them to be knowledgeable and confident (Ashford
and Cummings, 1985; Morrison, 1993).
Based on all the above, the following hypothesis is put forth:
H4. Autonomy will decrease feedback-seeking behaviour.
3.5 Job feedback
Job feedback refers to the degree to which carrying out the work activities required by
the job provides the individual with direct and clear information about the
effectiveness of his or her performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 80). Job
feedback derives from the work activities themselves rather than from some external
source such as a supervisor. Job feedback is passively received by an individual, not
proactively sought. A job as a barber, for example, is high on job feedback because the
incumbent instantly sees the results of his or her work. A job as a novelist, on the other
hand, is lower on job feedback because the incumbent has to wait to hear from the
publisher.
Ashford and Cummings (1983) based their theory of feedback-seeking behaviour on
a resource metaphor which they illustrated with the following example: Steel is a
valuable resource to car manufacturers for achieving the objective of production.
Consequently, when a car manufacturer does not have sufficient steel in its inventory,
it values more of this resource and seeks out more for purchase from its supplier.
Similarly, feedback is a valuable resource to individuals for achieving various
objectives such as increasing job performance. Consequently, when individuals deem
they do not have adequate feedback, they value more of this resource and seek out
more for acquirement from others.
The resource metaphor suggests that the more feedback people passively receive
through carrying out their work activities, the less additional feedback they will
require or desire and therefore seek. A number of studies provide support for this
hypothesis. For example, in a longitudinal field experiment, Fedor et al. (1992) showed
that the better trainees understood the feedback they received from their instructors,
the less additional feedback they sought. In a field survey of car salespeople, Kohli and
Jaworski (1994) showed that the more feedback respondents already knew, the less
unsolicited feedback from their co-workers improved their role clarity. In a qualitative
study of managers in an engineering department, Pitkanen and Lukka (2011) quoted
one interviewee as stating: Subordinates may want to discuss issues in addition to
taking a look at the reports [...] I should know when sending the comment okay is not
enough (p. 132).
Based on all the above, the following hypothesis is put forth:
H5. Job feedback will decrease feedback-seeking behaviour.
3.6 Feedback from agents and feedback from others
Hackman and Oldham (1980) identified two additional types of feedback feedback
from agents and feedback from others. Feedback from agents refers to the degree to
which the employee receives clear information about his or her work performance from
supervisors or from coworkers (Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 104). Feedback from

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
55

PR
42,1

56

others refers to the degree to which the job requires employees to work closely with
other people in carrying out the work activities (including dealings with other
organisation members and with external organisational clients) (p. 104). Like job
feedback, feedback from agents and feedback from others are passively received by an
individual, not proactively sought. Hackman and Oldham (1980) acknowledge that
these two types of feedback are not core job dimensions since they do not stem from the
job itself but rather from outside sources. Still, Hackman and Oldham include them in
their JCM as well as in their job diagnostic survey (JDS), the instrument used to
measure the JCM. These two non-core dimensions are hypothesised to operate in the
same manner as job feedback and for the same reasons. Thus, consistent with the
previous hypothesis, the more feedback people receive from agents and from others,
the less additional feedback they should seek:
H6. Feedback from agents will decrease feedback-seeking behaviour.
H7. Feedback from others will decrease feedback-seeking behaviour.
4. Methodology
4.1 Respondents
A survey was used to test the above hypotheses. Respondents were part-time Master of
Business Administration (MBA) students enrolled at a Canadian university. In order to
qualify for the survey, respondents had to meet three criteria. First, they had to be
employed full-time. Second, they had to have a supervisor. Third, they had to have at
least one co-worker. The term coworker was defined as other people in your
department who are at your same level in your organisation.
An entire calendar years worth of incoming part-time MBA students was recruited
for the survey. There was one section from the winter semester (January to April) and
three sections from the fall semester (September to December). The summer semester
(May to August) had no incoming students. Across these sections there were 155
students.
An email was sent out to each student inviting him or her to participate in the
survey. One hundred and fourteen students accepted and qualified for the survey,
yielding a response rate of 73.5 per cent. Each of these students was then mailed a
paper-and-pencil survey and a pre-stamped return envelope. All of the surveys were
returned except for one. Respondents received a movie pass as a token of appreciation
for filling out the survey.
Respondents had the following characteristics: 71.7 per cent of the sample was male
and 28.3 per cent was female. The average age was 31.8 years with a range of 23 years
to 49 years. The three largest ethnicities were Caucasian at 38.9 per cent, Chinese at
22.1 per cent, and East Indian at 16.8 per cent. The average job tenure was 1.9 years
with a range of 1 month to 8.8 years. The average organisational tenure was 3.8 years
with a range of 2 months to 12.2 years. In terms of level in their organisation, 3.5 per
cent of respondents were entry-level, 51.4 per cent were between entry-level and
middle-management, 32.7 per cent were middle-management, 10.6 per cent were
between middle-management and senior-management, 0.9 per cent was
senior-management, and 0.9 per cent did not respond to the question. Respondents
came from a variety of industries including financial, telecommunications,
government, manufacturing, healthcare, energy, technology, and real estate.

