THE ROLE OF FEEDBACK RECEIVING IN REDUCING LEADER SELF-ENHANCEMENT:
THE MODERATING EFFECT OF LEADER GOAL ORIENTATION.
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics
March 9, 2010 LINDA BREIMER Studentnumber: 1670182 Parkweg 55a 9725 EC Groningen Tel: + 31 (0)6 – 41327000 e-mail: linda.breimer@student.rug.nl Supervisor/University Drs. N.A. van der Kam
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
Feedback seems to play a major role in business nowadays: a study by Bracken, Timmreck and Church (2001) found that managers of more than one-third of all companies in the US are working with a certain type of feedback process in their daily business. Feedback is information that informs individuals about the extent to which they meet various goals. Receiving feedback can be valuable for individuals as they can use the acquired information to determine whether their self-perception is in agreement with the perception others have of them (Brett & Atwater, 2001). From a perspective of human resource management this makes feedback a valuable instrument in management development projects.
Although self-enhancement has been theorized and demonstrated to have several positive intra-psychic outcomes like enhanced self-esteem and a proactive orientation (Taylor & Brown, 1994), the effects on interpersonal outcomes are far less positive. Self-enhancement is found to have several negative consequences like poor social skills (Colvin, Funder & Block, 1995), which can lead to ongoing social conflicts (Paulhus, 1998). Further, self-enhancers are seen as hostile and arrogant (Paulhus, 1998), self-absorbed (Sosik & Megarian, 1999), overly aggressive (Yammarino & Atwater, 1997) and are characterized by lower levels of trust and a lower degree of commitment to the organization (Sosik, 2001).
Leadership is an interpersonal phenomenon which requires an adequate level of social, social-emotional and behavioural skills, as was found by Amagoh (2009). Since self-enhancers often lack these interpersonal skills, negative consequences of self-enhancing leaders are expected. This was confirmed in a study by Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino and Fleenor (1998); they found leadership effectiveness to be lowest for persons who overestimate themselves. Adequate interpersonal skills are specially required in transformational leadership, a currently very popular leadership style. According to MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Rich (2001) this leadership style is acknowledged by changing, directing and motivating the goals of followers in such a way that they feel the work is in agreement with their own values. By receiving feedback a person becomes aware of how he or she is perceived by others. The received feedback then enables an individual to evaluate the perception of the self in more realistic, accurate terms. To that end, the received feedback forms an instrument for overcoming self-enhancement and its negative consequences.
more effective leadership, specifically for persons who have an inaccurate view of the self based on their self-reflection.
Although receiving feedback is important in overcoming self-enhancement, people may differ highly in how they respond to received feedback. Since not all individuals handle feedback in the same way, it is important to not only focus on feedback receiving itself, but to also concentrate on how an individual processes the received feedback. One factor that has been known to determine how individuals process feedback is goal orientation (Vandewalle & Cummings, 1997).
A goal orientation is mainly described as ‘the purpose of task engagement, and the specific type of goal adopted is posited to create a framework for how individuals interpret and experience achievement settings’ as defined by Elliot, McGregor and Gable (1999). In this study the focus lies on two distinct goal orientations: the mastery goal orientation and the performance goal orientation.
Persons with a dominant mastery orientation are focused on learning, and the improvement of their knowledge, skills and abilities (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). To that end, receiving feedback is seen as a valuable mechanism for realizing self-improvements and can also be the basis for creating a realistic self-view. For that reason, mastery oriented persons are expected to be very willing to receive feedback, which may ultimately lead to a more realistic self-view.
feedback receiving is not expected to lower self-enhancement for performance oriented persons.
Based on a sample of 67 teams (consisting of 67 managers and 416 team members) from two large organizations in the north of the Netherlands, a research is presented that examines the relationship between feedback receiving and self-enhancement and the moderating effect of goal orientation on this relationship.
