IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v99y2022ics0361368221001070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feedback with feeling? How emotional language in feedback affects individual performance

Author

Listed:
  • Erickson, Devon
  • Holderness, D. Kip
  • Olsen, Kari Joseph
  • Thornock, Todd A.

Abstract

Our study examines the influence of manager emotion on the effectiveness of feedback in motivating performance. Feedback Intervention Theory (Kluger & DeNisi,1996) suggests that feedback cues can shift feedback recipients’ attention away from the implications of the feedback for the task and toward the implications for the self. We propose that negative emotional language from a manager acts as a feedback cue directing employees’ attention more toward the self, and therefore, reduces employee effort in response to negative feedback. Consistent with our prediction, we find that negative emotional language decreases employee performance in response to negative feedback. In contrast, positive emotional language has no effect on employee performance in response to positive feedback. In two additional experiments, we provide triangulating evidence – via moderation-of-process and direct measurement – supporting our proposed mechanism, i.e., that the effect of negative emotional language on performance occurs by shifting individuals’ attention away from the task and toward the self. In doing so, we also show that managers can attenuate the effect of negative emotional language on subsequent performance by emphasizing that feedback relates to the task and not the self. Our study identifies a novel feedback intervention cue and provides corroborating evidence of Feedback Intervention Theory. Overall, our findings suggest that managers should consider how expressions of emotion accompanying feedback affect employee attention and subsequent performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Erickson, Devon & Holderness, D. Kip & Olsen, Kari Joseph & Thornock, Todd A., 2022. "Feedback with feeling? How emotional language in feedback affects individual performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:99:y:2022:i:c:s0361368221001070
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2021.101329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368221001070
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2021.101329?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thornock, Todd A., 2016. "How the timing of performance feedback impacts individual performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Podsakoff, Philip M. & Farh, Jiing-Lih, 1989. "Effects of feedback sign and credibility on goal setting and task performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 45-67, August.
    3. Luckett, Peter F. & Eggleton, Ian R., 1991. "Feedback and management accounting: A review of research into behavioural consequences," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 371-394.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andiola, Lindsay M., 2014. "Performance feedback in the audit environment: A review and synthesis of research on the behavioral effects," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-36.
    2. Lisa-Marie Wibbeke & Maik Lachmann, 2020. "Psychology in management accounting and control research: an overview of the recent literature," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 275-328, September.
    3. Matthew S. Bothner & Young-Kyu Kim & Edward Bishop Smith, 2012. "How Does Status Affect Performance? Status as an Asset vs. Status as a Liability in the PGA and NASCAR," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 416-433, April.
    4. Hall, Matthew, 2008. "The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(2-3), pages 141-163.
    5. Alder, G. Stoney & Ambrose, Maureen L., 2005. "An examination of the effect of computerized performance monitoring feedback on monitoring fairness, performance, and satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 161-177, July.
    6. Brendan Daley & Ruoyu Wang, 2018. "When to Release Feedback in a Dynamic Tournament," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 11-26, March.
    7. Krumwiede, Kip R. & Swain, Monte R. & Thornock, Todd A. & Eggett, Dennis L., 2013. "The effects of task outcome feedback and broad domain evaluation experience on the use of unique scorecard measures," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 205-217.
    8. Arnold, Markus & Artz, Martin, 2019. "The use of a single budget or separate budgets for planning and performance evaluation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 50-67.
    9. Kwee Keong Choong & Sardar M. Islam, 2020. "A new approach to performance measurement using standards: a case of translating strategy to operations," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 137-170, December.
    10. Thornock, Todd A., 2016. "How the timing of performance feedback impacts individual performance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 1-11.
    11. Emsley, David, 2000. "Variance analysis and performance: two empirical studies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, January.
    12. Jinhwan Kim & Hyeob Kim & HyukJun Kwon, 2020. "The Impact of Employees’ Perceptions of Strategic Alignment on Sustainability: An Empirical Investigation of Korean Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, May.
    13. John W. Gardner*, 2020. "Managing Production Yields and Rework through Feedback on Speed, Quality, and Quantity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2182-2209, September.
    14. Ravindra K. Jain, 2011. "Entrepreneurial Competencies," Vision, , vol. 15(2), pages 127-152, June.
    15. Florian Ederer, 2010. "Feedback and Motivation in Dynamic Tournaments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(3), pages 733-769, September.
    16. Butler, Stephen A. & Ghosh, Dipankar, 2015. "Individual differences in managerial accounting judgments and decision making," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 33-45.
    17. Zafer Akın & Emin Karagözoğlu, 2017. "The Role of Goals and Feedback in Incentivizing Performance," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 193-211, March.
    18. Goncalo, Jack A. & Polman, Evan & Maslach, Christina, 2010. "Can confidence come too soon? Collective efficacy, conflict and group performance over time," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 13-24, September.
    19. David Emsley, 1997. "Organisational Change and Responsive Management Accounting Practice," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 7(14), pages 54-58, October.
    20. Nicole Nikiforow & Sebastian Wagener, 2021. "The contextual effect of completion on the effectiveness of performance feedback," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 61-90, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:99:y:2022:i:c:s0361368221001070. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.