4.2 Measures
4.2.1 Job characteristics. The job dimensions were measured using the scales from the
JDS (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). Each dimension was measured with three items and
rated on a seven-point scale. A sample item for skill variety is The job is quite simple
and repetitive (reverse-scored). A sample item for task significance is This job is one
where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the work gets done. A sample
item for task identity is The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces
of work I begin. A sample item for autonomy is The job gives me considerable
opportunity for independence and freedom in how I do the work. A sample item for
feedback from the job is Just doing the work required by the job provides many
chances for me to figure out how well I am doing. A sample item for feedback from
agents is Supervisors often let me know how well they think I am performing the job.
A sample item for feedback from others is The job can be done adequately by a person
working alone without talking or checking with other people (reverse-scored). The
Cronbachs alpha reliabilities of the scales were 0.71 for skill variety, 0.77 for task
significance, 0.71 for task identity, 0.77 for autonomy, 0.74 for feedback from the job,
0.76 for feedback from agents, and 0.68 for feedback from others.
4.2.2 Feedback-seeking behaviour. Feedback-seeking behaviour was measured with
six items. Four items were taken from Krasman (2010); two measured feedback-seeking
from supervisors and two measured feedback-seeking from co-workers. A strength of
using Krasmans items is that they measure the seeking of performance feedback
exclusively (Earley et al., 1990). This is in contrast to other feedback-seeking measures
that combine various types of feedback information together (e.g. Ashford and
Cummings, 1985; VandeWalle et al., 2000). A limitation of Krasmans items, however, is
that they do not include feedback-seeking from documentation (e.g. manuals, memos)
(Ashford, 1993; Greller and Herold, 1975; Morrison, 1993). Thus, two items were added
to capture feedback-seeking from this source. All items were rated on a seven-point
scale where 1 equalled very infrequently and 7 equalled very frequently. A
sample item is In order to determine whether the results of your work are correct, how
frequently do you ask your supervisor directly? The Cronbachs alpha reliability of
the scale was 0.75. Provided below is a complete listing of the items (response scale:
1 very infrequently, 7 very frequently):
(1) In order to determine whether the results of your work are correct, how
frequently do you:
Ask your supervisor directly.
Ask your coworkers directly.
.
Consult organizational documentation (e.g. manuals, memos).
(2) In order to determine whether the methods you are using to carry out your work
are correct, how frequently do you:
.
Ask your supervisor directly.
.
Ask your coworkers directly.
.
Consult organizational documentation (e.g. manuals, memos).
.
.