THEORY Feedback
The feedback concept is an often studied, used and valued concept that has a wide variety in definitions. Feedback is mainly seen as a form of information that denotes to what degree individuals are succeeding in realizing their outlined goals. In the interpersonal context feedback involves information about how relevant others perceive and evaluate certain behaviours.
The practice of feedback is seen as highly important in leadership effectiveness and leadership development. As was found by Yammarino and Atwater (1997) ; 10 to 15 percent of all organizations are involved in some sort of feedback processes, for evaluation but also for developmental purposes. Feedback is found to have some positive effects which also influence the effectiveness of performance. One positive effect is that feedback may lead to reduced uncertainty about how to achieve a certain goal based on the involved behaviour (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Further, feedback may also be an indicator for the importance of the different goals (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), this may help in assigning a certain degree of priority to the different goals. A third positive effect of feedback is that it can be helpful in the creation, development and improvement of competences (Ashford & Cummings, 1983).
feedback process by providing their leaders with feedback about their leadership performance, in other words: a bottom-up approach. Another form of feedback, which is currently very popular, is the so-called ‘360° feedback’ (Waldman & Atwater, 1998). This kind of feedback includes both top-down and bottom-up feedback, and adds another dimension; feedback from peers (Yammariono & Atwater, 1997)
The literature on feedback is often oriented on feedback seeking behaviour. Feedback may be very helpful to individuals because it informs them about the degree to which they are meeting their goals, and to that end they may be very willing to seek for it (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Although feedback seeking is a much discussed topic in current literature and practice, feedback receiving seems to be just as, or even more, important. Seeking for feedback on itself does not have much value if it does not lead to the actual receiving of good quality feedback. In contrary to feedback seeking, feedback receiving does not necessarily have to be intentional. Individuals may receive feedback because they were actively seeking for it or they may receive feedback without any attempt to seek for it.
Thus, receiving feedback has several positive effects and can be seen as highly important in leadership effectiveness and development. A main contribution of feedback to leadership effectiveness and development is its effect on self-establishment. By receiving feedback a person becomes aware of how he or she is perceived by others and is able to adjust the self-view to more realistic terms.
Self-enhancement
Because it is logically impossible for most people to be better than most others, this positive self-regard is called illusion. This leads to the conclusion that the perception most people have of themselves is not accurate and overly positive, also known as a self-enhancement bias.
Accuracy in self-perception seems to be highly important in psychological well-being. An accurate self-view is found to be essential for a positive mental health condition (Colvin, Block & Funder, 1995). In that light, an overly positive, non-accurate self-view does not contribute to psychological well-being in any way.
& Brown, 1994). Further, Taylor and Brown (1988) argue that positive illusions also promote higher motivation, greater persistence and more effective performance.
The role of feedback in self-enhancement
By receiving feedback an individual is enabled to process this feedback in a way that constitutes to a more realistic self-view. To that end, receiving feedback creates awareness of the non-accuracy of the self-view, and may lead to adjustment of the self-view in more accurate, realistic terms.
A field of study with a special interest in the relation between feedback and self-enhancement is the field of self-other agreement. Studies on this subject pay attention to the differences in outcomes between ratings and other ratings and their implications for self-enhancement.
When a person receives feedback that indicates that their subordinates’ ratings are lower than the self-rating, that person will be activated to think about this difference. This specific person may start to ask him- of herself what causes the discrepancy between his or her indented behaviour and the perception of this behaviour by others. Persons who perceive a discrepancy between self-rating and other ratings then will be motivated to improve their performance to reduce the discrepancy, as was found in self-consistency theory by Korman (1970).
It is also possible that the feedback received by others is in agreement with the self-ratings, or is even more positive than the self-rating, in those cases there would be no need to change behaviour nor to improve performance.
he or she might over-rate the self and will change behaviour and performance to that end. In that sense, feedback contributes to the realization of a more realistic self-view.
Another study also established the importance of feedback in creating a realistic self-view. Ashford and Tsui (1991) found that persons who seek feedback, and ultimately receive it, will develop a more accurate view of the self in comparison to persons who do not seek, and receive, feedback. To this end it is assumed that actively seeking for feedback results in the actual receiving of feedback which ultimately is beneficial in realizing a realistic view of the self.
