1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
  4. Volume 12, 2025
  5. Article

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior

Volume 12, 2025

A 25-Year Review of Research on Feedback in Organizations: From Simple Rules to Complex Realities

Abstract

Reviewing 25 years of research, we observed that the science of feedback at work is not yet a story of coherent and cumulative progress. Feedback is often generically defined, and assumptions substantially diverge. Consequently, insights often appear disconnected from the way feedback is practiced and experienced in organizations. We organize the literature by making three core assumptions explicit and identifying six distinct substreams of feedback research. For each substream, we highlight insights and limitations and point to seeming contradictions and departures from the daily reality of managers and employees. We call on scholars to explicate assumptions and develop coherent paradigms that mirror the complex realities of feedback in organizational life. We end with five recommendations for building a cumulative science of feedback.

Keyword(s): feedback, learning, performance, resistance
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927
2025-01-21
2025-02-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/12/1/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Amabile TM, Pratt MG. 2016.. The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning. . Res. Organ. Behav. 36::157–83
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anseel F. 2019.. The secret afterlife of feedback interventions: how social sharing of feedback affects performance. . Acad. Manag. Proc. 2019:(1):18077
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anseel F, Beatty AS, Shen W, Lievens F, Sackett PR. 2015.. How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. . J. Manag. 41:(1):318–48
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Anseel F, Lievens F. 2006.. Certainty as a moderator of feedback reactions? A test of the strength of the self-verification motive. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 79:(4):533–51
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anseel F, Lievens F. 2007.. The relationship between uncertainty and desire for feedback: a test of competing hypotheses. . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 37:(5):1007–40
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Anseel F, Lievens F, Schollaert E. 2009.. Reflection as a strategy to enhance task performance after feedback. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 110:(1):23–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Anseel F, Van Yperen NW, Janssen O, Duyck W. 2011.. Feedback type as a moderator of the relationship between achievement goals and feedback reactions. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 84:(4):703–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Argyris C. 1977.. Double loop learning in organizations. . Harv. Bus. Rev. 55:(5):115–25
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Atwater LE, Brett JF. 2005.. Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360° feedback. . J. Vocat. Behav. 66:(3):532–48
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Atwater LE, Waldman DA, Atwater D, Cartier P. 2000.. An upward feedback field experiment: supervisors’ cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. . Pers. Psychol. 53:(2):275–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Audia PG, Greve HR. 2021.. Organizational Learning from Performance Feedback: A Behavioral Perspective on Multiple Goals. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 1st ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Barry B, Crant JM. 2000.. Dyadic communication relationships in organizations: an attribution/expectancy approach. . Organ. Sci. 11:(6):648–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Bell ST, Arthur W Jr. 2008.. Feedback acceptance in developmental assessment centers: the role of feedback message, participant personality, and affective response to the feedback session. . J. Organ. Behav. 29:(5):681–703
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Belschak FD, Den Hartog DN. 2009.. Consequences of positive and negative feedback: the impact on emotions and extra-role behaviors. . Appl. Psychol. 58:(2):274–303
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bezuijen XM, van Dam K, van den Berg PT, Thierry H. 2010.. How leaders stimulate employee learning: a leader-member exchange approach. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 83:(3):673–93
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bogard JE, Delmas MA, Goldstein NJ, Vezich IS. 2020.. Target, distance, and valence: unpacking the effects of normative feedback. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 161::61–73
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brett JF, Atwater LE. 2001.. 360° feedback: accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. . J. Appl. Psychol. 86:(5):930–42
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Buckingham M, Goodall A. 2019.. The feedback fallacy. . Harv. Bus. Rev. 97:(2):92–101
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Budworth M-H, Latham GP, Manroop L. 2015.. Looking forward to performance improvement: a field test of the feedforward interview for performance management. . Hum. Resour. Manag. 54:(1):45–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Campbell JP. 1990.. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. . In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. MD Dunnette, LM Hough , pp. 687–732. Palo Alto, CA:: Consult. Psychol. Press, , 2nd ed..
