Search results

Following the call of DeNisi and Smith Sockbeson (this issue) to integrate the literatures on feedback and feedback-seeking, the authors propose to view feedback and feedback-seeking as behaviors falling on a conversation continuum ranging from telling subordinates something about their behavior (feedback) to listening. The authors develop a model according to which listening creates a special type of supervisor–subordinate relationship (an I–thou experience), which in turn allows subordinates to recognize faults and strengths in their behavior as to facilitate performance improvement, without the costs of formal feedback.

Theory development and narrative research review.

Feedback and feedback-seeking are communication behaviors emitted by a supervisor, or a subordinate, that can be conceptualized as points on a continuum ranging from telling (i.e. supervisor or subordinate giving feedback), through question-asking (i.e. supervisor’s or subordinate’s feedback-seeking), to listening (e.g. supervisor or subordinate listening to one another).

Under many circumstances, listening can address organizational needs much better than feedback.

The feedforward interview in Listening Circles can be used to enhance performance at work.

Shifting the attention from feedback to listening by managers and researchers could facilitate a host of positive outcomes including better performance, lower burnout, higher job satisfaction and less extremism.

This paper shows that listening is found on the other pole of feedback (telling) and exposes the benefits of considering listening, and not only telling.

Atendiendo a la llamada de DeNisi y Smith Sockbeson (este número) para integrar las literaturas de feedback y búsqueda de feedback, ofrecemos algunas aportaciones teóricas que extienden el estudio del fenómeno en cuestión. Nuestro objetivo con esta contribución es la de señalar formas más efectivas, aunque largamente ignoradas, de mejorar la comunicación supervisor-subordinado, y el rendimiento resultante.

Sugerimos dos cambios teóricos a la hora de aproximarse al feedback y la búsqueda de feedback: viéndolos como un proceso de comunicación relacional (diádico), y ampliando los comportamientos de comunicación para incluir la escucha. A continuación revisamos los resultados existentes para evaluar nuestra teoría.

Nuestra teoría sugiere que el feedback y la búsqueda de feedback son comportamientos son parte de un continuo que va desde el decir a los subordinados algo sobre su comportamiento (feedback) hasta la escucha. Con esta visión, la escucha crea un tipo especial de relación supervisor-subordinado conocido como experiencia yo-tu, mientras que el feedback es más probable que genere una experiencia yo-eso, en la que el supervisor trata al subordinado como un objeto. La experiencia yo-tu, por el contrario, permite a los subordinados reconocer las debilidades y fortalezas de su comportamiento sin necesidad de un feedback formal. Además, el modelo teórico especifica condiciones de contorno. Específicamente, los beneficios de escuchar (a) se manifiestan principalmente cuando supervisor y subordinado forma una relación sobre una base segura, y (b) se ven comprometidos cuando las partes se relacionan de forma insegura.

La revisión de la literatura confirma los beneficios de escuchar, en relación al feedback y el feedback buscado, pero sugiere que el papel del estilo de relación es más complejo que el planteado en el modelo teórico.

Teóricamente, explicamos porqué el feedback, y en menor medida el grado de feedback buscado, crean problemas de comunicación que evitan que el rendimiento mejore. En la práctica, señalamos algunas técnicas para escuchar al empleado, tales como los círculos de escucha, y la entrevista de feedforward, que pueden mejorar la comunicación y en definitiva el rendimiento.

Feedback, Búsqueda de Feedback, Escuchar

Papel Conceptual

Atendendo a chamada de Denisi e Smith Sockbeson (este número) para integrar as literaturas sobre feedback e a busca do feedback, oferecemos propostas teóricas que expandem o estudo do fenômeno considerado. Nosso objetivo nesta proposta teórica é apontar mais eficácia, embora amplamente ignorada, de maneiras para melhorar a comunicação supervisor-subordinado e o desempenho resultante.

Sugerimos duas mudanças teóricas na aproximação do feedback e da busca do feedback: visualização do feedback e da busca do feedback como processos relacionais (diádica) de comunicação, e ampliando os mecanismos de comunicação para incluir a escuta. Revisamos os resultados existentes para avaliar nossa teoria.

Nossa teoria sugere que o feedback e a busca por feedback são comportamentos que fazem parte de um continuo que surge ao dizer aos subordinados algo sobre seu comportamento (feedback) para ouvir. Com essa visão, a escuta cria um tipo especial de relacionamento supervisor-subordinado conhecido como experiência eu-você, enquanto o feedback provavelmente gera uma experiência eu-isso, em que o supervisor trata o subordinado como um objeto. A experiência eu-tu, por outro lado, permite que os subordinados reconheçam as fraquezas e os pontos fortes do seu comportamento sem a necessidade de feedback formal. Além disso, o modelo teórico especifica as condições de contorno. Especificamente, os benefícios de ouvir(a) são manifestados principalmente quando supervisor e subordinado formam um relacionamento em uma base segura, e (b) comprometida quando as partes estão inseguramente anexadas.