The different studies, as described above, confirm the importance of receiving feedback for the establishment of a realistic self-view. It seems that the more feedback a leader receives from his or her followers, the less self-enhancing that leader is expected to be.
Hypothesis 1: The amount of feedback a leader receives from his/her followers is negatively related to his/her enhancement. The more feedback the leader receives the less self-enhancing he or she will be.
The moderating role of goal-orientation
Although receiving feedback is expected to be an important determinant in the establishment of a realistic self-view, it seems that not all persons are willing to use the received feedback to this end.
feedback. There are many possible attributes that may determine how a person handles received feedback.
A goal orientation is a personal attribute that determines the way individuals act and behave in a certain achievement setting. There are two broad classes of goal orientation as defined by psychologists (Butler, 1993): a. Mastery orientation (some authors also use the term ‘learning orientation’ for this purpose)and b. Performance orientation.
Persons holding a mastery orientation are highly focused on learning and acquiring new skills. Challenging assignments are preferred by the mastery oriented because these enable them to improve their skills and abilities. VandeWalle and Cummings (1997) define persons with a mastery orientation by a ‘willingness to develop new competences, acquirement of new skills and mastering new situations’.
Performance oriented persons prefer tasks that enable them to demonstrate the abilities and skills they already have. They rather avoid tasks that might involve their weaker competences. Further, persons holding a performance orientation are focused on seeking positive ratings, confirming their competence, and avoiding negative ratings on their performance (Vandewalle & Cummings,1997).
An individual’s goal orientation might be a determinant in how that persons handles received feedback, it might determine whether they use it for improvement or just ignore it because it does not fit in with their orientation. Studies in this field confirm the influence of an individual’s goal orientation on the feedback behaviour (Butler, 1993). A specific finding in this area is done by VandeWalle and Cummings (1997): they found that the mastery oriented are more involved in the feedback process than the performance oriented.
perceive ability as a changeable attribute, and for that reason they feel that by putting effort into it is possible to develop and improve competences (Brett & Atwater, 2001). Feedback can be a valuable tool in the desire to improve performance. As Duba (1993) found; mastery oriented persons are willing to receive feedback because this feedback may contain useful information for the development of their competence.
Performance oriented persons are characterized by a willingness to demonstrate their competences. They prefer receiving positive feedback, because that confirms their personal competences. Negative feedback is rather avoided because performance oriented persons may perceive this as a sign of low ability, which is in conflict with their orientation (Dweck & Legget, 1988). Persons holding a performance orientation perceive their ability as an attribute that is fixed and cannot be changed (Brett & Atwater, 2001). For that reason they do not see the value of negative feedback for developing ability. A study by VandeWalle and Cummings (1997) confirms this view; by using a sample of 239 students who followed evening education it was found that a performance goal orientation was negatively related to feedback.
As described above, the goal orientation seems to play an important role in the way individuals handle received feedback. Although receiving feedback is expected to have a positive influence on the creation of a realistic self-view, not all individuals process the received feedback in such a way, as based on their goal orientation.
Since persons with a dominant mastery orientation are focused on learning and the
in line with how they are perceived by others. It is expected that a mastery orientation does
not influence the negative relation between feedback receiving and self-enhancement.
Hypothesis 2a. The relationship between feedback receiving and self-enhancement is moderated by a leader’s mastery orientation in such a way that for leaders high on mastery orientation the negative effect of the amount of feedback received on self-enhancement is stronger than for those low on mastery orientation.
Performance oriented persons are characterized by a willingness to demonstrate competence instead of improving competence. When they receive negative feedback on their performance they perceive this as a sign of low ability. Since they view ability as a fixed attribute, and not as something that might be open to development, negative feedback is in conflict with their orientation. On the other hand, positive feedback is very welcomed by performance oriented persons since this confirms their orientation and is beneficial to the demonstration of competence. Despite the value that positive feedback might have for the performance oriented, it is specifically the negative feedback that helps in diminishing self-enhancement. Persons oriented by performance will probably receive negative feedback often, but they are expected to ignore this feedback since it does not confirm their orientation. For that reason feedback receiving is not expected to lower self-enhancement for performance oriented persons.
