EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

ARTICLE 10.1177/0013164403258440

STEELMAN ET AL.

THE FEEDBACK ENVIRONMENT SCALE: CONSTRUCT

DEFINITION, MEASUREMENT, AND VALIDATION

LISA A. STEELMAN
Florida Institute of Technology

PAUL E. LEVY AND ANDREA F. SNELL

University of Akron

Managers are increasingly being held accountable for providing resources that support
employee development, particularly in the form of feedback and coaching. To support
managers as trainers and coaches, organizations must provide managers with the tools
they need to succeed in this area. This article presents a new tool to assist in the diagnosis
and training of managers in the area of feedback and coaching: the Feedback Environ-
ment Scale. This article also discusses the theoretically based definition of this new con-
struct and the development and validation evidence for the scale that measures this
construct. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the a priori measurement model, and
assessment of relationships proposed in a preliminary nomological network provide ini-
tial support for the construct validity of the scale. Results also show evidence for the
internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity of the facet scores of
the Feedback Environment Scale.

Keywords: feedback; feedback environment; construct validation

In a recent review and meta-analysis, Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found

that feedback typically has only a moderately positive effect on performance
and that more than 38% of the effects were negative. This suggests that the
mechanisms of feedback are not as well understood as we would like to think.
This article provides a research-based solution for diagnosing the feedback
process in organizations. First, we discuss the conceptual basis for a new con-
struct called the feedback environment. Following this, we present the sys-
tematic development and validation of a new multifaceted instrument, the

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 64 No. 1, February 2004 165-184

DOI: 10.1177/0013164403258440
© 2004 Sage Publications
165
166 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Feedback Environment Scale (FES), which will help inform the feedback
process in organizations.

FES
To better understand and diagnose feedback processes in organizations
and train managers and others to give more meaningful feedback, we must
first understand the contextual or situational characteristics of the feedback
process, referred to here as the feedback environment. The feedback environ-
ment refers to the contextual aspects of day-to-day supervisor-subordinate
and coworker-coworker feedback processes rather than to the formal perfor-
mance appraisal feedback session. In the past, context effects have been iden-
tified solely as nuisance factors to be ignored or explained away. However, a
unified theory of the variables that combine to shape the feedback environ-
ment is completely lacking in the feedback literature and yet is what largely
defines the feedback process (Murphy & Cleveland, 1995). Common prob-
lems subordinates cite about managers and performance management
include the following: Managers need training in how to give negative feed-
back and make it constructive, managers do not explain the performance rat-
ing process, and managers are not rewarded for developing subordinates
(London, 1997). We need to better understand the mechanisms that support
feedback to ensure it is a worthwhile pursuit and to target those areas where
coaches need additional training or development.
In the past, the feedback environment has been defined as the type of job
performance information that employees perceive as being available to them
(Herold & Parsons, 1985). Herold and Parsons (1985) developed a set of
scales to measure the feedback environment that asked respondents to indi-
cate the availability of different types of feedback information. Respondents
indicated how frequently items such as “My supervisor compliments me on
something I have done” occur in their workplaces. This scale has not been
validated and is seldom used in research or practice, and the few published
studies describe inconsistent results (Ashford, 1993; Greller & Parsons,
1992).
Consequently, up to now, an organization’s feedback environment has
been defined as the amount and availability of positive and negative feedback
from different sources. Although we call our new construct “feedback envi-
ronment,” it bears almost no resemblance to previous definitions of feedback
environment. This new instrument measures a much more comprehensive
view of the feedback environment and is more relevant to the organizations of
today and the responsibilities of 21st-century managers. The facets of the
feedback environment were derived based on the extant feedback literature
and will be defined in the following sections.
 STEELMAN ET AL. 167

Supervisor source and coworker source. It is clear that employees receive

feedback information from various sources (Greller, 1980; Morrison, 1993);
however, we have limited our theoretical definition to two sources, supervi-
sor and coworker, as some authors suggest that supervisor and coworker
feedback sources are the most practical and relevant from the feedback recip-
ient’s point of view (Ashford, 1989). We expect additional source factors
such as subordinates will be added as research and practice deem necessary.
Thus, the FES postulates two factors called Supervisor Source and Coworker
Source and the following seven specific facets within each of those source
factors: source credibility, feedback quality, feedback delivery, frequency of
favorable feedback, frequency of unfavorable feedback, source availability,
and promoting feedback seeking (see Figure 1).

Source credibility. Credibility is conceptualized as the feedback source’s

expertise and trustworthiness (Giffin, 1967). Source expertise includes
knowledge of the feedback recipient’s job requirements, knowledge of the
recipient’s actual job performance, and the ability to accurately judge that job
performance. Trustworthiness represents whether an individual trusts the
feedback source to provide accurate performance information (Giffin, 1967;
Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Feedback from sources who (a) have observed
the recipient’s behavior, (b) are in a position to evaluate it, and (c) have
motives for providing feedback that can be trusted will likely have more
influence on behavior than will feedback from sources who are not perceived
to be competent in evaluating recipient job behavior (Albright & Levy, 1995;
Ilgen et al., 1979; Makiney & Levy, 1998).

