Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced negative-but largely ignored-effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average (d = .41) but that over '/3 of the FIs decreased performance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood.To relate feedback directly to behavior is very confusing. Results are contradictory and seldom straight-forward.

Past research has suggested that dispositional sources of job satisfaction can be traced to measures of affective temperament. The present research focused on another concept, core self-evaluations, which were hypothesized to comprise self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and nonneuroticism. A model hypothesized that core self-evaluations would have direct effects on job and life satisfaction. It also was hypothesized that core self-evaluations would have indirect effects on job satisfaction. Data were collected from 3 independent samples in 2 countries, using dual source methodology. Results indicated that core self-evaluations had direct and indirect effects on job and life satisfaction. The statistical and logical relationship among core evaluations, affective disposition, and satisfaction was explored.

Executive OverviewPerformance feedback is an important part of many organizational interventions. Managers typically assume that providing employees with feedback about their performance makes it more likely that performance on the job will be improved. Despite the prevalence of feedback mechanisms in management interventions, however, feedback is nof always as effective as is typically assumed. In this article, we present specific conditions under which feedback might be less effective, or even harmful. We then discuss the implications of our results and model for designing of interventions aimed at improving performance, and focus more narrowly on 360'degree appraisal systems. After arguing that these systems typically have design characteristics that reduce effectiveness, we conclude with recommendations for improving their effectiveness. We also emphasize the need for systematic evaluations of feedback interventions.Everyone is interested in performance feedbackknowing how well he or she is performing some task. When employees do not receive feedback from their job, they will seek it on their own.' Feedback is also seen as an important source of motivating potential on the job and its presence has been proposed to lead to increased satisfaction and motivation.2 Furthermore, most decision-making models, and many motivational models, include a feedback loop to indicate that individuals learn from the outcomes of their decisions or behavior. Therefore, it would be safe to say that, for many scholars and practitioners in the field of management, the effectiveness of feedback for improving performance is essentially a given. We generally assume that outcomes such as job performance will improve as a result of feedback, especially when compared with the performance of employees who receive no such feedback. But actual data concerning the effectiveness of feedback is fairly limited. Furthermore, the models available for explaining how feedback works are rather narrow, and often cannot be reconciled with what we do know about feedback's effects. Given this dearth of information, it is possible that a poorly implemented feedback program could actu-ally hurt, rather than help performance. Therefore, it is critical that we study the effectiveness of feedback in order to better understand how well it works, and develop some models to help predict when feedback will have any effect on subsequent performance.A recent article we published^ Included a review of the literature on the effectiveness of feedback interventions, and a meta-analysis that we conducted of these data. The results indicated that, although feedback interventions were usually effective, in more than one-third of the cases feedback actually lowered subsequent performance. We also proposed a feedback intervention theory to help understand how feedback works, and tested some of the propositions of that theory. Those analyses allowed us to draw conclusions about some factors that are critical to feedback effectiveness. In the present article, we will discuss...

Quoi qu'en pense le sens commun qui incite à croire que le feedback (positif vs négatif ) a des retombées décisives sur la motivation, l'enemble de la littérature n'apporte pas d'informations claires précisant quand et comment le feedback positif ou négatif accroît ou abaisse la motivation (voir par exemple Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). La variabilité dans l'impact du feedback peut être expliquée par la théorie de l'autorégulation (Higgins, 1997(Higgins, , 1998. Plus précisément, des niveaux relativement élevés de motivation sont provoqués aussi bien par l'échec sous focalisation de prévention (manquer à ses obligations) que par le succès sous focalisation de promotion (réaliser un désir). Au cours de deux expériences, la focalisation régulatrice a été opérationnalisée par une manipulation des facteurs de situation (scénarios) et par trois mesures de différences individuelles (les valuers, les professions et les raisons de choisir tel emploi). Les résultats de ces travaux confirment les hypothéses avec les différentes opérationnalisations. D'autres expériences devraient explorer la probable interaction triple entre la focalisation régulatrice de situation, la focalisation régulatrice chronique et la feedback.Despite our common sense notion that indicates that feedback sign (positive vs. negative) has a decisive effect on motivation, the vast literature has no clear specifications regarding when and how positive (negative) feedback increases or decreases motivation (e.g. Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). The variability in feedback sign effects can be explained by self-regulation theory (Higgins, 1997(Higgins, , 1998. Specifically, relatively high levels of motivation are induced either by failure under prevention focus (failure to meet obligations) or by success under promotion focus (fulfilling a desire). In two experiments, regulatory focus was operationalised by a manipulation of situational factors (scenarios) and by three measures of individual differences (values, occupations, and the

No abstract