METHOD
Sample
The sample included 67 teams of top and middle managers from two large organizations in the northern part of the Netherlands; a mental health organization and an educational institution. The 67 teams included 67 managers and a total of 416 team members. The average team size was 7.21 persons, with the smallest team consisting of 4 persons and the largest team consisting of 14 persons. The mental health organization employs a total of 1500 employees and the educational institution has about 2600 employees. The managers who participated were all considered as being highly trained professionals and had an average age of 47.7 years. The greater part of the managers were female, 56.1 %, and the average organizational tenure of the managers was 36 months. Survey data were received from a total of 67 teams who participated in this study.
Procedure
Data was collected by means of a questionnaire. Two sets of questionnaires were used in the study: one for the subordinates and one for their supervisors, the managers. Before the participants filled out the questionnaire they were asked to fill out a so-called ‘pre-measurement questionnaire’ containing primarily personality variables; the goal orientation was also measured in this pre-measurement. Some of the questionnaire items were originally in English and were translated into Dutch for the purpose of the questionnaire.
Measures
Feedback receiving. Feedback receiving was measured by a three-item scale which was based on a more comprehensive scale by Lam, Huang & Snape (2007). The participants were asked how frequently they provided their manager with feedback regarding (1) the manager’s overall work performance, (2) their technical performance on the job, and (3) the manager’s social behaviour. These items were measured on a 7-point scoring scale ranging from (1) ‘never’ to (7) ‘always’. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the items was .916. Since the between group variance was larger than the within group variance (F= 1.73; p < 0.01) the scores were aggregated to the manager based on an average team score. This aggregate was justified based on an average inter-rater agreement coefficient (RwgJ) of .82.
Since the between group variance was larger than the within group variance (F= 3.77; p < 0.001) the scores were aggregated to the manager based on an average team score. This aggregate was justified based on an average inter-rater agreement coefficient (RwgJ) of .92.
Self-enhancement. To establish the degree of self-enhancement a measure called the ‘self-insight index’ was used. The self-insight index is a conception on self-enhancement which measure self-enhancement based on the difference between a person’s self-perception and the perception of that person by others (Kwan, Kenny, John, Bond & Robins, 2004). In this study, self-enhancement was established based on the difference between a manager’s self-score on transformational leadership and the score assigned to them by their subordinates, as described above.
Goal orientation. To measure a person’s dominant goal orientation a scale by Janssen and Prins (2007) was used. This scale measured the two goal orientations; the performance orientation and the mastery orientation. The Crohnbach’s alpha coefficient for the items was .832.
Control variables. Because of the potential effects of demographic variables, several control variables have been included in this study, namely: age difference, dyadic tenure and gender. These demographic variables were obtained from all participants by means of the questionnaire.
Age difference between manager and subordinate might have influence on accepting received feedback as was theorized by Fedor, Bettenhausen and Davis (1999). Older persons may have more difficulty accepting ratings from younger persons. Age was self-reported in years, both by managing and non-managing participants.
(Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, 1992), which may have negative consequences for accepting feedback. Dyadic tenure was self-reported in months, by all participants.
Finally, gender is expected also to be of influence. Former research found that women were more concerned about how others may think and feel about them than men (Rosenberg & Simons, 1975). A gender difference is also found on handling failure, men tend to improve their performance after failure, whereas women show a tendency of decreased performance after failure (Nicholls, 1975). This might have its influence on handling feedback. Gender was self-reported in years and dummy coded (0= female, 1= male).