Feedback quality. Consistency and usefulness have been demonstrated to

be important aspects of feedback quality (Greller, 1980; Hanser &
Muchinsky, 1978; Herold, Liden, & Leatherwood, 1987). High-quality feed-
back is consistent across time, specific, and perceived as more useful than
low-quality feedback, which varies with the feedback source’s mood, his or
her liking of the feedback target, or observational opportunity (London,
1997). The informational value of feedback, assessed from the recipient’s
point of view, is an important factor in whether the recipient accepts and is
willing to respond to the feedback (Ilgen et al., 1979).

Feedback delivery. A feedback recipient’s perceptions of the source’s

intentions in giving feedback will affect reactions and responses to the feed-
back (Fedor, Eder, & Buckley, 1989). The more considerate the feedback
source is when providing feedback, the more likely an individual is to accept
and respond to the feedback. In fact, Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, and Boeschen
(1981) demonstrated that consideration in giving feedback was positively
168 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Feedback
Environment

Supervisor Co-worker
Factor Factor

Promotes Promotes
Source Feedback Feedback Favorable Unfavorable Source Source Feedback Feedback Favorable Unfavorable Source
Feedback Feedback
Credibility Quality Delivery Feedback Feedback Availability Credibility Quality Delivery Feedback Feedback Availability
Seeking Seeking

Figure 1. The a priori model of the feedback environment as operationalized by the Feedback
Environment Scale.

related to perceptions of the feedback session atmosphere, helpfulness of the

performance feedback, and satisfaction with the feedback itself. The person
providing feedback needs to learn not only about what message to deliver but
also the intentions he or she is conveying in his or her delivery process and
demeanor.

Favorable and unfavorable feedback. Research commonly finds that

positive and negative feedback occur relatively independently (Greller &
Parsons, 1992). Favorable feedback is conceptualized as the perceived fre-
quency of positive feedback such as compliments from supervisors and/or
coworkers when from the feedback recipient’s view, his or her performance
does in fact warrant positive feedback. Correspondingly, unfavorable feed-
back is conceptualized as the perceived frequency of negative feedback such
as expressions of dissatisfaction and criticism from supervisors and/or co-
workers when from the feedback recipient’s view, his or her performance
warrants such feedback. Note that our definitions of favorable and unfavor-
able feedback are more complex than simply whether the recipient likes the
feedback. Our definitions take into account the extent to which the feedback
recipient receives positive and negative feedback that upon reflection is
believed to accurately reflect performance.
 STEELMAN ET AL. 169

Source availability. Formal performance appraisal reviews are generally

conducted only once a year (Meyer, 1991). Thus, to meet his or her goals
throughout the year, an individual must turn to information available during
informal day-to-day communications at work (Ashford & Cummings,
1983). Supervisor and/or coworker source availability is operationalized as
the perceived amount of contact an employee has with his or her supervisor
and/or coworkers and the ease with which feedback can be obtained.

Promotes feedback seeking. In the feedback area, perhaps the most domi-
nant theme of the past several years has been the perspective introduced by
Ashford and Cummings (1983), which suggests that individuals are active
seekers of feedback information. Research in this area has found that
employees frequently report a desire for feedback (Ashford, 1989). How-
ever, for ego maintenance and other reasons, they are often reluctant to take
that extra step and actually ask for feedback (Levy, Albright, Cawley, &
Williams, 1995).
Williams, Miller, Steelman, and Levy (1999) argued that one potentially
important determinant of the frequency of feedback seeking is the extent to
which managers promote feedback seeking. Feedback-seeking promotion is
defined as the extent to which the environment is supportive or unsupportive
of feedback seeking. It is the extent to which employees are encouraged or
rewarded for seeking feedback and the degree to which employees feel com-
fortable asking for performance feedback.
In sum, the feedback environment is defined as a multifaceted construct
with two major factors (Supervisor and Coworker) manifested in seven fac-
ets. Together, these seven facets reflect the contextual aspects surrounding
the transmission of job performance feedback on a recurrent or daily basis
(see Figure 1).

Relations With External Variables

Based on the extant feedback literature, correlates and outcomes of the

feedback process were identified (cf. Ilgen et al., 1979; Taylor, Fisher, &
Ilgen, 1984). Finding that these variables relate to the facets of the FES in
consistent and predictable ways will provide support for the convergent
validity of the FES. The external variables of interest are discussed in the
following sections.

Satisfaction with feedback. Feedback is valuable in that it assists individu-

als in reaching a desired performance goal. Research suggests that individu-
als are satisfied with feedback when it provides information they perceive as
useful for performing a task they want to perform well and when it is not
redundant with information they already have available (Ilgen & Moore,
170 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

1987). In addition, others have found that the more favorable the feedback
message, the more satisfied the recipients were with the feedback (Ilgen &
Hamstra, 1972).