A revisão da literatura confirma os benefícios de escutar, em relação ao feedback e o feedback procurado, mas sugere que o papel do estilo do relacionamento é mais complexo do que aquele proposto no modelo teórico.

Teoricamente, explicamos por que o feedback, e em menor medida o nível de feedback procurado, cria problemas de comunicação que impedem a melhoraria do desempenho. Na prática, nós apontamos algumas técnicas para escutar o subordinado, tal como círculos de escuta, e a entrevista de Feedforward, que pode melhorar a comunicação e finalmente o desempenho.

Feedback, Busca de feedback, Escutar

Papel conceitual

This conceptual article develops a theory-based set of themes that characterize how a leader and member interact based on their attachment style, motivation to lead and follow and their interpersonal orientation.

This study proposes that the leader's and member's attachment styles, effectuated by their motivation to lead and/or follow and their interpersonal orientation, determine the emergence of primary (most frequently occurring) and secondary (less frequently occurring) leader–member relationship (LMR) themes.

The themes are labelled mutual affirmation, control, prestige, mutual indifference, conflict, imbalance and co-dependence. The article describes how these seven themes are grounded in their own streams of research, including leader–member exchange (LMX) as the basis for the first three, and how the themes vary in behaviors that generate the operational outcomes of psychological safety, proactivity and functionality, which, in turn, yield performance outcomes. Performance outcomes affect the leader's and member's perceptions of their relationship and their anticipation for the future. Leader–member similarity, situational pressures and perceptions of others' relationships moderate LMR development.

Each theme reflects a pattern of interactions that produces degrees of psychological safety felt by the leader and member, proactivity of the leader and member to devote energy to their relationship and how well the leader and member function together. The behaviors, in turn, influence how the leader and member perceive each other and themselves and their anticipation for the future of the relationship.

The model can be used by organizational development and human resource professionals to assess leader–member dyads and train leaders and members to be aware of factors that influence their relationship and how these factors affect performance outcomes.

The model contributes to the literature on leader–member relationships by suggesting a theory-based set of themes that characterize how the leader and team member interact and how their relationship develops.

Replication is a primary self-correction device in science. In this paper, we have two aims: to examine how and when the results of replications are used in management and organization research and to use the results of this examination to offer guidelines for improving the self-correction process.

Study 1 analyzes co-citation patterns for 135 original-replication pairs to assess the direct impact of replications, specifically examining how often and when a replication study is co-cited with its original. In Study 2, a similar design is employed to measure the indirect impact of replications by assessing how often and when a meta-analysis that includes a replication of the original study is co-cited with the original study.

Study 1 reveals, among other things, that a huge majority (92%) of sources that cite the original study fail to co-cite a replication study, thus calling into question the impact of replications in our field. Study 2 shows that the indirect impact of replications through meta-analyses is likewise minimal. However, our analyses also show that replications published in the same journal that carried the original study and authored by teams including the authors of the original study are more likely to be co-cited, and that articles in higher-ranking journals are more likely to co-cite replications.

We use our results to formulate recommendations that would streamline the self-correction process in management research at the author-, reviewer- and journal-level. Our recommendations would create incentives to make replication attempts more common, while also increasing the likelihood that these attempts are targeted at the most relevant original studies.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the independent and joint effects of regulatory focus (promotion and prevention) on the relationship between workplace resources (support and feedback) and employee resilience. It proposed that, at high levels of resource availability, a high promotion-high prevention profile would elicit the highest levels of employee resilience.

An online survey was completed by 162 white collar employees from four organisations. In addition to the main effects, two- and three-way interactions were examined to test hypotheses.

Promotion focus was positively associated with employee resilience, and though the relationship between prevention focus and resilience was non-significant, both regulatory foci buffered against the negative effects of low resources. Employees with high promotion-high prevention focus displayed the highest levels of resilience, especially at high levels of feedback. Conversely, the resilience of low promotion-low prevention individuals was susceptible to feedback availability.

Employee resilience development and demonstration are contingent not only on resources, but also on psychological processes, particularly regulatory focus. Organisations will develop resilience to the extent that they provide workplace resources, and, importantly, stimulate both promotion and prevention perspectives on resource management.

This study extends the research on regulatory focus theory by testing the joint effects of promotion and prevention foci on workplace resources, and the relationship between regulatory foci and employee resilience.