Analysis
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1 below. The bi-variate relationships, as shown in Table 1, indicate that feedback receiving is the only variable significantly related to the dependent outcome variable, self-enhancement ( r = -.31; p < 0.01). This relationship is consistent with the predictions as made in Hypothesis 1: feedback receiving was expected to correlate significantly with self-enhancement in a way that the more feedback a person receives, the less that person tends to self-enhance. The effects of age difference, dyadic tenure difference and gender were investigated as these demographic variables might have an influence on the variables under study. As shown in Table 1 age difference and dyadic tenure differences were not significantly correlated to any of the study variables. Gender was only significantly related to the predictor variable mastery orientation.
Preliminary regression analyses show that when performing controlling for these variables, this did not resulted in finding a significant relationship.
[Insert Table 1]
Simultaneous regression analysis was conducted to test hypotheses 1, 2a and 2b. The data resulting from this analysis are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.
Hypothesis 2a proposed that the relationship between feedback receiving and self-enhancement moderated by a leader’s mastery orientation. It was expected that the relationship between feedback receiving and self-enhancement would be moderated by the leader’s mastery orientation in a way that for leaders high on mastery orientation the negative effect of the amount of feedback received on self-enhancement is stronger than for those low on mastery orientation. By conducting a regression analysis this hypothesis was tested. Results of the regression analysis reveal that there was no significant relationship found between self-enhancement and the added product term of feedback receiving and mastery orientation (b = .14; n.s), as shown in Table 2. Concluding, Hypothesis 2a was not supported which means that there is no proof that a person high on mastery orientation, who receives feedback, is less self-enhancing than a person low on mastery orientation. Analyses even showed that feedback receiving is positively (and not negatively as was hypothesized) related to self-enhancement for the mastery oriented, still this relationship is not significant
[Insert Table 2]
feedback, is more self-enhancing than a person low on performance orientation. Based on the values as found in the regression analysis it can be concluded that feedback receiving is negatively (and not positively as was hypothesized) related to self-enhancement for the performance oriented, still this relationship is not significant.
DISCUSSION
This study focuses on the relationship between feedback receiving and self-enhancement and the moderating effect of goal orientation on this relationship. Even though not all hypotheses are confirmed the results still point towards some interesting findings that may advance both theory and practice.
Receiving feedback was hypothesized as an important factor in diminishing self-enhancement. By receiving feedback an individual is able to adjust the self-view in more realistic, accurate terms which ultimately leads to less self-enhancement. The results indicate that receiving feedback is indeed related to self-enhancement. A significant negative relationship is found between the two main variables confirming that the more feedback a leader receives the less that leader will self-enhance. This finding is in line with former theory. By receiving feedback an individual becomes aware of how he or she is perceived by others, and is able to identify a possible discrepancy between the self-perception and the perception by others, which may ultimately lead to adjusting the self in more realistic terms, as was found by Atwater, Roush and Fischthal (1995). A study by Ashford and Tsui (1991) came to a same sort of conclusion; they found that persons who seek feedback, and ultimately receive it, will develop a more accurate view of the self in comparison to persons who do not seek, and receive, feedback.
found. As these research findings indicate, the overall conclusion is that no interaction effect has been established based on this study. Three theoretical explanations for not finding an interaction effect are discussed next.
because they had to judge not only themselves, but also their peers and their leaders. This might have had its influence on their adopted goal orientation in that specific situation.
A hierarchy difference between leader and subordinate forms the basis for yet two other explanations for not finding an interacting effect.
words, they may perceive their subordinates as not being sufficiently qualified to provide them with relevant feedback, and for that reason they might object to the received feedback.