Motivation to use feedback. Motivation to use feedback represents an

individuals’ desire to perform better based on the feedback received. The
source of the feedback and the associated facets of the feedback environment
may be among the most important influences on the extent to which recipi-
ents are motivated to use feedback to improve their work performance (Ilgen
et al., 1979). For instance, Fedor et al. (1989) found that employees were
more motivated to use the feedback if the feedback source was seen as
competent.

Feedback-seeking frequency. Feedback seeking is the active elicitation or

indirect monitoring of performance feedback from various sources (Ashford
& Cummings, 1983). It is likely that the nature of the feedback environment
affects individuals’desire for additional performance information and subse-
quent pursuit of feedback (Williams et al., 1999); thus, a relationship
between the FES and feedback-seeking behavior is expected.

Leader-member exchange (LMX) quality. LMX theory suggests that lead-

ers differentiate among their subordinates. LMX is part of the social context
of feedback because feedback often involves the interaction between a super-
visor and a subordinate (Duarte, Goodson, & Klich, 1994); thus, LMX
should be related to the facets of the FES. A supervisor who establishes a
higher quality dyadic relationship with certain subordinates should also
encourage and support an open feedback-seeking environment; thus, a rela-
tionship between the supervisor component of the FES and LMX is expected.

Method

Respondents

Total sample. A total of 698 surveys were mailed to employees at two

companies. In all, 405 completed surveys were returned for an overall
response rate of 58.0%. Respondents’ organizational tenure ranged from 1
year to 42 years, with an average of 18 years. Respondents’ job tenure ranged
from 1 year to 30 years, with an average of 10 years. There were 343 male
respondents (87.5%) and 49 (12.5%) female respondents. Survey respon-
dents ranged in age from 22 to 64 years, with an average age of 45 years. A
series of multiple-group LISREL analyses indicated there were no differ-
ences in the data from each company so they were combined for all analyses.
 STEELMAN ET AL. 171

Measures

All constructs were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. Survey booklets were sent to employees
that provided specific instructions for each scale. The measures were pre-
sented in the following order.

FES. Parallel items were created for the seven FES facets to reflect the
supervisor and coworker referents. For example, an item in the supervisor
credibility facet reads, “My supervisor is generally familiar with my perfor-
mance on the job.” The parallel coworker credibility item reads, “My
coworkers are generally familiar with my performance on the job.” Thus,
employees responded to items measuring the seven FES facets for both their
coworkers and their supervisor. Based on the results of two pilot studies, 63
items (32 for the supervisor referent and 31 for the coworker referent) were
developed for use in this study (see the appendix for FES items).

Motivation to use feedback. Four items adapted from Dorfman, Stephan,

and Loveland (1986) were employed to measure employees’ motivation to
use the feedback provided for performance improvement. Two items mea-
sured motivation to use supervisor feedback, and two items assessed motiva-
tion to use coworker feedback. A sample item is “I want to improve my job
performance based on the feedback my supervisor (or coworkers) provides.”

Feedback-seeking frequency. Individuals’ frequency of feedback seeking

from their supervisor and coworkers was each measured with two items
adapted from Levy and Steelman (1994). A sample item is “I often ask my
supervisor (or coworkers) how well he or she thinks I am performing.”

Satisfaction with feedback. Satisfaction with the day-to-day feedback pro-

vided by individuals’ supervisor and coworkers was measured with three
items for each referent group. A sample item is “In general, how satisfied are
you with the feedback you receive from your supervisor (or coworkers)?”

LMX quality. Seven items were adapted from Scandura and Graen (1984)
and Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell (1993) to measure the quality of the
exchange relationship between supervisors and subordinates. A sample item
states, “I can count on my supervisor to bail me out even at his or her own
expense, when I really need it.”

Demographics. Employee organizational tenure, job tenure, gender, age,

and education level were also collected.
172 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Procedure

Employees were provided with survey booklets and stamped return enve-
lopes. All respondents (N = 405) filled out the demographic form, the FES,
and the feedback outcome measures: motivation to use feedback, feedback-
seeking frequency, and satisfaction with feedback. Due to time constraints,
the LMX measure was only given to employees from one organization.
Approximately 4 to 5 months following the first administration, the FES was
readministered to a random sample of 102 employees from the first organiza-
tion to examine the test-retest scores for this sample. To evaluate the predic-
tive validity of the FES, satisfaction with feedback, feedback-seeking behav-
ior, and motivation to use feedback were also reassessed at this time.
Completed retest surveys were obtained for 98 employees resulting in a 96%
response rate.