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
57

PR
42,1

58

4.2.3 Demographic information. Respondents were asked their gender, age, ethnicity,
job tenure, organisational tenure, level within their organisation, and industry. Each of
these variables was measured with a single item.
4.2.4 Control variables. Prior research has shown that gender, age, and
organisational tenure each influence feedback-seeking (London et al., 1999; Miller
and Karakowsky, 2005; Ashford and Cummings, 1985), thus they were included as
control variables. Each variable was measured with a single item.
5. Results
Table I shows the intercorrelations among the variables as well as each variables
mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum. The hypotheses were tested using
hierarchical multiple linear regression. In the first step of the regression, gender, age,
and organisational tenure were entered as the independent variables. In the second
step, the seven job characteristics were entered as the independent variables.
Feedback-seeking behaviour was entered as the dependent variable. Table II shows the
results of this analysis.
H1 predicted that skill variety would increase feedback-seeking behaviour. This
hypothesis was not supported (b 0.065, p ns).
H2 predicted that task significance would increase feedback-seeking behaviour.
This hypothesis was not supported (b 2 0.039, p ns).
H3 predicted that task identity would decrease feedback-seeking behaviour. This
hypothesis was supported (b 2 0203, p , 0.05).
H4 predicted that autonomy would decrease feedback-seeking behaviour. This
hypothesis was supported (b 2 0.293, p , 0.01).
H5 predicted that job feedback would decrease feedback-seeking behaviour. This
hypothesis was not supported (b 2 0.009, p ns).
H6 predicted that feedback from agents would decrease feedback-seeking
behaviour. Contrary to what was hypothesised, feedback from agents increased
feedback-seeking behaviour (b 0.223, p , 0.05).
H7 predicted that feedback from others would decrease feedback-seeking
behaviour. This hypothesis was not supported (b 0.109, p ns).
Taken together, the job characteristics explained 11.3 per cent of the variance in
feedback-seeking behaviour. Table II reports the adjusted r-squared value for the
model as well as the partial squared correlation for each variable.
6. Discussion
6.1 Findings
Research has shown that feedback-seeking leads to many beneficial outcomes
including higher job performance, job satisfaction, and organisational citizenship
behaviour, and lower turnover intentions (Morrison, 1993; Whitaker et al., 2007). What
influences people to engage in this behaviour? Thus far this question has mostly been
answered by focussing on characteristics of the individual seeker (Ashford et al., 2003).
The purpose of this study was to increase our understanding of the role an individuals
context may also play. This study focussed on job characteristics and in particular the
job dimensions of the JCM. Consistent with the feedback-seeking model (Ashford and
Cummings, 1983), skill variety and task significance were proposed to increase
feedback-seeking behaviour by increasing the benefit of seeking feedback. Autonomy

SD

Min

Max

0.008 2 0.047 ( )
0.025
0.081
0.111 (0.71)

()
20.114 ( )

0.155

0.189 *

0.007

0.123

0.104 0.259 * *

0.195 *

0.053 2 0.021

0.159 0.183

10

0.230 *

11

0.285 * * (0.68)

0.374 * * * (0.76)

20.026 0.267 * * (0.74)

(0.71)
0.124 (0.77)

0.016 0.402 * * * 0.376 * * * 20.093 0.182

0.031 2 0.041 2 0.144 0.385 * * * 0.328 * * *

20.105

0.014
0.094
0.066 2 0.042 0.518 * * * (0.77)
0.132
2 0.206 * 20.059 2 0.036 2 0.058 0.160
0.041
0.109
0.062 0.479 * * * 0.225 *
2 0.251 * *

2 0.036
2 0.012

(0.75)
0.113
2 0.194 *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001; values in parentheses along the diagonal are Cronbachs coefficient alphas. Descriptive statistics and Cronbachs
coefficient alpha are not provided for gender because it is a categorical variable; Cronbachs coefficient alphas are not provided for age and organizational
tenure because these variables were measured with single items

1. Feedbackseeking
behaviour
4.32 1.22 1.5
6.67
2. Gender

3. Age
31.78 5.17 23
49
4. Organizational
tenure
3.84 2.81 0.17 12.17
5. Skill variety
5.31 1.06 2.33 7
6. Task
significance
5.07 1.34 1.67 7
7. Task identity
5.01 1.25 1.33 7
8. Autonomy
5.15 1.16 1
7
9. Feedback from
the job
4.75 1.14 1.33 7
10. Feedback from
agents
4.75 1.22 2
7
11. Feedback from
others
5.88 1.03 3
7