Seen from the perspective of the subordinate, yet another important consequence of hierarchy arises. During this study the subordinates had to rank their leaders, whom they are dependent on in several ways. The leader is the one who mostly has power over work-related issues concerning the subordinates like the assignment of work, but also, more importantly, decisions about major issues such as lay-offs, promotions and pay raise. It is found that positive feedback is often interpreted as more accurate than negative feedback (Swan, 1978), and that people feel better after receiving positive feedback than after receiving negative feedback (Sweeney & Wells, 1990). Because of the subordinate’s dependency on the leader for major work issues they may have a reason to be rather neural in their judgment of the leader, or to tone down negative feedback. On the other hand, the difference in hierarchy may also lead to some form of jealousy or conflict between the leader and the subordinate. A leader can be perceived as threatening because his or her higher position may implicate that his or her knowledge and abilities are superior to those of the subordinate’s (Poortvliet, Janssen, van Yperen, 2004). Subordinates who experience some form of conflict based on the higher rank of their leader are not expected to be very helpful in providing feedback, which may ultimately lead to lower, or more neutral rankings of the leader. To conclude, a power distance between leader and subordinate may lead to biased judgments of the leader. Since self-enhancement is measured based on the difference between the leader’s self ranking and the ranking by subordinates, this may lead to a non realistic degree of self-enhancement.
Strengths and limitations
Future research
Although the self-insight index is an often used and valid measure, more elaborated measures are available. Recently, a new measure was established by Kwan et al (2004). The so-called interpersonal approach considers both how a person generally perceives others and how that person is perceived by others, and is more extensive than the self-insight index. Although this study highly focuses on a difference in the perceptions of behaviour, and to that end the self-insight index was applied, future studies may use the more elaborated interpersonal approach to broaden the conception of self-enhancement.
Management practice implications
REFERENCES
Amagoh,F. (2009). Leadership development and leadership effectiveness. Management Decision, 47(6), 989-999.
Ames,C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of educational psychology, 80, 260-267.
Ashford, S.J., & Blatt, R., & Vande Walle,D. (2003). Reactions on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 29(6), 773-799.
Ashford, S.J.,& Cummings, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating information. Organizational behavior and human performance, 32, 370-398.
Ashford, S.J.,& Tsui, A.S. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: the role of active feedback seeking. Academy of management journal, 34(2), 251-280.
Atwater, L.E.,& Ostroff, C.,& Yammarino, F.J.,& Fleenor, J.W. (1998). Self-other agreement: does it really matter? Personnel psychology, 51.
Atwater, L.E.,& Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self- and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel psychology, 48, 35-60.
Bonnanno, G.A.,& Singer, J.L. (1990). Repressor personality style; theoretical and methodological for health and pathology. In J.L. Singer. Repression and dissociation. Chicago: university of Chicago press.
Bracken, D.,& Timmreck,C.,& Church, A. (2001). Handbook of multisource feedback. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brett, J.F., & Atwater L.E. (2001). 360° feedback : accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of applied psychology, 86(5), 930-942.
Butler, R. (1993). Effect of task- and ego achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65, 18-31.
Button,S.C., & Mathieu, J.E.,& Zajac, D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 67(1), 26-48.
Colvin, C.R.,& Funder, D.C., & Block, J. (1995). Overly positive self-evaluations and personality: negative implications for mental health. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(8), 1152-1162.
Danko, Q. (2002) Intermediair leiderschapsenquête 2002. Retrieved from:
Dunning, D.,& Heath, C., & Suls, J. (2004). Flawed self-assessment: Implications for health, education and the workplace. Psychological science in the public interest, 5, 69-106.
Duba, J. (1993). Goal: a social-cognitive approach to the study of achievement motivation in sport. In Singer, R.N., Murphy, M., Tenant, L.K. Handbook of research on sport psychology. 421-436, New York: Macmillan.
Duda, J.L.,& Nicholls J.G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of educational psychology, 84, 290-299.
Dweck, C.S.,& Legget, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological review, 95, 256-273.
Dweck, C.S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser Foundations for a psychology of education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elliot, A.J.,& McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal of psychology& social psychology, 80(3), 501.
Elliot, A.J.,& McGregor, H.A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: a meditational analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 3, 549-563. Fedor, D., & Bettenhausen, K., & Davis, W.(1999). Employees’ dual role as raters and recipients, Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 92-120.
Heine, S.J. (2003). Self-enhancement in Japan? A reply to Brown and Kobayashi. Asian journal of social psychology. 6, 75-84.