Results
Descriptive statistics and reliabilities for the FES scores for this sample
are reported in Table 1. For the Supervisor factor, the scores in our study have
a range of internal consistency reliability of .82 to .92. For the Coworker fac-
tors, the scores in our study have a range of internal consistency reliability of
.74 to .92. Overall, for the current sample, the scores for the Supervisor factor
have an internal consistency reliability of .96 and the scores for the Coworker
factor are .95. In addition, employees report receiving more unfavorable
feedback from their supervisor than from their coworkers, t(386) = 10.24, p <
.001 (d = 1.04) but perceive coworkers to be more available to provide feed-
back than their supervisor, t(397) = 7.37, p < .001 (d = .74).
Classical theory test-retest reliability (see Table 1) for the scores in this
study ranges from .61 to .77 for the Supervisor factor and .26 to .63 for the
Coworker factor. Overall, the test-retest reliability for the scores in this study
for the Coworker factor is lower than is the test-retest reliability for the
Supervisor factor scores in this study (.60 and .85, respectively). No signifi-
cant organizational changes were reported by the organization in the 5
months between administrations of the FES.
As shown in Table 2, the FES facet correlations across source factors are
quite low, indicating respondents are able to discriminate between the two
sources. For instance, the correlation between ratings of coworker credibility
and ratings of supervisor credibility is .03. Although this pattern was
expected, the strength and consistency of the pattern supports our a priori
contention that individuals perceive their supervisor and coworkers as rela-
tively separate elements of the overall feedback environment.
 STEELMAN ET AL. 173

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Reliability Coefficients for the Feedback Environment Scale (FES)
Facets

Internal Consistency Test-Retest

Mean (SD) Reliability Reliability

FES Facet Supervisor Coworker Supervisor Coworker Supervisor Coworker

Source credibility 5.07 (1.30) 5.09 (0.99) .88 .85 .70 .55
Feedback quality 4.76 (1.40) 4.95 (1.11) .92 .92 .64 .51
Feedback delivery 4.74 (1.33) 4.64 (1.07) .86 .84 .71 .50
Feedback
favorability 4.19 (1.51) 4.23 (1.20) .88 .86 .73 .63
Feedback
unfavorability 5.20 (1.11) 4.45 (1.18) .85 .85 .61 .33
Source
availability 4.45 (1.36) 5.03 (1.01) .82 .74 .77 .26
Promotes
feedback seeking 4.59 (1.28) 4.43 (1.06) .84 .85 .70 .53

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of a Priori FES Model

The hypothesized seven-facet structure for both the Supervisor and

Coworker Source factors of the FES was assessed with CFA using a maxi-
mum likelihood estimation procedure. Separate models were estimated for
the Supervisor and Coworker Source factors. As can be seen in Table 3, the a
priori FES model (see Figure 1) fit the data within acceptable parameters for
both the Supervisor and the Coworker Source factors. Although there is not a
single measure of overall fit that is generally accepted as the best, Hu and
Bentler (1999) suggested models that yield a standardized root mean square
residual value of .08 or lower and a Comparative Fit Index of .97 or more rep-
resent relatively good-fitting models. As can be seen in Table 3, the a priori
model for the supervisor referent meets this two-index criteria of fit.
Although the Coworker factor does not meet the relatively conservative rules
of thumb suggested by Hu and Bentler, it does demonstrate acceptable fit
with more traditional guidelines. For instance, Carmines and McIver (1981)
suggested that a χ2 / df ratio of 2 to 3 is an adequate indicator of good fit.
Based on this indicator, the Coworker factor (χ2 / df ratio = 2.53) demon-
strates a sufficient fit to data.

CFA of Alternative Models

In the past, the feedback environment has largely been conceptualized as

having one or two facets (Herold & Parsons, 1985) or has emerged empiri-
174 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Table 2
Correlations Between the Feedback Environment Scale (FES) Facets Across Coworker and
Supervisor Source Factors

Supervisor Source

Coworker Source 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Credibility .03 .08 .07 .06 .08 .07 .11*

2. Quality –.01 .09 .04 .05 .09 .03 .13**
3. Delivery .05 .13* .12* .12* .07 .13** .13**
4. Favorability –.02 .07 .02 .16** .05 .09 .14**
5. Unfavorability .04 .12* .06 .09 .20** .06 .14**
6. Availability .09 .11 .11* .10* .12* .17** .12*
7. Promotes feedback seeking .08 .15 .05 .14** .16** .13** .36**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3
Fit Indices of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models

χ2 (df) χ2 / df CFI SRMSR χ2diff (dfdiff)

Supervisor Source factor

A priori FES model 101.48 (56) 1.81 .97 .04
Single-factor model 595.82 (104) 5.73 .91 .28 494.34 (48)
Two-factor model 303.51 (71) 4.27 .95 .25 202.03 (15)
Coworker Source factor
A priori FES model 141.48 (56) 2.53 .93 .05
Single-factor model 718.01 (104) 6.90 .87 .30 576.53 (48)
Two-factor model 306.96 (71) 4.32 .94 .15 165.48 (15)