Variable

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
59

Table I.
Intercorrelations,
reliabilities, and
descriptive statistics

PR
42,1

60

Independent variable
Step 1 Control variables
Gender
Age
Organizational tenure
Adjusted r-squared (%)
Step 2 Job characteristics
Skill variety
Task significance
Task identity
Autonomy
Job feedback
Feedback from agents
Feedback from others
Adjusted r-squared (%)

Table II.
Hierarchical multiple
linear regression results

Hypothesis

Total adjusted r-squared (%)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Standardized beta coefficient Squared partial correlation

(b)
(sr2)
0.092
2 0.186
2 0.046
2.2

0.01
0.03
0.00

0.065
2 0.039
2 0.203 *
2 0.293 * *
2 0.009
0.223 *
0.109
11.3

0.00
0.00
0.04
0.06
0.00
0.03
0.01

13.5

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

was proposed to decrease feedback-seeking behaviour by increasing the costs of

seeking feedback. Task identity, job feedback, feedback from agents, and feedback
from others were proposed to decrease feedback-seeking behaviour by decreasing the
benefit of seeking feedback. Results showed that three of the seven job dimensions
task identity, autonomy, and feedback from agents significantly impacted peoples
feedback-seeking behaviour and explained 11.3 per cent of the variance. These findings
demonstrate that the context within which people are situated at work bares an
important and discernable impact on their propensity to proactively seek feedback
about their job performance.
Not all of the hypotheses put forward in this study were supported. Skill variety
was predicted to increase feedback-seeking behaviour however no significant
relationship was found. It could be that if people in high skill variety jobs have been
performing their varied activities for a long period of time, they become adjusted and
do not experience heightened levels of uncertainty. It could also be that it is the depth
or difficulty of tasks rather than the breadth or variety that generates uncertainty[1].
Future research should examine the interaction between skill variety and tenure on
feedback-seeking behaviour as well as the influence of task depth or difficulty.
Task significance was also predicted to increase feedback-seeking behaviour
however no significant relationship was found. It could be that because people in high
task significance jobs find their work to be so meaningful, they are more sensitive to
receiving negative feedback in response to seeking. As such, the increase to the benefit
of seeking feedback caused by task significance may be neutralized by a simultaneous
increase to the self costs. Future research should examine the role of costs and benefits
in mediating a relationship between task significance and feedback-seeking behaviour.
As predicted, task identity decreased feedback-seeking behaviour. It appears that
the more people see a visible outcome and are involved in an entire process, the better

able they are to self-assess the quality of their work without requiring additional
feedback.
As predicted, autonomy decreased feedback-seeking behaviour. It appears that the
more authority people have to make their own decisions, the more concerned they are
that seeking feedback will harm their self-concept and public image.
Contrary to what was predicted, feedback from agents increased feedback-seeking
behaviour rather than decreasing it. One possible explanation is that this relationship
is reflecting the motivational properties of received feedback in addition to its
uncertainty reduction properties (Ilgen et al., 1979). That is, the more feedback people
passively receive from supervisors and co-workers, the more their uncertainty is
reduced, but also the more motivated they become to increase their job performance.
As a result, they value and seek feedback more in order to achieve this objective. For
example, Ashford (1986) showed that the greater importance people place on the
attainment of goals, the more they value feedback. Surprisingly, the effect of feedback
from agents was not mirrored by feedback from the job and feedback from others.
Another possible explanation is that unsolicited feedback people passively receive
from supervisors is a form of supportiveness which Williams et al. (1999) showed
increases feedback-seeking behaviour. This may explain why passively received
feedback from supervisors only that is, feedback from agents positively influenced
feedback-seeking behaviour whereas feedback from the job and feedback from others
did not[2]. Future research should examine these alternative explanations.
Thus, in summary, the results of this study show that the more a job is structured to
contain task identity and autonomy, the less people seek feedback and the more it
contains feedback from agents, the more people seek feedback. By contrast, the extent
to which a job contains skill variety, task significance, feedback from the job, and
feedback from others does not impact feedback-seeking behaviour.
6.2 Limitations
Despite its findings, this study is not without its limitations. First, since the data were
self-reported, there is a chance respondents were biased in providing their responses. In
order to reduce the likelihood of this occurring, several of Podsakoff et al.s (2003)
procedural remedies were implemented. First, respondents were promised that their
involvement in the survey and all of their responses would be kept strictly confidential.
Second, they were told that there are no right or wrong answers. Third, they were
asked to respond honestly to all the survey items.
A second limitation is that there is a chance the relationships were influenced by
common method bias. In order to reduce the likelihood of this occurring, Podsakoff
et al.s (2003) procedural remedy of ordering the dependent variables before the
independent variables was followed. Thus, in the survey, the feedback-seeking items
appeared before the JCM items. In addition, Podsakoff and Organs (1986) statistical
remedy of carrying out a Harmons one-factor test was followed. When all 30 items
representing ten variables were entered into a factor analysis, the unrotated factor
solution showed ten factors with eigenvalues greater than one that explained 70.8 per
cent of the total variance[3]. The amount of variance explained by any one factor
ranged from 3.5 to 17.9 per cent. Therefore, no single factor emerged and no general
factor accounted for a majority of the variance[4]. Thus, while common method bias