Janssen, O.,& Prins,J. (2007). Goal orientations and the seeking of different types of feedback information, Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 80(2), 235-250.
Johnson, J.W.,& Festl, K.L. (2009). The effects of interrater and self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward feedback. Personnel psychology, 52, 271-303. Jussim,L.Y., & Aiello,J.R. (1994). Self-consistency, Self-enhancement, and Accuracy in reactions to feedback. Journal of experimental social psychology, 31, 322-356.
Kernis, M.H.,& Johnson, E.K. (1990). Current and typical self-appraisals: differential responsiveness to evaluative feedback and implications for emotions. Journal of research in personality. 24, 241-257.
Korman, A.K. (1970). Towards an hypothesis of work behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 54(1), 31.
Lam, W., & Huang, X., & Snape, E. (2007). Feedback seeking behavior and leader-member exchange: Do supervisor attributed motives matter?, Academy of management journal, 50 (2), 348-363.
Lonnqvist, J., & Leikas,S.,& Verkasalo,M.,& Paunonen, S.V. (2008). Does self-enhancement have implications for adjustment? Basic and applied social psychology, 30, 377-386.
Mackenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, P.M., & Rich, G.A. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and salesperson performance. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 29 (2), 115-134.
Management Team. Managers hebben verkeerd zelfbeeld. Retrieved from:
http://www.mt.nl/archief/159428/Managers_hebben_een_verkeerd_zelfbeeld.html.
24-02-2005.
Nicholls, J.G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement related cognitions: the effect of task outcome, attainment value and sex. Journal of personality and social psychology, 31, 379- 389.
Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L.E., & Feinberg, B.J. (2004).Understanding self-other agreement; a look at rater and rate characteristics, context and outcomes, Personnel psychology, 57, 333-375.
Paulhus, D.L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: a mixed blessing? Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208.
Podsakoff, P.M., & Mackenzie, S.B., & Moorman, R.H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effect on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, Leadership quarterly, 1(2), 107- 142.
Poortvliet, P.M.,& Janssen, O., & van Yperen, N.W. (2004). Prestatiemotivatie in interpersoonlijke context; de betekenis van doeloriëntaties voor feedback zoeken en sociale uitwisseling met leidinggevende en collega’s. Gedrag & Organisatie, 17, 402-413.
Reed, G.M.,& Kemeny, M.E., & Taylor, S.E.,& Visscher, B.R. (1994). “Realistic acceptance” as a predictor of decreased survival time in gay men with aids. Heath psychology, 13, 299-307.
Robins, R.W., & Beer, J.S. (2001). Positive illusion about the self: short-term benefits and long-term costs. Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(2), 340-352.
Rosenberg, F.R.,& Simmons, R.G. (1975). Sex differences in the self-concept in adolescence. Sex Roles, 1, 147-159.
Swan, W.B. (1987). Identify negotiation: where two roads meet. Journal of personality and social psychology. 53, 1038-1051.
Sweeney, P.D.,& Wells, L.E.(1990). Reactions to feedback about performance: a test of three competing models. Journal of applied social psychology. 20, 818-834.
Taylor, S.E.,& Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being; a social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Taylor, S.E., Brown, J.D. (1994).Positive illusion and well being revisited: separating fact from fiction. Psychological bulletin, 116(1), 21-27.
Taylor, S.E.,& Kemeny, M.E.,& Reed,G.M., & Bower, J.E., & Gruenewald, T.L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions and health. American psychologist, 55, 99-109. Tsui, A.S., & Egan, T.D., & O’Reilly, C.A. (1992). Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment, Administrative science quarterly,37, 549-579.
Vande Walle, D.,& Cummings L.L. (1997). A test of the influence of goal orientation on the feedback seeking process. Journal of applied psychology, 82(3), 390-400.
Waldman, D.A., & Atwater, L.A. (1998) The power of 360-degree feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top productivity, Houston, TX: Gulf.