Note. All χ2 and χ2diff tests are significant at p < .001. CFI = comparative fit index; SRMSR = standardized root
mean square residual.

cally as a single dimension (Larson, Glynn, Fleenor, & Scontrino, 1986). To

determine whether the seven facets comprising the FES demonstrate suffi-
cient discriminant validity to warrant the multifaceted structure, a one-factor
and a two-factor model for both the Coworker and the Supervisor Source
factors were tested. Following from the previous literature (e.g., Herold &
Parsons, 1985), in the two-factor model, the unfavorable feedback facet
served as one factor and the six remaining FES facets, which are largely posi-
tive aspects of the feedback environment, were constrained to be the second
factor.
Because both of these reduced-factor models are nested within the larger a
priori seven-factor model, a χ2diff test was used to determine whether the a pri-
ori model resulted in a significantly better fit to the data. To obtain a strictly
nested model, the single-factor model was estimated by constraining all
 STEELMAN ET AL. 175

seven facets of the a priori model to be perfectly correlated. Similarly, for the
two-factor model, the six positive FES dimensions were constrained to be
perfectly correlated with each other but were allowed to freely correlate with
the second factor, the unfavorable feedback facet. All of the fit indices indi-
cate that the a priori model of the FES for both the Supervisor and the
Coworker Source factors fit the data better than did either the single-factor or
the two-factor model (see Table 3).

Evidence for External Validity

To provide additional evidence of the construct validity of the FES, the

following four external variables were predicted to be related to employees’
perceptions of the feedback environment: satisfaction with feedback, moti-
vation to use feedback, feedback seeking, and LMX. The concurrent rela-
tionship between these external variables and the FES and the ability of the
FES to predict these external variables 5 months later were assessed.
Table 4 presents concurrent validity coefficients with predictive validity
coefficients in parentheses. The pattern of relationships supports predictions
that the FES facets associated with a particular source factor are more
strongly related to external variables for that particular source than for the
other source. For instance, supervisor credibility is more strongly related to
satisfaction with supervisor feedback (r = .73) than it is to satisfaction with
coworker feedback (r = .01), and coworker credibility is more strongly
related to satisfaction with coworker feedback (r = .64) than it is to satisfac-
tion with supervisor feedback (r = .15).
Table 4 also indicates that the majority of the predictive validity coeffi-
cients were statistically significant. Although generally smaller in magnitude
than the concurrent validity coefficients, the pattern of results is very similar.
In all, with respect to concurrent and predictive validity, there are 98 correla-
tions among the seven facets of the FES (within each of the two source fac-
tors) and the four external variables. Only 17 of these were not statistically
significant and in the expected direction. To control for experiment-wise
error, the critical probability level was adjusted using a Bonferroni adjust-
ment. This adjustment does not affect the results.
Furthermore, 12 out of the 17 nonsignificant effects were associated with
one FES facet: unfavorable feedback. Based on the literature, unfavorable
feedback was expected to be negatively related to the external variables.
Results indicated it was positively related to these variables.

Discussion
This research takes an initial step toward defining, developing, and vali-
dating a multifaceted measure of the feedback environment. To assess the
176
Table 4
Validity Coefficients Between Supervisor and Coworker Feedback Environment Scale (FES) Facets and External Variables

Supervisor Referent Coworker Referent

Satisfaction Motivation to Feedback Satisfaction Motivation to Feedback

FES Facet by Source LMX With Feedback Use Feedback Seeking With Feedback Use Feedback Seeking

Supervisor
Credibility .74* .73* (.65*) .36* (.23*) .20* (.25*) .01 .10 .00
Quality .74* .76* (.67*) .40* (.25*) .25* (.30*) .10* .17* .05
Delivery .71* .69* (.64*) .34* (.24*) .25* (.19) .09 .14* .25
Favorable feedback .67* .68* (.55*) .31* (.31*) .37* (.35*) .05 .10* .09
Unfavorable feedback .37* .33* (.37*) .21* (.07) .19* (.02) .08 .04 .00
Availability .70* .69* (.66*) .35* (.33*) .28* (.28*) .08 .09 .06
Promotes feedback seeking .68* .67* (.59*) .27* (.23*) .45* (.28*) .13* .11* .25*
Coworker
Credibility .16* .15* .25* –.01 .64* (.36*) .50* (.39*) .24*(–.07)
Quality .12 .12* .30* .07 .63* (.26*) .54* (.36*) .29* (.05)
Delivery .13* .16* .22* .01 .56* (.33*) .46* (.27*) .17*(–.09)
Favorable feedback .16* .12* .20* .08 .56* (.25*) .38* (.28*) .35* (.23*)
Unfavorable feedback .10 .15* .20* .10 .42* (.20*) .39* (.29*) .37* (.13)
Availability .11 .18* .18* .05 .58* (.33*) .37* (.40*) .22* (.02)
Promotes feedback seeking .15* .16* .15* .22* .55* (.20*) .41* (.36*) .52* (.23*)