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
61

PR
42,1

62

cannot be ruled out completely, the results of the Harmons one-factor test suggest it
was not present in the data.
A third limitation of the study is that the data were collected cross-sectionally.
Causal research requires that the independent variable occur prior to the dependent
variable (Shadish et al., 2001). While it is logical to assume that job characteristics
precede feedback-seeking behaviour, causation can only be inferred from the
relationships found in the data. Future research should retest the hypotheses using a
design that allows causality to be more conclusively determined such as a lab
experiment or longitudinal field survey.
6.3 Future research directions
In addition to the avenues for future research already suggested, several others are
recommended. First, researchers should examine the influence of other contextual
variables on feedback-seeking behaviour and in particular the influence of other job
characteristics. These could include task interdependence (Kiggundu, 1981) as well as
the social and relational dimensions of jobs (Grant et al., 2010).
Second, researchers should validate that the costs and benefits proposed to explain
the relationship between the job dimensions and feedback-seeking behaviour in fact do.
Such efforts would add strength to the theoretical arguments put forward in this paper.
Third, researchers should examine whether and how individual dispositions and
attitudes interact with job characteristics to influence feedback-seeking behaviour. In
terms of attitudes, researchers should consider job satisfaction as well as growth need
strength; the latter especially, because it is an essential component of the JCM and
moderates each of the job dimensions effects[5]. In terms of individual dispositions,
some variables may moderate existing relationships. For example, the negative
relationship between autonomy and feedback-seeking behaviour may be weakened by
people with a high learning orientation because such persons have been shown to
perceive lower costs (VandeWalle and Cummings, 1997). Other variables may activate
otherwise non-relationships. For example, a positive relationship between task
significance and feedback-seeking behaviour might occur for people who rank high on
empathy because such persons should more greatly internalize the sense of
meaningfulness activated by this job characteristic.
6.4 Practical implications
This study identified three job characteristics that influence feedback-seeking
behaviour. Each of these relationships suggests a unique set of implications for
organisations interested in promoting feedback-seeking behaviour in the workplace.
The relationship between task identity and feedback-seeking presents a situation
where people seek feedback less frequently because they appear to have a lower
requirement for it (i.e. lower benefit). People in high task identity jobs are better able to
self-assess the quality of their work and therefore have a lower need for additional,
outside feedback whether proactively sought or passively received. For this job
characteristic, therefore, organisations should understand that the lack of
feedback-seeking behaviour is not indicative of something detrimental and allow it
to proceed without remediation.
The relationship between autonomy and feedback-seeking behaviour also presents
a situation where people seek feedback less frequently but for a different reason. Here,

