The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CAN MULTI‐SOURCE FEEDBACK CHANGE PERCEPTIONS OF GOAL ACCOMPLISHMENT, SELF‐EVALUATIONS, AND PERFORMANCE‐RELATED OUTCOMES? THEORY‐BASED APPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH
Abstract
Multi‐source feedback extends traditional performance appraisal by collecting information from subordinates, peers, supervisors, and customers. Ratees often receive the results along with normative data and self‐ratings. This paper explores how multi‐source feedback goes beyond traditional performance appraisal by providing ratees with comparative information. Focusing on person perception and information processing dynamics, this paper develops a model and associated propositions to explain the effects of multi‐source feedback on perceptions of goal accomplishment, re‐evaluation of self‐image, and changes in outcomes such as goals, development, behavior, and performance. Moderators of relationships between the major components in the model include individual difference variables (self‐image, feedback seeking, self‐monitoring, task‐specific self‐efficacy, and impression management) and situational conditions (the content and process of multi‐source feedback and organizational performance standards). Issues of research and practice intended to improve understanding and effectiveness of multi‐source feedback are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
A theory of social comparison processes
Festinger, L. (1954) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/001872675400700202 · Cited by 20,926
Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
Bandura, A. (1982) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.37.2.122 · Cited by 15,975
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.92.1.111 · Cited by 2,650
Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3 · Cited by 1,309
SELF-REGULATION FOR MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF ACTIVE FEEDBACK SEEKING.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256442 · Cited by 774
Motivational effects of knowledge of results: A goal-setting phenomenon?
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Koeppel, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026737 · Cited by 264
Cited by
Day, D. V. (2000) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1048-9843(00)00061-8 · Cited by 2,180
Performance appraisal and performance management: 100 years of progress?
DeNisi, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2017) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000085 · Cited by 677
SMITHER, J. W., LONDON, M., & REILLY, R. R. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.x · Cited by 601
Self-citationFollowership, leadership and social influence
Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013) · The Leadership Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.006 · Cited by 248
Action Regulation Theory: Foundations, Current Knowledge and Future Directions
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2018) · The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781473914957.n7 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- LONDON, M., & SMITHER, J. W.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 803-839
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2002668265
- Cited by
- 482
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 17.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