Note. Correlations in parentheses are predictive validity coefficients; all other correlations are concurrent validity coefficients. Sample size for LMX is 274. Sample size for predictive coeffi-
cients is 98. Sample size for all other correlations is 405. LMX = leader-member exchange.
*p < .01.
 STEELMAN ET AL. 177

facets defined as part of the context of the feedback environment, subscales

were developed for two feedback sources, supervisor and coworker. The
results regarding the measurement and validation of the FES supported the a
priori model; however, a number of surprising results also emerged. For
instance, CFA results indicated that the Coworker factor fit the data less well
than did the Supervisor factor. The Coworker factor scores in this study also
demonstrated less temporal stability than did the Supervisor factor. There are
at least two potential explanations for this. First, the group of individuals an
employee calls “coworkers” is open to some interpretation. Employees may
more easily identify their supervisor than their coworkers, which might result
in more consistent results for the supervisor source facets than for the
coworker source facets. A second potential explanation revolves around the
dynamic nature of the work environment. Coworkers come and go; task
forces and work teams are often short-term entities based on business need.
Supervisors, however, tend to be more stable. More research is needed to
further delineate the feedback environment of well-defined work teams.
Another unexpected set of findings emerged with respect to the unfavor-
able feedback facet. This facet was designed to assess instances of veridical
unfavorable feedback or the extent to which employees perceive they receive
unfavorable feedback from their supervisor or coworkers that is justified.
This measure is distinguished from other Feedback scales (e.g., Herold &
Parsons, 1985), which have traditionally measured feedback sign in a way
that simply tapped whether employees were provided with feedback that they
were performing well or not performing well (i.e., positive or negative sign);
the accuracy or merit of this feedback information was not explored. In the
past, these Negative Feedback subscales have been inversely related to out-
come variables such as satisfaction with feedback (Fedor et al., 1989; Ilgen &
Hamstra, 1972). Contrary to expectations, the data in this study indicate that
veridical unfavorable feedback is positively associated with satisfaction with
feedback, desire to use feedback to improve performance, and motivation to
ask for additional feedback.
Larson (1986) has suggested that part of the problem in feedback pro-
cesses is that supervisors are uncomfortable providing negative feedback
because they believe negative feedback will engender unpleasant reactions
and defensiveness from feedback recipients. The data indicate that contrary
to these commonly accepted expectations, employees may be more satisfied
with, motivated to use, and willing to seek out additional feedback when that
negative feedback accurately reflects performance. These results, considered
alongside the results of Kluger and DeNisi (1996), indicate that negative
feedback may in fact be operating in unanticipated ways and is an area that
warrants further attention.
The FES was designed to provide diagnostic information in the area of
coaching and development. For illustrative purposes, Table 5 presents FES
178
Table 5
Illustrative Comparison Across Supervisor

Supervisor 1 (N = 16) Supervisor 2 (N = 31) Supervisor 3 (N = 15) Supervisor 4 (N = 30)

Facet Mean (SD) z Mean (SD) z Mean (SD) z Mean (SD) z

Credibility 5.70 (1.06) .48 4.16 (1.65) –.70 4.17 (1.53) –.68 5.54 (1.00) .36
Quality 5.61 (1.30) .58 3.84 (1.58) –.71 3.91 (1.32) –.66 5.25 (1.05) .32
Delivery 5.67 (1.24) .72 3.73 (1.44) –.75 4.65 (1.36 –.05 4.65 (1.33) –.05
Favorable feedback 5.38 (1.35) .76 3.13 (1.62) –.70 3.20 (1.04) –.66 3.95 (1.59) –.16
Unfavorable feedback 5.47 (1.11) .03 4.73 (1.29) –.69 5.12 (1.10) –.31 5.90 (0.69) .46
Source availability 5.54 (0.94) .66 3.70 (1.50) –.72 4.21 (1.13) –.34 5.00 (1.05) .23
Promotes feedback seeking 4.62 (1.14) .42 3.54 (1.17) –.51 3.45 (0.64) –.59 4.20 (1.02) .05
 STEELMAN ET AL. 179

