Search results

Customers' co-design behavior is an important source of knowledge for product innovation. Firms can regulate the focus of information interaction with customers to set goals and motivate their co-design behavior. Drawing on regulatory fit theory and construal level theory, the authors build a research model to study whether the fit between the regulatory focus of firms' task invitations (promotion focus vs prevention focus) and their feedback focus (self-focused vs other-focused) can enhance co-design behavior by improving customers' experiences (perceived meaning, active discovery and perceived empowerment).

The authors conducted two online between-subjects experiments to validate the proposed research model.

The two online experiments reveal that customers' experiences are enhanced when the feedback focus is congruent with the regulatory focus of the firm's task invitations. Specifically, self-focused feedback has a stronger positive effect on customers' experiences in the prevention focus context. Other-focused feedback has a stronger positive effect on customers' experiences in the promotion focus context. Moreover, customers' experience significantly and positively affects co-design behavior (i.e. co-design effort and knowledge contribution).

This work provides theoretical and practical implications for firms to improve the effectiveness of information interaction with their customers and eventually ensure the sustainability of co-design.

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.

This study investigates how a firm's regulatory focus (i.e. promotion and prevention foci) affects growth- and efficiency-oriented strategic change, highlighting the role of organizational-level regulatory focus as a cognitive frame within which to interpret performance feedback and its subsequent effects on strategic decisions.

The authors collected longitudinal data on 98 S&P 500 manufacturing firms for a seven-year period. The panel data, which includes texts from the firms' 10-K filings, were then analyzed using a feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regression estimator to test the authors’ hypotheses.

A firm's strategic change orientation is affected by its regulatory focus and performance feedback: a promotion focus increases the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change, while a prevention focus favors efficiency-oriented strategic change. Furthermore, both foci moderate the effect of performance feedback on the strategic change orientation: under negative performance feedback, a promotion (prevention) focus increases (decreases) the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change relative to that of efficiency-oriented change. The findings provide robust evidence that regulatory focus can influence how organizations learn from feedback and formulate strategic change.

The authors’ examination of regulatory focus and organizational learning process relied on large manufacturing firms in the USA. However, learning process could be quite different in small and/or young firms. Future work should expand to a wider range of organizational types, such as nascent entrepreneurial ventures. In addition, the authors’ measurement of regulatory focus using corporate text has inherent weakness and could be supplemented with alternative research methods, such as surveys, interviews or experiments. All in all, however, the findings of this study offer a novel behavioral perspective while demonstrating that a regulatory focus is an important antecedent of organizational learning.

This study highlights the importance of motivational characteristics of the top managers in the process of organizational learning from performance feedback. Furthermore, recruitment of a new top manager should be aligned with the organizational context, values and goals. In addition, corporate governance systems such as managerial compensation schemes need to be carefully designed so as to maximize organizational resilience, especially in the context of performance downturn or environmental change. Establishing a constructive organizational culture so that strategic decisions are not overly swayed by the performance outcomes would also be crucial to the organizational learning process.

This study highlights the importance of understanding the motivational orientations of top managers in organizational learning. In terms of managerial compensation, for instance, an optimal incentive system should reflect the desired performance output by encouraging managerial behavior that corresponds to its objective. Furthermore, motivational orientation of new recruits should be considered in the context of the composition of the top management team members in order to achieve “optimal fit.” In addition, this study suggests that top executives' regulatory focus can be a key factor for organizations in balancing goals of different value orientations.

The findings of this study demonstrated that a firm-level regulatory focus has a significant effect on organizational learning and strategic change following performance feedback. The authors hope this study provides an impetus for future discussions on the microcognitive mechanisms of organizational learning by exploring the relations between organizations' regulatory foci, performance feedback and strategic change orientations.

The purpose of this study is twofold: to analyze sales managers’ person-focused and process-focused supervisory feedback as a potential goal-orientation antecedent, and to examine the relationship between different types of sales personnel goal orientations and two aspects of job performance: behavior-based and outcome-based. Based on previous sales motivation research, the authors look at the antecedents and outcomes of sales representatives’ goal orientation.

A cross-sectional survey design was used with a sample consisting of 326 pairs of sales reps and their supervisors. Average sales position tenure was 5.30 years.