individuals appear to have greater concerns that their self-concept and public image
will be adversely affected (i.e. higher costs). For this job characteristic, therefore,
organisations should take corrective action. One approach could be to provide people in
high autonomy jobs with more unsolicited feedback so they are less dependent on
acquiring feedback through seeking alone. Other approaches that have been shown to
alleviate the costs of seeking feedback and may be applicable here are establishing
norms that feedback-seeking behaviour is an acceptable practice (Ashford and
Northcraft, 1992) and having individuals supervisors practice considerate and
transformational leadership styles (Madzar, 2001; VandeWalle et al., 2000).
The relationship between feedback from agents and feedback-seeking behaviour
presents a situation where people seek feedback more frequently rather than less. One
reason could be that they are more motivated by the feedback they passively receive
from supervisors and co-workers (i.e. higher benefit). Another reason could be that the
feedback they passively receive from supervisors is a form of supportiveness which
lowers their public image concerns (i.e. lower cost). For this job characteristic,
therefore, organisations should ensure that sufficient resources are in place to handle
the greater volume of feedback-seeking behaviour that will occur. It will be important
to prevent people from feeling obstructed from seeking feedback which Walsh et al.
(1985, p. 23) showed can cause people to have higher nervousness, anxiety, and
turnover intentions.
Finally, the findings of this study have implications for organisations interested in
pursuing job redesign efforts in order to benefit from the outcomes of the JCM such as
more intrinsically motivated staff. In deciding whether and how to pursue such efforts,
organisations should consider the effects adjusting job characteristics may have on
feedback-seeking behaviour.
Notes
1. The author wishes to thank the anonymous review who made this suggestion.
2. The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewer who made this suggestion.
3. The 30 items and ten variables are: gender (1 item), age (1 item), organizational tenure (1
item), skill variety (3 items), task identity (3 items), task significance (3 items), autonomy (3
items), feedback from the job (3 items), feedback from agents (3 items), feedback from others
(3 items), feedback-seeking behaviour (6 items).
4. A majority of the variance would have been more than 70.8%/2 35.4%.
5. The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewer who made this suggestion.
References
Ashford, S. (1986), Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: a resource perspective,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 465-87.
Ashford, S. (1993), The feedback environment: an exploratory study of cue use, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 201-24.
Ashford, S. and Cummings, L. (1983), Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of
creating information, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 370-98.
Ashford, S. and Cummings, L. (1985), Proactive feedback seeking: the instrumental use of the
information environment, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 67-79.

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
63

PR
42,1

64

Ashford, S. and Northcraft, G. (1992), Conveying more (or less) than we realize: the role of
impression-management in feedback-seeking, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 310-34.
Ashford, S., Blatt, R. and VandeWalle, D. (2003), Reflections through the looking glass: a review
of research on feedback-seeking behaviour in organizations, Journal of Management,
Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 773-9.
Campion, M. and McClelland, C. (1991), Interdisciplinary examination of the costs and benefits
of enlarged jobs: a job design quasi-experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76
No. 2, pp. 186-98.
Dobbins, G., Cardy, R. and Platz-Vieno, D. (1990), A contingency approach to appraisal
satisfaction: an initial investigation of the joint effects of organizational variables and
appraisal characteristics, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 619-33.
Dwyer, D. and Fox, M. (2006), The relationship between job demands and key performance
indicators: moderating effects of job resources in call centers, Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 127-46.
Earley, P., Northcraft, G., Lee, C. and Lituchy, T. (1990), Impact of process and outcome
feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
Fedor, D., Rensvold, R. and Adams, S. (1992), An investigation of factors expected to affect
feedback seeking: a longitudinal field study, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 779-805.
Fisher, C. (1979), Transmission of positive and negative feedback to subordinates: a laboratory
investigation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 533-40.
Funder, D. (2001), Personality, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 197-221.
Grant, A. (2008), The significance of task significance: job performance effects, relational
mechanisms, and boundary conditions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1,
pp. 108-24.
Grant, A., Fried, Y., Parker, S. and Frese, M. (2010), Putting job design in context: introduction to
the special issue, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 145-57.
Greller, M. and Herold, D. (1975), Sources of feedback: a preliminary investigation,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 244-56.
Gupta, A., Govindarajan, V. and Malhotra, A. (1999), Feedback-seeking within multinational
corporations, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 205-22.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1976), Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-79.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Hong, Y. and Chiu, C. (1992), A study of the comparative structure of guilt and shame in Chinese
society, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 2, pp. 171-9.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D., Glaser, J., Angerer, P. and Weigl, M. (2010), Beyond top-down and
bottom-up work redesign: customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 187-215.
Ilgen, D., Fisher, C. and Taylor, M. (1979), Consequences of individual feedback on behaviour in
organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-71.
Johns, G. (2010), Some unintended consequences of job design, Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 361-9.