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Campbell JP, Wiernik BM. 2015.. The modeling and assessment of work performance. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2::47–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Carver CS, Scheier MF. 1990.. Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: a control-process view. . Psychol. Rev. 97:(1):19–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Caza BB, Heaphy ED, Roberts LM, Spreitzer G. 2024.. Revaluing ordinary moments: disrupting gendered positive self-concepts through a narrative feedback intervention. . Acad. Manag. Discov. 10:(1):34–58
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen G, Mathieu JE. 2008.. Goal orientation dispositions and performance trajectories: the roles of supplementary and complementary situational inducements. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 106:(1):21–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Choi E, Johnson DA, Moon K, Oah S. 2018.. Effects of positive and negative feedback sequence on work performance and emotional responses. . J. Organ. Behav. Manag. 38:(2–3):97–115
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Chun JS, Brockner J, De Cremer D. 2018.. How temporal and social comparisons in performance evaluation affect fairness perceptions. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 145:(2018):1–15
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Chun JS, Sherf EN, Slepian ML. 2023.. In it to win it? Comparative evaluation increases zero-sum beliefs. . Motiv. Sci. 9:(1):31–41
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Cianci AM, Klein HJ, Seijts GH. 2010.. The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: the main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. . J. Appl. Psychol. 95:(4):618–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Colquitt JA, Zipay KP. 2015.. Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2::75–99
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Coutifaris CGV, Grant AM. 2021.. Taking your team behind the curtain: the effects of leader feedback-sharing and feedback-seeking on team psychological safety. . Organ. Sci. 33:(4):1574–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Cron WL, Slocum JW Jr., VandeWalle D, Fu Q. 2005.. The role of goal orientation on negative emotions and goal setting when initial performance falls short of one's performance goal. . Hum. Perform. 18:(1):55–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. DeNisi AS, Murphy KR. 2017.. Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?. J. Appl. Psychol. 102:(3):421–33
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. DeRue DS, Nahrgang JD, Hollenbeck JR, Workman K. 2012.. A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. . J. Appl. Psychol. 97:(5):997–1015
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. DeRue DS, Wellman N. 2009.. Developing leaders via experience: the role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. . J. Appl. Psychol. 94:(4):859–75
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. DeShon RP, Kozlowski SWJ, Schmidt AM, Milner KR, Wiechmann D. 2004.. A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. . J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(6):1035–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dimotakis N, Mitchell D, Maurer T. 2017.. Positive and negative assessment center feedback in relation to development self-efficacy, feedback seeking, and promotion. . J. Appl. Psychol. 102:(11):1514–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Eberly MB, Holley EC, Johnson MD, Mitchell TR. 2017.. It's not me, it's not you, it's us! An empirical examination of relational attributions. . J. Appl. Psychol. 102:(5):711–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  38. Edmondson AC, Dillon JR, Roloff KS. 2007.. Three perspectives on team learning. . Acad. Manag. Ann. 1:(1):269–314
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ellis S, Davidi I. 2005.. After-event reviews: drawing lessons from successful and failed experience. . J. Appl. Psychol. 90:(5):857–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Eskreis-Winkler L, Fishbach A. 2022.. You think failure is hard? So is learning from it. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17:(6):1511–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Facteau JD, Craig BS. 2001.. Are performance appraisal ratings from different rating sources comparable?. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:(2):215–27
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Fedor DB. 1991.. Recipient responses to performance feedback: a proposed model and its implications. . Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 9::73–120
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fedor DB, David WD, Maslyn JM, Mathieson K. 2001.. Performance improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: the roles of source power and recipient self-esteem. . J. Manag. 27:(1):79–97
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Feys M, Anseel F, Wille B. 2011.. Improving feedback reports: the role of procedural information and information specificity. . Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 10:(4):661–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Fleenor JW, Smither JW, Atwater LE, Braddy PW, Sturm RE. 2010.. Self–other rating agreement in leadership: a review. . Leadersh. Q. 21:(6):1005–34
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. Gabriel AS, Frantz NB, Levy PE, Hilliard AW. 2014.. The supervisor feedback environment is empowering, but not all the time: feedback orientation as a critical moderator. . J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 87:(3):487–506
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Gaudine AP, Saks AM. 2001.. Effects of an absenteeism feedback intervention on employee absence behavior. . J. Organ. Behav. 22:(1):15–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Geddes D, Konrad AM. 2003.. Demographic differences and reactions to performance feedback. . Hum. Relat. 56:(12):1485–513