Sales representatives’ performance-prove goal orientation (PPGO) can be triggered by positive person-focused feedback from their managers, and performance-avoid goal orientation (PAGO) can be triggered by negative person-focused feedback. A learning goal orientation (LGO) can be triggered by positive process-focused feedback. The authors also found that when job performance is broken down into outcome-based and behavior-based components, the process by which goal orientation influences performance is more easily determined. PPGO sales reps in the sample clearly focused more on outcome-based performance, while PAGO sales reps focused on behavior-based performance. LGO was only associated with behavior-based performance among the respondents, meaning that it cannot be used as a predictor of outcome-based performance.

First, a cross-sectional design may not be the best method for judging variable directions of causality. A longitudinal method is recommended for more detailed research. Second, the variance the authors noted in the three goal orientations may be due to impression management. Previous researchers have not addressed response bias regarding goal orientation; future researchers may want to add social desire response items to control for response bias from impression management.

The findings can help sales managers understand how their feedback styles can result in different types of goal orientation and different effort allocation in their sales staff. Managers interested in developing PPGO sales reps should offer more whole-person praise. Since negative person-focused feedback can trigger more conservative behaviors, they should use other approaches to criticizing their employees. If their goal is to promote individual learning in sales personnel, they will want to give process-focused feedback, either positive or negative.

This study contributes to the literature on the external influences of goal orientation, especially the effects of social (rather than institutional) factors in manager feedback on goal orientations among their sales staffs. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to study relationships between three types of goal orientations and various performance dimensions. The data clarify the links between two types of performance (outcome- and behavior-based) and three types of goal orientations (PPGO, PAGO and LGO).

The purpose of this study is to investigate when and why supervisor negative feedback is associated with employees' job performance via two different pathways (i.e. emotion-focused coping and problem-focused coping) and to introduce proactive personality as a moderator.

Time-lagged data were collected using a field survey research design. Participants included 389 dyads of employees and their direct supervisors from five companies in China.

Supervisor negative feedback can lead to employees' emotion-focused coping, which in turn impairs their job performance. Meanwhile, supervisor negative feedback can trigger employees’ problem-focused coping, which subsequently promotes their job performance. Furthermore, proactive personality moderates the indirect effect of supervisor negative feedback on employee performance through emotion-focused coping.

This study explored the double-edged effects of supervisor negative feedback on employee job performance from a coping strategy perspective and investigated how proactive personality influences the choice of coping strategies.

In this chapter, we present a theory on how organizational performance feedback influences individual decision-maker cognitions and thereby changes a team’s attention focus in terms of strategy. We argue that when performance compares unfavorably to aspiration levels, decision-makers reconsider current strategies in favor of unfamiliar, uncertain ones and become more risk tolerant. Furthermore, as decision-makers devote additional cognitive resources to do so, changes in attention focus in a decision-making team will be observed. Using data from a business simulation and repeated questionnaires, we capture the teams’ attention focus and the organizational performance feedback evaluation process of the individuals and teams.

This study examines the influence of different user innovator mindsets on new product development (NPD) performance. The current research explores the relative impact of a product-focused user innovator mindset vs a customer-focused mindset on feedback volume and feedback diversity and investigates the effect of each type of feedback on product improvement and product diffusion.

This study examines these relationships using two distinct types of data. Data on user innovator mindset, feedback characteristics and user innovator improvisation were obtained via an online survey. Archival data on NPD performance measures were acquired directly from an online research database, and results were obtained using confirmatory factor analysis.

The authors find that while neither type of user innovator mindset directly influences NPD performance, user innovators, who are highly customer-focused, have a significant advantage in sourcing knowledge from users in the form of a higher volume of feedback and more diverse feedback. In turn, feedback volume appears to positively influence product improvement, while feedback diversity positively influences product diffusion. Finally, the effect of both types of feedback on product improvement is enhanced for user innovators who are highly improvisational.

This research highlights the important role that customer focus plays in directly obtaining knowledge from customers (i.e. customer feedback) and the effects of that feedback on NPD performance. This study provides evidence that a user innovator's interest in accurately understanding the needs of their peers improves their access to external knowledge and enhances their innovation efforts.

Scholars in the feedback seeking domain have predominantly focused on subordinate feedback seeking. The authors still know very little about feedback seeking when the leader is the “seeker” and subordinates are the “targets” of such seeking. This paper aims to develop a theoretical framework that explores the potential benefits and costs of leader feedback seeking, specifically, leader feedback inquiry for subordinates.