data collected from the subordinates of four supervisors. The table presents
the mean and standard deviation for each FES facet for each supervisor as
well as its z score (i.e., a discrepancy score from the mean of that facet across
all supervisors).
Reading across the rows indicates that the various facets of the feedback
environment created by supervisors differ. For instance, the employees
working for Supervisor 1 feel this supervisor provides a great deal of positive
feedback (M = 5.38, z = .76), whereas those employees working for
Supervisor 2 report they receive very little positive feedback from this
supervisor (M = 3.13, z = –.70). These data indicate that some supervisors
could benefit from training on the value and appropriate use of positive feed-
back, whereas others do not seem to need development in this area. Similar
kinds of comparisons can be made along other facets between different
supervisors.
Examining each supervisor separately (i.e., reading down the columns)
provides information about how effective a given supervisor is on each of the
feedback facets. For instance, Supervisor 3 could be targeted for some train-
ing regarding the use of feedback as a coaching tool because he or she pro-
vides relatively little favorable or unfavorable feedback. However, he or she
may not need extensive training on how to constructively deliver feed-
back because employees provided average ratings for this facet (M = 4.65, z =
–.05). Supervisor 4 has facets on which he or she seems to do well (credibility
and quality) and other facets on which he or she does not do so well (delivery
and favorable feedback). This supervisor also appears to provide a great deal
of unfavorable feedback (M = 5.90, z = .46) and little favorable feedback (M =
3.95, z = –.16). Using these supervisor-focused data as an example, it is clear
that supervisors possess various strengths and weaknesses that can best be
understood and targeted through a multifaceted look at the feedback
environment.
The strongest predictor of feedback-seeking behavior from individuals’
supervisors was the extent to which the supervisors promote an environment
supportive of feedback seeking (r = .45). Similarly, the strongest predictor of
feedback-seeking behavior from individuals’ coworkers was the extent to
which the coworkers promote an environment supportive of feedback seek-
ing (r = .52). This supports the research findings of Ashford and Northcraft
(1992) and Williams et al. (1999). Future research should now look at how
the feedback environment develops over time as well as its impact on work
habits, development, and communication. Future research should also begin
to explore how this instrument can be used to formulate individual-based
interventions focused on developing managers’ skills and approaches to pro-
viding feedback. The instrument could also be used as a follow-up device to
investigate whether the interventions had their intended effect.
180 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Conclusion
The purpose of the research study reported here was twofold: (a) to define
and measure the various aspects of a new construct, the feedback environ-
ment, and (b) to develop and validate an instrument that can be used to assess
these aspects of the feedback environment for individual managers and for
coworker groups. This instrument may be put to several uses, such as a train-
ing needs assessment for managers and others and a readiness index for the
implementation of multirater feedback programs. There has been surpris-
ingly little empirical work conducted with an eye toward training managers
to give better feedback. One reason for this may be the lack of a validated
instrument to assess coaching and other aspects of the feedback process. Use
of this instrument is an ideal way to diagnose organizations and improve the
“coaching of coaches” that is instrumental to employee success and
development.

Appendix
Feedback Environment Scale (FES)
Supervisor Source Coworker Source

Source credibility My supervisor is generally My coworkers are generally familiar

familiar with my perfor- with my performance on the job.
mance on the job.
In general, I respect my super- In general, I respect my coworkers’
visor’s opinions about my opinions about my job
job performance. performance.
With respect to job perfor- With respect to job performance
mance feedback, I usually do feedback, I usually do not trust
not trust my supervisor. my coworkers.
My supervisor is fair when My coworkers are fair when evaluat-
evaluating my job ing my job performance.
performance.
I have confidence in the feed- I have confidence in the feedback
back my supervisor gives my coworkers give me.
me.
Feedback quality My supervisor gives me useful My coworkers give me useful feed-
feedback about my job back about my job performance.
performance.
The performance feedback I The performance feedback I receive
receive from my supervisor from my coworkers is helpful.
is helpful.
I value the feedback I receive I value the feedback I receive from
from my supervisor. my coworkers.
 STEELMAN ET AL.
Appendix (continued)
The feedback I receive from
my supervisor helps me do
my job.
The performance information I The performance information I
receive from my supervisor
is generally not very
meaningful.
Feedback delivery My supervisor is supportive
when giving me feedback
about my job performance.
When my supervisor gives me
performance feedback, he or
she is considerate of my
feelings.
My supervisor generally pro-
vides feedback in a thought-
less manner.
My supervisor does not treat
people very well when pro-
viding performance
feedback.
My supervisor is tactful when
giving me performance
feedback.
Favorable feedback When I do a good job at work,
my supervisor praises my
performance.
I seldom receive praise from
my supervisor.
My supervisor generally lets
me know when I do a good
job at work.
I frequently receive positive
feedback from my
supervisor.
Unfavorable When I don’t meet deadlines,
feedback my supervisor lets me know.
My supervisor tells me when
my work performance does
not meet organizational
standards.
181
The feedback I receive from my
coworkers helps me do my job.
receive from my coworkers is
generally not very meaningful.
My coworkers are supportive when
giving me feedback about my job
performance.
When my coworkers give me perfor-
mance feedback, they are usually
considerate of my feelings.
My coworkers generally provide
feedback in a thoughtless manner.
In general, my coworkers do not
treat people very well when pro-
viding performance feedback.
In general, my coworkers are tactful
when giving me performance
feedback.
When I do a good job at work, my
coworkers praise my performance.
I seldom receive praise from my
coworkers.
My coworkers generally let me
know when I do a good job at
work.
I frequently receive positive feed-
back from my coworkers.
When I don’t meet deadlines, my
coworkers let me know.
My coworkers tell me when my
work performance does not meet
organizational standards.
(continued)
182 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Appendix (continued)