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Getzels JW. 1975.. Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions. . J. Creat. Behav. 9:(1):12–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Gibson FP. 2000.. Feedback delays: How can decision makers learn not to buy a new car every time the garage is empty?. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 83:(1):141–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Gonzalez C. 2005.. Decision support for real-time, dynamic decision-making tasks. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 96:(2):142–54
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. Gonzalez-Mulé E, Courtright SH, DeGeest D, Seong J-Y, Hong D-S. 2016.. Channeled autonomy: the joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance through organizational goal clarity. . J. Manag. 42:(7):2018–33
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Goodman JS, Wood RE. 2004.. Feedback specificity, learning opportunities, and learning. . J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(5):809–21
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Goodman JS, Wood RE. 2009.. Faded versus increasing feedback, task variability trajectories, and transfer of training. . Hum. Perform. 22:(1):64–85
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Goodman JS, Wood RE, Chen Z. 2011.. Feedback specificity, information processing, and transfer of training. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115:(2):253–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Goodman JS, Wood RE, Hendrickx M. 2004.. Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. . J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(2):248–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Griffin MA, Grote G. 2020.. When is more uncertainty better? A model of uncertainty regulation and effectiveness. . Acad. Manag. Rev. 45:(4):745–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Grimes MG. 2018.. The pivot: how founders respond to feedback through idea and identity work. . Acad. Manag. J. 61:(5):1692–717
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  59. Harrison SH, Dossinger K. 2017.. Pliable guidance: a multilevel model of curiosity, feedback seeking, and feedback giving in creative work. . Acad. Manag. J. 60:(6):2051–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Harrison SH, Rouse ED. 2015.. An inductive study of feedback interactions over the course of creative projects. . Acad. Manag. J. 58:(2):375–404
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Highhouse S, Zickar MJ, Melick SR. 2020.. Prestige and relevance of the scholarly journals: impressions of SIOP members. . Ind. Organ. Psychol. 13:(3):273–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Hoever IJ, Zhou J, Van Knippenberg D. 2018.. Different strokes for different teams: the contingent effects of positive and negative feedback on the creativity of informationally homogeneous and diverse teams. . Acad. Manag. J. 61:(6):2159–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Ilgen DR, Davis CA. 2000.. Bearing bad news: reactions to negative performance feedback. . Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 49:(3):550–65
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Ilgen DR, Fisher CD, Taylor MS. 1979.. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. . J. Appl. Psychol. 64:(4):349–71
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ilies R, De Pater IE, Judge T. 2007.. Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self-esteem. . J. Manag. Psychol. 22:(6):590–609
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Ilies R, Judge TA. 2005.. Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect. . J. Appl. Psychol. 90:(3):453–67
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Itzchakov G, Latham GP. 2020.. The moderating effect of performance feedback and the mediating effect of self-set goals on the primed goal-performance relationship. . Appl. Psychol. 69:(2):379–414
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Johnson G, Connelly S. 2014.. Negative emotions in informal feedback: the benefits of disappointment and drawbacks of anger. . Hum. Relat. 67:(10):1265–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Katz IM, Rauvola RS, Rudolph CW. 2021.. Feedback environment: a meta-analysis. . Int. J. Sel. Assess. 29:(3–4):305–25
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kim YJ, Kim J. 2020.. Does negative feedback benefit (or harm) recipient creativity? The role of the direction of feedback flow. . Acad. Manag. J. 63:(2):584–612
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Kinicki AJ, Prussia GE, Wu B, McKee-Ryan FM. 2004.. A covariance structure analysis of employees’ response to performance feedback. . J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(6):1057–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kluger AN, DeNisi AS. 1996.. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. . Psychol. Bull. 119:(2):254–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. 2008.. Team learning, development, and adaptation. . In Work Group Learning: Understanding, Improving and Assessing How Groups Learn in Organizations, ed. V Sessa, M London , pp. 15–44. New York:: Taylor & Francis/Lawrence Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Kraiger K, Ford JK. 2021.. The science of workplace instruction: learning and development applied to work. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 8::45–72
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Kuvaas B, Buch R, Dysvik A. 2017.. Constructive supervisor feedback is not sufficient: Immediacy and frequency is essential. . Hum. Resour. Manag. 56:(3):519–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lam CF, DeRue DS, Karam EP, Hollenbeck JR. 2011.. The impact of feedback frequency on learning and task performance: challenging the “more is better” assumption. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 116:(2):217–28
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Lam SS, Yik MS, Schaubroeck J. 2002.. Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: the role of negative affectivity. . J. Appl. Psychol. 87:(1):192–201
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Lapré MA, Tsikriktsis N. 2006.. Organizational learning curves for customer dissatisfaction: heterogeneity across airlines. . Manag. Sci. 52:(3):352–66