The authors draw upon the transactional theory of stress to propose a framework in which leader feedback inquiry influences two subordinate behaviors (in-role and proactive skill development behaviors) via appraisal processes (challenge and threat appraisals). With insights from regulatory focus theory, the authors propose that individual characteristics, namely, the regulatory focus of subordinates (promotion and prevention focus), determine the appraisals of leader feedback inquiry, subsequently influencing subordinate behavioral outcomes.

The authors contend that leader feedback inquiry can be appraised as a challenge which then produces beneficial subordinate behaviors (i.e. higher in-role and proactive skill development behaviors). However, leader feedback inquiry can also be appraised as a threat which then elicits detrimental subordinate behaviors (i.e. lower in-role and proactive skill development behaviors). The authors then argue that subordinates with a high promotion focus appraise leader feedback inquiry as challenging, thereby enabling beneficial behaviors. Subordinates with a high prevention focus, by contrast, appraise leader feedback inquiry as threatening, thereby prompting detrimental behaviors.

The authors shed light on the benefits and costs of leader feedback seeking for subordinates. The resulting framework underlines the importance of including individual characteristics and cognitive appraisal processes in research investigating the effects of leader feedback inquiry on subordinate outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how dominant social practices embedded in situated report‐writing activities in an automotive discourse community in South Africa causally shape component engineers' perceptions of literacy. The study explores how the dominant practices of supervisor feedback and report acceptance causally impact on effective report‐writing perceptions during report text production.

Critical ethnography is the preferred methodology as it explores cultural orientations of local practice contexts and incorporates multiple understandings to provide a holistic understanding of the complexity of writing practices. This study focuses on data collected during two interviews and a focus group discussion with four L2 component engineers as well as the questionnaires their two L1 supervisors completed.

The engineers tended to measure or associate literacy and effective writing standards with supervisor feedback practices. These feedback practices interacted causally with the meanings or associations, the participants gave to or associated with literacy and their report‐writing competency. As a consequence, literacy was often described in terms of correct wording or terminology, grammatical correctness, spelling, sentence structures or styles in reports as determined by their supervisors during feedback practices, rather than report content, structure or technical details.

The participants constructed literacy in terms of correct language, word and spelling use and focused on linguistic errors in their report writing. They tended to perceive rhetoric and engineering discourse as separate entities rather than rhetorically constructed contextual knowledge. Language problems were usually attributed to human being inefficiencies and L1 standards rather than the individual creation of knowledge.

This paper not only impacts causally on engineering workplace writing practices but on higher education and future report‐writing practices. Digital technologies and systems will increasingly impact on report‐writing practices, what constitutes contextual knowledge and acceptable literacies as varied and different audiences define acceptable writing practices.

The paper shows that on‐the‐job writing research is limited and research that has been done often focuses on criteria for good writing as defined by experts in the field. If all workplace writing‐practice research adopts this expert view, it offers no insight and understanding into what implicitly and explicitly guides writers. Writing‐practice research also needs to focus on the voices of writers so that the influence of human social behaviour on these practices can be understood.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the teachers implemented innovative feedback approaches in their writing classroom and the extent to which the innovative feedback approaches impacted upon student attitude and performance in writing. In the writing classroom, teacher feedback serves as an assessment as well as a pedagogical tool to enhance the teaching and learning of writing. While there is no shortage of literature on the topic of feedback per se, there is scant research on teachers’ attempts to implement change to conventional feedback practices, as well as the impact of such feedback innovation on student learning. Drawing on data gathered from individual teacher interviews, student questionnaires, student focus group interviews, pre-and post-writing tests and classroom observations, this study seeks to explore two teachers’ change initiative in their writing feedback approaches.

The study used multiple sources of data including individual teacher interviews, student questionnaires and student focus group.

The results suggest that the innovative feedback approaches helped to enhance the motivation and writing performance of the students. The paper concludes with implications and insights to help teachers implement similar feedback innovations in their contexts.

First, the findings suggest that focused written corrective feedback is a viable option for responding to student writing, especially for low proficiency students in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Second, teachers might consider the option of removal or delay in the reporting of scores, where appropriate. Third, more intensive training might be necessary to help students improve their peer evaluation skills and their ability to write more constructive comments for their peers.

The significance of the study lies in the contribution it can make to existing writing feedback research that pays insufficient attention to teacher feedback in real classroom contexts, uncovering the process through which teachers attempt to bring improvement to conventional feedback practices, as well as the impact of feedback innovation on student learning in naturally occurring classroom contexts.