On those occasions when my On those occasions when my job

job performance falls below performance falls below what is
what is expected, my super- expected, my coworkers let me
visor lets me know. know.
On those occasions when I On those occasions when I make a
make a mistake at work, my mistake at work, my coworkers
supervisor tells me. tell me.
Source availability My supervisor is usually avail- My coworkers are usually available
able when I want perfor- when I want performance
mance information. information.
My supervisor is too busy to My coworkers are too busy to give
give me feedback. me feedback.
I have little contact with my I have little contact with my
supervisor. coworkers.
I interact with my supervisor I interact with my coworkers on a
on a daily basis. daily basis.
The only time I receive perfor-
mance feedback from my
supervisor is during my per-
formance review.
Promotes feedback My supervisor is often annoyed My coworkers are often annoyed
seeking when I directly ask for per- when I directly ask them for per-
formance feedback. formance feedback.
When I ask for performance When I ask for performance feed-
feedback, my supervisor gen- back, my coworkers generally do
erally does not give me the not give me the information right
information right away. away.
I feel comfortable asking my I feel comfortable asking my
supervisor for feedback coworkers for feedback about my
about my work performance. work performance.
My supervisor encourages me My coworkers encourage me to ask
to ask for feedback whenever for feedback whenever I am
I am uncertain about my job uncertain about my job
performance. performance.

References
Albright, M. D., & Levy, P. E. (1995). The effects of source credibility and performance rating
discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 577-
600.
 STEELMAN ET AL. 183

Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self assessments in organizations: A literature review and integrative

model. In B. M. Staw & C. C. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
11, pp. 133-174). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Ashford, S. J. (1993). The feedback environment: An exploratory study of cue use. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 14, 201-224.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strate-
gies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370-
398.
Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of
impression management in feedback seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes, 53, 310-334.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobservable variables. In G. W.
Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgotta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65-115).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dorfman, P. W., Stephan, W. G., & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal behaviors: Super-
visor perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 579-597.
Duarte, N. T., Goodson, J. R., & Klich, N. R. (1994). Effects of dyadic quality and duration on
performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 499-521.
Fedor, D. B., Eder, R. W., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). The contributory effects of supervisor inten-
tions on subordinate feedback responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 44, 396-414.
Giffin, K. (1967). The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal
trust in the communication process. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104-120.
Greller, M. M. (1980). Evaluation of feedback sources as a function of role and organizational
level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 24-27.
Greller, M. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1992). Feedback and feedback inconsistency as sources of
strain and self-evaluation. Human Relations, 45, 601-620.
Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Work as an information environment. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 47-60.
Herold, D. M., Liden, R. C., & Leatherwood, M. L. (1987). Using multiple attributes to assess
sources of performance feedback. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 826-835.
Herold, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (1985). Assessing the feedback environment in work organiza-
tions: Development of the job feedback survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 290-305.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on be-
havior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hamstra, B. W. (1972). Performance satisfaction as a function of the difference
between expected and reported performance at five levels of reported performance. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 359-370.
Ilgen, D. R., & Moore, C. F. (1987). Types and choices of performance feedback. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 72, 401-406.
Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and subordi-
nate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-
formance, 28, 311-330.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A his-
torical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Larson, J. R. (1986). Supervisors’performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of subordi-
nate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 37, 391-408.
184 EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

Larson, J. R., Glynn, M. A., Fleenor, C. P., & Scontrino, M. P. (1986). Exploring the
dimensionality of managers’ performance feedback to subordinates. Human Relations, 39,
1083-1102.
Levy, P. E., Albright, M. D., Cawley, B. D., & Williams, J. R. (1995). Situational and individual
determinants of feedback seeking: A closer look at the process. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 62, 23-37.
Levy, P. E., & Steelman, L. A. (1994, April). Feedback seeking climate and performance ap-
praisal. Paper presented at the ninth annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, Nashville, Tennessee.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early development
of leader-member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674.
London, M. (1997). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance im-
provement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Makiney, J. D., & Levy, P. E. (1998). The influence of self-ratings versus peer ratings on supervi-
sors’performance judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74,
212-228.
Meyer, H. H. (1991). A solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma. Academy of
Management Executive, 5, 68-76.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer
socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173-183.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange
status an the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 428-436.
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C., & Ilgen, D. (1984). Individuals reactions to performance feedback in or-
ganizations: Control theory perspective. In K. Rowland & G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in per-
sonnel and human resource management (pp. 81-124). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Williams, J. R., Miller, C., Steelman, L. A., & Levy, P. E. (1999). Increasing feedback seeking in
public contexts: It takes two (or more) to tango. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 969-976.