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Laughlin PR, Adamopoulos J. 1980.. Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task. . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 38:(6):941–47
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Lemoine GJ, Parsons CK, Kansara S. 2015.. Above and beyond, again and again: self-regulation in the aftermath of organizational citizenship behaviors. . J. Appl. Psychol. 100:(1):40–55
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Leung K, Su S, Morris MW. 2001.. When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. . Hum. Relat. 54:(9):1155–87
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Li N, Harris TB, Boswell WR, Xie Z. 2011.. The role of organizational insiders’ developmental feedback and proactive personality on newcomers’ performance: an interactionist perspective. . J. Appl. Psychol. 96:(6):1–11
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Locke EA, Latham GP. 2002.. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. . Am. Psychol. 57:(9):705–17
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Lucas BJ, Nordgren LF. 2015.. People underestimate the value of persistence for creative performance. . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109:(2):232–43
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  85. Lurie NH, Swaminathan JM. 2009.. Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108:(2):315–29
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Luthans F, Peterson SJ. 2003.. 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination. . Hum. Resour. Manag. 42:(3):243–56
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Meinecke AL, Lehmann-Willenbrock N, Kauffeld S. 2017.. What happens during annual appraisal interviews? How leader-follower interactions unfold and impact interview outcomes. . J. Appl. Psychol. 102:(7):1054–74
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  88. Mertens S, Schollaert E, Anseel F. 2021.. How much feedback do employees need? A field study of absolute feedback frequency reports and performance. . Int. J. Sel. Assess. 29:(3–4):326–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. 2006.. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. . J. Appl. Psychol. 91:(6):1321–39
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Motro D, Comer DR, Lenaghan JA. 2021.. Examining the effects of negative performance feedback: the roles of sadness, feedback self-efficacy, and grit. . J. Bus. Psychol. 36:(3):367–82
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Motro D, Ellis APJ. 2017.. Boys, don't cry: gender and reactions to negative performance feedback. . J. Appl. Psychol. 102:(2):227–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Murphy KR, Cleveland JN, Skattebo AL, Kinney TB. 2004.. Raters who pursue different goals give different ratings. . J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(1):158–64
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. Nadler DA. 1979.. The effects of feedback on task group behavior: a review of the experimental research. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 23:(3):309–38
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. Northcraft GB, Schmidt AM, Ashford SJ. 2011.. Feedback and the rationing of time and effort among competing tasks. . J. Appl. Psychol. 96:(5):1076–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Patient DL, Skarlicki DP. 2010.. Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: the role of the manager's empathic concern and moral development. . J. Manag. 36:(2):555–78
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Pichler S. 2012.. The social context of performance appraisal and appraisal reactions: a meta-analysis. . Hum. Resour. Manag. 51:(5):709–32
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Piezunka H, Dahlander L. 2019.. Idea rejected, tie formed: organizations’ feedback on crowdsourced ideas. . Acad. Manag. J. 62:(2):503–30
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Raver JL, Jensen JM, Lee J, O'Reilly J. 2012.. Destructive criticism revisited: appraisals, task outcomes, and the moderating role of competitiveness. . Appl. Psychol. 61:(2):177–203
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Reh S, Tröster C, Van Quaquebeke N. 2018.. Keeping (future) rivals down: Temporal social comparison predicts coworker social undermining via future status threat and envy. . J. Appl. Psychol. 103:(4):399–415
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Renn RW. 2003.. Moderation by goal commitment of the feedback-performance relationship: theoretical explanation and preliminary study. . Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 13:(4):561–80
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Rosen CC, Levy PE, Hall RJ. 2006.. Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance. . J. Appl. Psychol. 91:(1):211–20
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Ruttan RL, Nordgren LF. 2016.. The strength to face the facts: Self-regulation defends against defensive information processing. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137::86–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Schaerer M, Kern M, Berger G, Medvec V, Swaab RI. 2018.. The illusion of transparency in performance appraisals: when and why accuracy motivation explains unintentional feedback inflation. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 144::171–86
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Schinkel S, Van Dierendonck D, Anderson N. 2004.. The impact of selection encounters on applicants: an experimental study into feedback effects after a negative selection decision. . Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:(1–2):197–205
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Schroeder J, Fishbach A. 2015.. How to motivate yourself and others? Intended and unintended consequences. . Res. Organ. Behav. 35::123–41
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Seifert CF, Yukl G, McDonald RA. 2003.. Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates. . J. Appl. Psychol. 88:(3):561–69
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Shea CM, Howell JM. 2000.. Efficacy-performance spirals: an empirical test. . J. Manag. 26:(4):791–812
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Sheldon OJ, Dunning D, Ames DR. 2014.. Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learning more: reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence. . J. Appl. Psychol. 99:(1):125–37
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Sherf EN, Croitoru N, McElroy T. 2024.. A reinforcement sensitivity theory view of seeking behaviors at work: a meta-analysis. . Pers. Psychol. 77:(2):847–90
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Smither JW, London M, Flautt R, Vargas Y, Ivy K. 2003.. Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time?. Pers. Psychol. 56:(1):23–44
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Smither JW, London M, Richmond KR. 2005.. The relationship between leaders’ personality and their reactions to and use of multisource feedback: a longitudinal study. . Group Organ. Manag. 30:(2):181–210
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Smither JW, Walker AG. 2004.. Are the characteristics of narrative comments related to improvement in multirater feedback ratings over time?. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(3):575–81
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. 2003.. Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. . Pers. Psychol. 56:(1):155–94
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Steelman LA, Levy PE, Snell AF. 2004.. The feedback environment scale: construct definition, measurement, and validation. . Educ. Psychol. Meas. 64:(1):165–84
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Steelman LA, Rutkowski KA. 2004.. Moderators of employee reactions to negative feedback. . J. Manag. Psychol. 19:(1):6–18
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Tannenbaum SI, Wolfson MA. 2022.. Informal (field-based) learning. . Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 9::391–414
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Taylor MS, Fisher CD, Ilgen DR. 1984.. Individual's reactions to performance feedback in organizations: a control theory perspective. . Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2::81–124
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Tolli AP, Schmidt AM. 2008.. The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. . J. Appl. Psychol. 93:(3):692–701
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. Tong S, Jia N, Luo X, Fang Z. 2021.. The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance. . Strateg. Manag. J. 42:(9):1600–31
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Tuytens M, Devos G. 2012.. The effect of procedural justice in the relationship between charismatic leadership and feedback reactions in performance appraisal. . Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 23:(15):3047–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Van der Vegt GS, de Jong SB, Bunderson JS, Molleman E. 2010.. Power asymmetry and learning in teams: the moderating role of performance feedback. . Organ. Sci. 21:(2):347–61
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. Van Dijk D, Kluger AN. 2004.. Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus?. Appl. Psychol. 53:(1):113–35
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Van Dijk D, Kluger AN. 2011.. Task type as a moderator of positive/negative feedback effects on motivation and performance: a regulatory focus perspective. . J. Organ. Behav. 32:(8):1084–105
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. Van Iddekinge CH, Arnold JD, Aguinis H, Lang JWB, Lievens F. 2023.. Work effort: a conceptual and meta-analytic review. . J. Manag. 49:(1):125–57
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Van Werven R, Cornelissen J, Bouwmeester O. 2023.. The relational dimension of feedback interactions: a study of early feedback meetings between entrepreneurs and potential mentors. . Br. J. Manag. 34:(2):873–97
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  126. Vancouver JB, Tischner EC. 2004.. The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. . J. Appl. Psychol. 89:(6):1092–98
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Wang M, Burlacu G, Truxillo D, James K, Yao X. 2015.. Age differences in feedback reactions: the roles of employee feedback orientation on social awareness and utility. . J. Appl. Psychol. 100:(4):1296–308
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Wilhelm H, Richter AW, Semrau T. 2019.. Employee learning from failure: a team-as-resource perspective. . Organ. Sci. 30:(4):694–714
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Xing L, Sun J, Jepsen D. 2021.. Feeling shame in the workplace: examining negative feedback as an antecedent and performance and well-being as consequences. . J. Organ. Behav. 42:(9):1244–60
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Zhou J. 2003.. When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. . J. Appl. Psychol. 88:(3):413–22
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Zhou J, George JM. 2001.. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. . Acad. Manag. J. 44:(4):682–96
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Zingoni M, Byron K. 2017.. How beliefs about the self influence perceptions of negative feedback and subsequent effort and learning. . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 139::50–62
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. Zohar D. 2002.. Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-based intervention model. . J. Appl. Psychol. 87:(1):156–63
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Zohar D, Polachek T. 2014.. Discourse-based intervention for modifying supervisory communication as leverage for safety climate and performance improvement: a randomized field study. . J. Appl. Psychol. 99:(1):113–24
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Zohar D, Polachek T. 2017.. Using event-level data to test the effect of verbal leader behavior on follower leadership perceptions and job performance: a randomized field experiment. . Group Organ. Manag. 42:(3):419–49
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927
Loading
A 25-Year Review of Research on Feedback in Organizations: From Simple Rules to Complex Realities
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 12, 19 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110622-031927
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error