Kiggundu, M. (1981), Task interdependence and the theory of job design, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 499-508.
Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1994), The influence of coworker feedback on salespeople, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 82-94.
Krasman, J. (2010), The feedback-seeking personality: big five and feedback-seeking
behaviour, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 18-32.
Langfred, C. and Moye, N. (2004), Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model
considering motivation, informational, and structural mechanisms, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 934-45.
Lawler, E. and Hall, D. (1970), Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement,
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 305-12.
London, M., Larsen, H. and Thisted, L. (1999), Relationships between feedback and
self-development, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Madzar, S. (2001), Subordinates information inquiry: exploring the effect of perceived
leadership style and individual differences, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 221-32.
Miller, D. and Karakowsky, L. (2005), Gender influences as an impediment to knowledge
sharing: when men and women fail to seek peer feedback, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 139
No. 2, pp. 101-18.
Morrison, E. (1993), Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and
outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 557-89.
Oldham, G. and Hackman, J. (2010), Not what it was and not what it will be: the future of job
design research, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 463-79.
Pitkanen, H. and Lukka, K. (2011), Three dimensions of formal and informal feedback in
management accounting, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 125-37.
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986), Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-44.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. (2003), Common method biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Ramaswami, S., Agarwal, S. and Bhargava, M. (1993), Work alienation of marketing employees:
influence of task, supervisory, and organizational structure factors, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 179-93.
Roberson, L., Deitch, E., Brief, A. and Block, C. (2003), Stereotype threat and feedback seeking in
the workplace, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 62, pp. 176-88.
Rousseau, D. and Fried, Y. (2001), Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational
research, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Saavedra, R. and Kwun, S. (2000), Affective states in job characteristics theory, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 131-46.
Shadish, W., Cook, T. and Campbell, D. (2001), Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for
Generalized Causal Inference, Houghton Mifflin, New York, NY.
Singh, J. (1998), Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some
unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of
salespeople, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 69-86.

Putting
feedback-seeking
into context
65

PR
42,1

66

Sternberg, R. and Vroom, V. (2002), The person versus the situation in leadership, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 301-23.
Terborg, J., Richardson, P. and Pritchard, R. (1980), Person-situation effects in the prediction of
performance: an investigation of ability, self-esteem, and reward contingencies, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 5, pp. 574-83.
Tolli, A. and Schmidt, A. (2008), The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in
goal revision, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, pp. 692-701.
VandeWalle, D. and Cummings, L. (1997), A test of the influence of goal orientation in the
feedback seeking process, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 390-400.
VandeWalle, D., Ganesan, S., Challagalla, G. and Brown, S. (2000), An integrated model of
feedback-seeking behaviour: disposition, context, and cognition, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 996-1003.
Walsh, J., Ashford, S. and Hill, T. (1985), Feedback obstruction: the influence of the information
environment on employee turnover intentions, Human Relations, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Whitaker, B., Dahling, J. and Levy, P. (2007), The development of a feedback environment and
role clarity model of job performance, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 570-91.
Williams, J., Miller, C., Steelman, L. and Levy, P. (1999), Increasing feedback seeking in public
contexts: it takes two (or more) to tango, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 6,
pp. 969-76.
About the author
Dr Joe Krasman is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Business and Information
Technology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. His areas of specialisation are
human resources management, organisational behaviour and general management. Joe Krasman
can be contacted at: joseph.krasman@uoit.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints