Antecedents and Consequences of The Feedback Environment PDF

Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment
by
Jaclyn Pamela Pittman
Bachelor of Science
in Psychology
University of Florida
2003
Master of Science
in Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Florida Institute of Technology
2005
A dissertation
submitted to Florida Institute of Technology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Melbourne, Florida
August, 2007
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI N um ber: 3282717
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3282717
Copyright 2007 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright 2007 Jaclyn Pamela Pittman

All Rights Reserved
The auti
its pemiissio:
make single copies
We the undersigned committee hereby recommend that the attached document be

accepted as fulfilling in part the requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Industrial/Organizational Psychology.
Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment, a dissertation by
Jaclyn Pamela Pittman.
A A _X
sa Steelman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Dissertation Advisor
Richard Grimm, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and Program Director, Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Richard, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Roger Manley, Ph.D.

Professor, College of Business
lary Bern Kenkel, Ph.D.

Dean, School of Psychology
Abstract
by
Jaclyn Pamela Pittman
Committee Chair: Lisa Steelman, Ph.D.
This study examined possible antecedents and consequences of the feedback
environment.. The feedback environment encompasses the day to day contextual
aspects of the feedback process among subordinates, coworkers, and supervisors
(Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004). The feedback environment focuses on informal
feedback rather than the feedback associated with formal performance appraisals.
Organizational learning culture, transformational leadership, and supervisor
emotional intelligence were hypothesized to have a positive impact on the feedback
environment. Regression analyses showed that these antecedents lead to a favorable
feedback environment, supporting hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. Further, the feedback
environment was hypothesized to influence employees participation in self
development behaviors by increasing self-determination. Although the overall
model was a good fit to the data, the hypotheses predicting a relationship between
the feedback environment and potential consequences were not supported by
regression analyses. Employee engagement was expected to moderate the
relationship between self-determination and self-development behaviors such that
engaged employees participate in developmental activities more than employees
who are not engaged in their work. This hypothesis was not supported. The results
of this study contribute to the existing literature by identifying organizational
characteristics that influence the work environment surrounding feedback.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Feedback Environment
Antecedents
11
Outcomes
30
Moderator
41
Current Study
45
Chapter 2
46
Methods
46
Chapter 3
54
Results
54
Chapter 4
71
Discussion
71
Limitations
76
Future Research
79
Chapter 5
81
Conclusion
81
References
83
Appendix A
96
Appendix B
106
iv
List o f K eywords
Emotional Intelligence
Transformational Leadership
Learning Culture
Self-Determination
Self Development Behaviors
Employee Engagement
List of Figures
Figure 1. Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment
Structural Model
96

Measurement Model
97

Measurement Model and Structural Model
98
Figure 4. Alternative Structural Model
99
Figure 5. Measurement Model Results
100
Figure 6. Structural and Measurement Model Results
101
Figure 7. Alternative Model Results
102
Figure 8. Exploratory Results - Model 1
103
104
105
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Sample Characteristics
48
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
55
Table 3. Correlational Analysis for Study Variables
56
Table 4. Measurement Model Fit Statistics
60
Table 5. Hypothesized Model Fit Statistics
67
Table 6. Alternative Model Fit Statistics
69
Chapter 1
Increasingly, growing and changing organizations demand that employees

also grow and actively gauge their own competence through self-development.
Organizations should provide the resources to promote employees development
for improved performance and in anticipation of future performance standards.
These resources may come in the form of organizational programs and supervisor
support (London & Mone, 1999). One way organizations and supervisors can
support employee development is by facilitating a feedback environment that
bolsters employees internal desire to learn and grow.
Self development occurs when individuals use evaluation information to
improve performance, set goals, participate in developmental activities, and
monitor their own progress (London & Smither, 1999). Performance evaluations
can provide employees with valuable information that can be used to identify goals,
improve performance, and develop careers (London, 2003). Investigations of
feedback in organizations have shown that it is a valuable individual resource for
workers (VandeWalle, Ganesan, Challagalla, & Brown, 2002). Feedback provides
employees with information concerning their individual progress and helps clarify
their role in the organization. This exchange of information is also valuable to the
organization because individual feedback has been shown to increase motivation
and improve the performance of employees (Ashford & Tsui, 1991).
Although it is clear that feedback is a crucial part of developing successful
employees, not all feedback is effective (London & Smither, 1999). Kluger and
DeNisi (1996) examined the literature on feedback interventions and found that
38% of feedback interventions were not successful (i.e., lead to worse performance
rather than better performance). Kluger and DeNisi explained that feedback is
ineffective when it is not given in a constructive way. The feedback source must
effectively communicate the feedback to foster positive responses from employees.
Employees responses to feedback depend on the manner in which the source
presents the information and employees understanding of the feedback (London,
2003). The judgments that employees make about feedback engender emotional
responses. Ashkanasy, Hartel, and Zerbe (2000) suggest that the sign of the
feedback, the amount of feedback received, and the similarity between the feedback
received and the recipients expectations influence emotional responses to the
feedback. Murphy and Cleveland (1995) suggested that to better understand the
impact of feedback on self development, researchers need to study the conditions in
organizations that lead to constructive uses of feedback; in other words researchers
need to study the social context impacting the feedback process.
One important aspect of the context surrounding feedback is the feedback

environment. The feedback environment is defined as the social context
surrounding the transmission and receipt of feedback in the work environment. The
feedback environment is comprised of the every day interactions between
employees, coworkers, and supervisors. It reflects the informal feedback processes
as opposed to formal performance appraisals (Steelman et al., 2004). A favorable
feedback environment occurs when consistent and useful feedback is delivered in a
considerate way from a trustworthy and credible source. A favorable feedback
environment also depends on whether the source sets up an environment supportive
of feedback seeking and is available to give positive and negative feedback that is
perceived by the recipient to accurately reflect his or her performance.
Informal feedback can come from various sources in an organization as
individuals interact with each other. The social characteristics of an organization
contribute to the feedback environment as norms guide the social exchange by
imposing implicit standards about informal socialization (London, 2003). Some
organizations are more conducive to social interaction than others. It has been
suggested that when an organization has an environment that promotes
socialization, employees feel more comfortable sharing work related information
(Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). Similarly, an organizational culture that values
employee development is likely to promote a work environment that stimulates
informal feedback. This study examined organizational learning culture as an
antecedent of the feedback environment. An organizations learning culture reflects

the extent that the organization promotes members learning and development
(Egan, Young, & Bartlett, 2004). These organizations stress the importance of
employee development. It is expected that organizations with a learning culture
will support employee development by creating a favorable feedback environment.
Although informal feedback can be provided to an individual from various
sources, this study focused on the supervisor as the feedback source. An important
part of any leaders job is to facilitate employee development and encourage
employees to engage in their work. Self-development should be directed by
supervisors who facilitate learning by providing feedback, support, and resources
for learning (London & Smither, 1999). Leaders want their employees to be
internally motivated to work hard and do their jobs effectively. When employees
are performing at their best, they put forth effort to master new skills and stretch
their talents (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Alternatively, when individuals are passive and
apathetic towards their lives or jobs, their work performance suffers. Research has
shown that certain leader characteristics lead to a favorable feedback environment
as perceived by subordinates (Pittman & Steelman, 2006). This study examined the
leader characteristics of emotional intelligence and transformational leadership as
antecedents of the supervisor feedback environment.
This study also examined possible consequences of the feedback
environment. The supervisor feedback environment has been linked to important
work outcomes such as affective commitment and organizational citizenship

behaviors (Norris-Watts & Levy, 2004). A favorable feedback environment has
also been correlated with employees willingness to seek feedback from their
supervisors (Pittman & Steelman, 2006). The current study examined the impact of
the feedback environment on important work outcomes related to employee
development. First, it was anticipated that a favorable feedback environment will
be related to employees self determination. Individuals differ on intrinsic
motivation and their tendency to be active or passive. Self-determination theory
proposes that to understand self motivation one must take into account inherent
psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan,
2000). Although dispositional and genetic factors may contribute to self
motivation, it has been suggested that social contexts also play a role (Ryan and
Deci, 2000). One social context - the work environment, specifically the feedback
environment that ones supervisor creates may impact employee self determination.
It is also believed that the feedback environment indirectly impacts
employees self development behaviors by facilitating employees self
determination. Deci and Ryan contend that individuals who are motivated for
internal reasons perform better than those who are motivated for external reasons.
Based on this theory, it makes sense to consider that individuals who are internally
motivated should be more likely to participate in activities to develop themselves.
Rather than being motivated by extrinsic factors, self determined individuals put
forth effort to succeed because they want to . It was anticipated that self determined
employees would be more likely to attend training, seek feedback, and meet with a
career coach than employees who lack internal motivation. A goal of this study was
to test the proposition that self-determined employees participate more frequently
in behaviors that will develop their knowledge and skills. This knowledge will help
organizations identify individuals who are likely to actively participate in their
learning. The results from this study will also help organizations better understand
how the organizational culture and leadership characteristics contribute to
employees development. Organizations can use the information from studies such
as this one to select effective leaders and to create a culture that focuses on
learning. Also, this study contributes to the feedback literature by pinpointing
some of the organizational characteristics that lead to a favorable feedback
environment and identifying some important outcomes. This information can also
be used by organizations to improve the quality of the social environment
surrounding feedback.
Feedback is the information sent to an individual regarding his or her
performance related behavior (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Feedback is important
for organizations because it can motivate, direct, and instruct the behaviors of
employees (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979). Kluger and DeNisi contend that
feedback is a key component of employee motivation (1996). It is clear that
feedback is a crucial part of developing successful employees. An important aspect

of the context in which feedback occurs is the feedback environment. The feedback
environment refers to the every day interactions between supervisors, subordinates,
and coworkers (Steelman, et al., 2004). The feedback environment encompasses
contextual and situational aspects of feedback processes. The feedback
environment includes seven dimensions: source credibility, feedback delivery,
feedback seeking promotion, unfavorable feedback, favorable feedback, source
availability, and feedback quality.
A feedback environment can be favorable or unfavorable in that the social
work context can promote or hinder the sharing of evaluation information. A
favorable feedback environment occurs when consistent and useful feedback is
delivered in a considerate way from a trustworthy and credible source. A favorable
feedback environment also depends on whether the source sets up an environment
supportive of feedback seeking and is available to give positive and negative
feedback that is perceived by the recipient to accurately reflect his or her
performance (Steelman et. al., 2004).
Feedback source
Although employees receive feedback from various sources, the feedback
research suggests that the most practical feedback sources as perceived by
employees are coworkers and supervisors (London, 2003). Kinicki et al. (2004)
studied how the feedback source impacts feedback effectiveness. They found that a
feedback rich environment and source credibility was significantly related to

employees perceived accuracy of the feedback. The perceived accuracy of the
feedback then led to the desire to respond to the feedback. Kinicki et al. (2004)
demonstrated how the source of the feedback can influence employees cognitive
evaluations of the feedback which affects the effectiveness of the feedback.
The present study examined supervisors as the feedback source. A credible
feedback source is knowledgeable of the important aspects of the subordinates job,
is aware of the subordinates performance, and has the ability to evaluate the
performance of the subordinate (Steelman et al., 2004). A credible feedback source
is also one who is perceived as trustworthy. A subordinate is more likely to seek
feedback from a truthful source than a source not trusted to provide accurate
information. Feedback delivery refers to the manner in which the source gives the
feedback (Steelman et al., 2004). Subordinates perceptions of their supervisors
purpose for giving the feedback will affect the subordinates reactions to the
feedback. A subordinate is more inclined to accept feedback from someone who is
delivering the feedback in a considerate way. Vandewalle et al. (2000) suggested
that subordinates may be more likely to seek feedback from sources with a
considerate leadership style. Likewise, Mazdar (1995) suggested that a
supervisors considerate leadership style could lessen the fear of risking potential
damage to ones ego associated with directly asking for feedback.
Outcomes
Empirical studies have identified several outcomes associated with a
favorable feedback environment. Rosen, Levy, and Hall (2006) studied the
feedback environment as it relates to perceptions of organizational politics. They
found that favorable feedback environments were associated with lower
perceptions o f organizational politics. The supervisor and coworker facets were
examined and both supervisors and coworkers contributed to perceptions of
organizational politics. However, the results suggest that supervisors have a
stronger impact. They also found that perceptions of organizational politics
mediated the relationship between feedback environment and employee morale as
indicated by affective commitment and job satisfaction. Employee morale and
performance outcomes were also found to be significantly related. Based on these
findings, Rosen et al. (2006) suggest that when employees have access to others
evaluations of their performance and understand what is expected of them,
ambiguity is reduced and thus perceptions of organizational politics are reduced
and performance outcomes are enhanced.
Similarly, Anseel and Lievens (in press) studied the relationship between
the feedback environment and job satisfaction. They found that a favorable
supervisor feedback environment was significantly and positively related to job
satisfaction. They also found that this relationship was mediated by the quality of
the leader-member exchange. Based on the results of their study, Anseel and
Lievens suggested that an employees perceptions of his/her supervisors feedback

environment impacts the supervisor - subordinate relationship which influences job
satisfaction.
Norris-Watts and Levy (2004) examined the relationship between the
feedback environment and organizational citizenship behaviors. The results from
their study showed that participants were more likely to perform organizational
citizenship behaviors when their supervisors facilitated a favorable feedback
environment. Bogle and Steelman (2007) went further by examining job
satisfaction and organizational justice as mediators of the feedback environment organizational citizenship behavior relationship. They found that supervisors who
create a favorable feedback environment positively influence employees job
satisfaction and perceptions of fairness and employees were therefore more likely
to perform organizational citizenship behaviors.
The studies discussed above provide evidence that leaders who create
favorable feedback environments influence their subordinates work related
attitudes and behaviors. This study examined the extent to which the feedback
environment impacted employees work related attitudes (work self determination)
behaviors (participation in self development activities). First, the proposed
antecedents to the feedback environment will be discussed, then I will discuss the
anticipated outcomes of a favorable feedback environment. This chapter will end
with a discussion of the current studys hypotheses.
10
Antecedents
Leadership characteristics
Leaders are individuals who influence the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and
feelings of others (Spector, 1996). Leaders of organizations are often associated
with managerial or supervisory positions. However, working in one of these roles
does not guarantee that an individual will be skilled at influencing others (Spector,
1996). Certain leadership characteristics have been suggested to be more effective
than others. Based on the trait approach to leadership, certain traits might be
important in some work situations but not as useful in others. It has been suggested
that organizations lead by supervisors who support the development of their
subordinates are more likely to be organizations that can adjust to changes in the
business environment (London, 2003). This study will examine two leadership
characteristics that are hypothesized to be related to employee developmentemotional intelligence and transformational leadership.
Employees may avoid asking for information about their job performance
for fear of receiving the leaders antagonism and pessimistic evaluation. In work
situations in which the source of performance feedback is perceived to be in a bad
mood, employees may avoid seeking feedback (Ang, Cummings, Straub, & Earley,
1993). Williams et al. (1999) examined the influence of source supportiveness in
their study of feedback seeking in public contexts. Based on the results of their
study, Williams and her colleagues suggested that source supportiveness affects the
11
frequency with which employees ask for feedback in public. Supervisors can
promote feedback seeking by establishing an encouraging environment.
Supervisors are able to affect the frequency of feedback seeking by creating an
environment that is supportive or unsupportive of feedback seeking behavior
(Steelman et. al, 2004). Subordinates are more likely to seek feedback if they feel
comfortable asking for it or if they are rewarded for seeking.
Levy, Cober, and Miller (2002) studied the effects of leadership style on
feedback seeking intentions. The results from their study suggest that subordinates
are more likely to seek feedback from leaders with a transformational leadership
style than those who lead with a transactional style. Furthermore, they found that
perceptions of source behaviors affect feedback seeking. Their findings suggest one
potential mechanism through which leaders impact subordinate development.
Levy et al. (2002) suggested that since feedback seeking provides
employees with valuable information, organizations should benefit from putting
forth efforts to create an environment which encourages frequent feedback seeking.
It is reasonable to believe that a supervisor who has a considerate leadership style
or is high on emotional intelligence should build an environment that is supportive
of feedback. The transformational leader or an emotionally intelligent leader is
likely to deliver the feedback in a non-threatening, considerate manner and should
promote a setting that encourages information seeking and other types of self
development behavior.
12
Emotional intelligence
Defining Emotional Intelligence. Building on the previous work of other
researchers of non cognitive intelligence, Mayer and Salovey (1990) originated the
term emotional intelligence in 1990. Emotional intelligence is a relatively new
construct which gained popularity quickly. The notion that a previously
unidentified individual difference may explain why some people have greater real
world success than others intrigued the masses (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts,
2007). Matthews et al. (2007) suggest that the explosive growth o f emotional
intelligence contributed to the early, over stated claims that emotional intelligence
is more important than general intelligence. These claims came at a time when the
science of emotional intelligence was just developing. The premature claims left
this developing construct as a target for disagreement and criticism among
researchers (Matthews et al. 2007).
Since the emergence of emotional intelligence as a psychological construct,
researchers have questioned how best to define it. There remains little consensus
over how emotional intelligence should be defined and conceptualized. However,
researchers appear to agree that the construct likely encompasses multiple domains.
Exactly which dimensions to include under the umbrella of emotional intelligence
has yet to be agreed on. Although there are different approaches to emotional
intelligence, it is generally viewed as the processes through which individuals
13
perceive, express and regulate emotions in themselves and others (Bums, Bastian,
& Nettelbeck, 2007).
By Golemans definition, emotional intelligence is defined as the ability to
know ones emotions, manage emotions, motivate oneself, recognize emotions in
others, and handle relationships (Goleman, 1998). Emotional intelligence is not an
innate trait, but rather learned abilities which facilitate interpersonal effectiveness
in leaders (Goleman, 1998). In his books, Goleman suggests that emotional
intelligence is a multi-faceted construct that encompasses multiple definitions and
models to include qualities covered by the concept. Some of the qualities of
emotional intelligence are similar to those found in personality constructs and some
focus more on ability. Two models of emotional intelligence are most often
considered in research, the mental ability model and the mixed model.
The mental ability model focuses on the ability to process affective
information. The mental ability model places emotional intelligence in the context
of intelligence. Mayer and Saloveys definition of emotional intelligence stems
from this ability based framework. They define emotional intelligence as having
the ability to monitor ones own and others feelings and emotions, to distinguish
among them and to use this information to direct ones thinking and behaviors
(Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Mayer, Salovey, and Carusos model has a cognitive
emphasis, focused on mental aptitudes (Goleman, 2001). Their cognitive model
comprises four tiers of skills that range from simple psychological processes to
14
more complex processes mixing emotion and cognition. The first tier includes
complex skills which permit an individual to perceive and express emotions, the
second tier abilities include using emotions to prioritize thinking, the third tier
includes skills such as differentiating between emotions, and the fourth tier focuses
on the general ability to direct emotions towards social goals (Goleman, 2001). The
cognitive focus of this definition of emotional intelligence is supported by many
researchers. Matthews et al. (2007) support Mayer and Saloveys definition of
emotional intelligence as they suggest that the mental ability model may be the
only model that predicts over and beyond personality.
In contrast, mixed models characterize emotional intelligence as a diverse
construct that includes aspects of mental abilities, as well as personality-like traits
and attitudes about emotions. The most popular theories of mixed models are those
which include trait concepts such as impulse control and self-actualization
(Janovics & Christiansen, 2001). Bar-On and Goleman support the mixed model of
ability and personality characteristics. Bar-On characterizes emotional intelligence
as noncognitive capabilities that affect ones skills in coping with environmental
pressures (Taylor & Bagby, 2000). Bar-Ons model of emotional intelligence has
placed the construct in the context of personality theory, a model of well-being.
Golemans model of emotional intelligence places the construct as a theory
of performance that reflects how well a person masters emotional skills (Goleman,
2001). Goleman (1998) describes emotional intelligence as the potential for
15
learning the practical skills that are based on its five elements: self-awareness,
motivation, self-regulation, empathy, and adeptness in relationships. Emotional
intelligence by Golemans definition includes five parts: knowing emotions,
managing emotions, motivating oneself, recognizing emotions in others, and
handling relationships.
Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, and Pluta (in press) conducted a meta-analysis
examining the construct validity of emotional intelligence. The results from their
study support past research in that measures based on mixed models of emotional
intelligence correlated highly with personality factors. They noted that
agreeableness, the lowest correlate of the mixed model is the highest correlate of
measures based on the ability model. Van Rooy et al. (in press) suggested that
although it is possible that the correlations between the mixed model measures and
ability based measures are low, emotional intelligence should be defined by the
small, shared variance. Matthews et al. (2007) contend that emotionality,
temperament, and personality are highly related and overlapping constructs.
There is support for the validity of emotional intelligence in that emotional
intelligence relates meaningfully to some external criteria (Matthews et al. 2007).
For example, a relationship has been found between emotional intelligence and a
lack of alexithymia (Parker, Taylor, & Bagby, 2001). Also, Zeidner, ShaniZinovich, Matthews, and Roberts (2005) showed that children who were
intellectually gifted had higher levels of emotional intelligence as measured by the
16
MSCEIT. Also, measures of emotional intelligence have been found to be related

to each other. Further, it should be expected that these measures correlate
moderately with cognitive ability measures and support for this exists. In terms of
discriminant validity, researchers have shown that the ability based measures are
differentiable from personality traits but some of the self-report measures do not
show discriminant evidence (Matthews et al., 2007).
Measuring Emotional Intelligence. Most researchers use self-report formats
in preference to performance-based assessments for measuring emotional
intelligence. The two formats are very different in that they are based on
incongruent conceptualizations of emotional intelligence (Janovics & Christiansen,
2001). Self report measures cover a broader definition of emotional intelligence
than the ability-based model that the performance measures have followed. Selfreport measures of emotional intelligence are designed to evaluate perceptions and
beliefs about a persons own emotional competencies. These scales rely on an
individuals self appraisal. Some research has shown that self-report measures of
emotional intelligence fail to show strong evidence of construct validity because
they have feeble relationships with cognitive ability and moderate relationships
with personality characteristics (Janovics & Christiansen, 2001).
Performance-based emotional intelligence measures are designed to assess
emotional intelligence by testing participants on task-based measures to evaluate
abilities supporting emotional intelligence skills. These measures directly assess an
17
individuals ability by asking the participant to solve a problem or perform a task.

Performance-based emotional intelligence measures have shown evidence of
correlating with many outcomes that indicate social success (Day, 2004). In
particular, the MSCEIT has been correlated with measures of social engagement
and well-being.
The current study used a self report measure of emotional intelligence that
asked employees to report on their supervisors emotional intelligence. Rather than
using an ability based measure of emotional intelligence, this study used self-report
due to the constraints of the organization in which data was collected. This measure
was developed based on a redefined version of Golemans (1998) five dimensions
of emotional intelligence at work. Goleman defines emotional intelligence as
encompassing almost everything except IQ: emotional awareness, accurate selfassessment, self-confidence, trustworthiness, conscientiousness, adaptability,
innovation, achievement drive, commitment, initiative, optimism, leveraging
diversity, political awareness, influence, communication, conflict management,
change catalyst, building bonds, collaboration and cooperation, and team
capabilities. Salovey and Mayer (1994) suggested that there should be a more
refined model o f emotional intelligence, one that includes ability and is
distinguished from personality. For the development of this measure, Golemans
five dimensions were redefined to include four main dimensions: social awareness,
18
self-regulation, empathy, and social skills. The items were put in the framework of
ability.
The first dimension is self awareness which is the ability to know which
emotions one is feeling and why, and the ability to understand the effects ones
feelings have on others. Second, self regulation is the ability to have control over
ones emotions and impulses and to remain calm and composed in potentially
volatile situations. Third, empathy is the ability to understand how others feel,
recognizing others emotions and responding well to them, understanding others
feelings transmitted through verbal and nonverbal language, being emotionally
supportive of others, and understanding the link between others emotions and
behaviors. Fourth, social skills is defined as ones ability to compel desirable
responses in others, handle problems and mistakes without belittling other
employees, and manage conflict and negative feelings with grace and diplomacy
(Rahim et. al., 2002).
Past Research. Recognizing that cognitive ability plays only a partial role in
explaining why some leaders have more success in their careers than others, one
researcher of emotional intelligence has the opinion that while cognitive based
intellect is needed to get a job, it is necessary that leaders have the ability to deal
effectively with colleagues and subordinates (Chemiss, 2000). Emotional
intelligence is needed for manager effectiveness and employee development. In
times of organizational change, it has been suggested that employees are less likely
19
to be cynical when lead by an emotionally intelligent supervisor (Ferres & Connell,

2004). An emotionally intelligent supervisor is able to effectively assist
subordinates during times of transition. These leaders are better able to recognize
employees needs and communicate the strategy for change.
Some recent emotional intelligence studies have examined the relationship
between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership. Transformational
leaders are those who create an awareness of the organizations overall vision and
encourage subordinates to change behaviors to reach the vision (Mandell &
Pherwani, 2003). Researchers have suggested that transformational leaders need
high levels of emotional intelligence to inspire others and build positive
relationships (Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). Mandell and Pherwani (2003) found a
significant relationship between transformational leadership style and emotional
intelligence. They suggest that managers scores on a measure of emotional
intelligence can predict future leadership performance.
Similarly, an investigation examining the relationship between emotional
intelligence and effective leadership found that emotional intelligence, as measured
by the ability to manage and monitor emotions, was significantly related to the
individualized consideration component of transformational leadership (Palmer et
al., 2001). A leader who displays individualized consideration is able to sense
subordinates needs. Palmer et al. (2001) gave the example that a leader possessing
20
individualized consideration would be equipped to recognize when a subordinate

needs positive feedback so as to elevate feelings of being appreciated.
Cavallo and Brienza (2002) investigated emotional intelligence and
leadership excellence at Johnson & Johnson. They examined specific leadership
competencies that differentiate high performers from average performers. The
results from their study showed that the highest performing managers had
significantly higher levels of emotional intelligence than the average performing
manager (Cavallo & Brienza, 2002).
Another study o f leader emotional intelligence and performance found a
relationship between emotional intelligence and strong managerial abilities. Sosik
and Megerian (1999) found that managers who are emotionally intelligent,
specifically those with high levels of self-awareness, were better managers as rated
by their superiors and subordinates.
Similarly, Dulewicz and Higgs (2003) researched the need for emotionally
intelligent leaders. Their study revealed evidence for the importance of emotionally
intelligent managers, team leaders, and directors. They suggest that leaders need
emotional competencies to develop employees and achieve good team processes.
Goleman et al. (2001) contends that their research shows that high levels of
emotional intelligence generate an environment in which learning, trust, and
information sharing thrive. Similarly, Pittman and Steelman (2006) found that
supervisors high on emotional intelligence influenced the feedback seeking
21
frequency of their subordinates by creating a favorable feedback environment.

These findings support the notion that leaders high on emotional intelligence are
better at developing their subordinates than those low on emotional intelligence
because emotional intelligence is necessary for inspiring and increasing
subordinates performance. Therefore, it is logical that supervisors high on
emotional intelligence may communicate feedback in a way that promotes positive
reactions from employees. A supervisor high on emotional intelligence would
recognize the employees needs and set up a favorable feedback environment that is
perceived by employees to be developmental and for their benefit, thus motivating
employees and increasing their willingness to participate in self development
activities.
Transformational leadership
Since the Ohio State studies in the 1940s and 1950s, several categorizations
of leadership behaviors have been suggested. The literature thoroughly discusses
the various definitions and categorizations. However, Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan
(1994) suggested that much of the research doesnt focus on what effective leaders
actually do. This study attempted do that by focusing on how transformational
leaders influence subordinates development. Transformational leadership can be
defined as the extent to which a leader is viewed as charismatic, as treating each
subordinate as an individual, and as intellectually stimulating (Bass, Waldman, &
Avolio, 1987). Transformational leadership theory specifically focuses on
22
leadership characteristics that affect subordinates behaviors and development at

work (Levy et al. 2002). Avolio and Bass (1998) suggest that transformational
leaders understand the differences among their followers and develop their
employees based on those differences. Unlike transactional leaders who influence
their followers by focusing on contingent rewards and punishment,
transformational leaders are engaged with their followers and motivate by fostering
a shared vision. Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1993) suggest that transformational
leadership is marked by three factors including: charismatic or inspirational
leadership, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Hellriegel and
Slocum (2004) describe inspirational leadership as the behaviors that provide
followers with a sense of meaning and challenge that foster motivation.
Transformational leaders inspire their followers by sharing their vision and
consistently communicating that vision. The second component is intellectual
stimulation. Intellectual stimulation is the inspiration that leaders give their
followers to be innovative. Transformational leaders encourage their followers to
be creative when approaching new projects or problems. These leaders listen to
their followers ideas and consider their perspectives, thereby creating an
environment that allows for new ideas to be discussed without criticism (Hellriegel
& Slocum, 2004). Individualized consideration is the third component of
transformational leadership. Individualized consideration is the attention given to
each follower by the leader. Transformational leaders give special consideration to
23
their followers developmental needs and desires for growth (Avolio et al., 1993).
Such leaders empower subordinates to make decisions but also monitor their
progress so they can provide support if needed. Hellriegel and Slocum (2004)
suggest that the individualized consideration these leaders give to their followers
facilitates an open dialogue with followers. The open dialogue and special
consideration that subordinates receive from their leader strengthen the trust that
subordinates have in their leaders intentions. Based on transformational leadership
theory, it seems plausible that a transformational leader will facilitate a favorable
feedback environment. A transformational leader is likely to create an environment
that promotes the sharing of constructive feedback to help develop subordinates in
a way that is specific to their needs and is consistent with the shared vision.
Empirical studies have shown support for transformational leadership
behavior as an effective form of leadership (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005). The
positive relationship between transformational leadership and desirable
organizational outcomes has been supported in the literature (Brown, Bryant, &
Reilly, 2006). Harland, Harrison, Jones, and Reiter-Palmon (2005) studied the
effect of transformational leadership on subordinates resilience to adverse
situations. Even after controlling for subordinates optimism, supervisor
transformational leadership style significantly predicted subordinates resilience.
Harland et al. (2005) suggest that transformational leaders may enhance employee
coping with stress and adversity by converting negative events into developmental
24
challenges. With the focus being on development, the crisis becomes a challenge
that can be overcome. This study provides some indirect support for the notion that
transformational leaders facilitate an environment in which subordinates feel
comfortable asking for feedback and learning from the challenge.
Brown et al. (2006) found that transformational leadership predicted
subordinates satisfaction with the leader and willingness to expend extra effort at
work. Levy et al. (2002) studied the effects of transformational leadership on
employees development, specifically employees feedback seeking behavior. They
found that transformational leadership was significantly related to the feedback
seeldng intentions of subordinates. The results also showed that when manipulated
leadership style was controlled for, subordinates perceptions of leader
consideration behaviors related to higher feedback seeking intentions. The findings
from their study indicate that transformational leaders positively impact
subordinates willingness to seek feedback. Therefore, I predicted that
transformational leadership would be related to a favorable feedback environment.
Learning culture
It has been suggested that human beings are learners by nature (Senge,
1990). Senge contends that despite our natural inclination to learn, our societys
primary institutions having a controlling rather than learning orientation. This is
contrary to what is best for organizations because over the long run good
performance depends on learning.
25
Argyris (1997) suggests that learning is a process that involves the

realization of a problem, development of solutions, implementation of solutions,
and monitoring the effectiveness of the solutions. The two criteria for learning are
correcting any contrasts between intention and reality or creating a match between
actuality and intention for the first time. Argyris also suggests that there are two
different types o f learning: single loop learning and double-loop learning. Single
loop learning focuses on changing actions to correct mismatches. Single loop
learning does not involve changing governing values. Double loop learning
involves changing underlying governing values then changing actions to correct
mismatches. Senge and Fulmer (1993) suggest that the notion of single and double
loop learning is among the most significant contributions to organizational
learning. They suggest that the distinction between the two types of learning
involves changes within the structure versus changes with the structure of the
organization itself. Senge and Fulmer (1993) contend that learning must go beyond
improvements in performance to include enduring changes in thinking and
behavior. Double loop learning should be facilitated by a favorable learning culture
(Senge, 1990).
Due to constant changes occurring in the workplace, the learning culture of
an organization is more important than ever (Maurer & Rafuse, 2001).
Organizations must adapt to the changing nature of technological and human
resource demands to remain competitive. Their success depends to a large degree
26
on the capability of the organization to adapt to changes in the external

environment by continuously learning new information and acquiring new skills.
Illeris (2004) suggests that adult learning involves individual psychological
processing and acquisition in addition to social interaction. Goldstein and Ford
(2002) contend that while learning is rooted in individuals, organizations can
promote a positive environment that supports learning.
An organizations learning culture reflects the extent to which the
organization prioritizes employees learning and development (Egan, Young, &
Bartlett, 2004). The policies and practices of a learning organization emphasize the
need for constant growth and thus encourage employee development. Tracey,
Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh (1995) suggest that a learning culture is composed of
several main components that contribute to shared values and beliefs. First,
learning is considered to be a responsibility of every employees job. Members of
the organization share an understanding that they are expected to develop
themselves. Second, learning is supported by work relationships and social
interaction. The work environment encourages collaboration and cooperativeness
among work teams and units. Third, formal practices promote employee learning
by offering opportunities for development. The organization provides the resources
that employees need to learn. Further, policies reinforce the importance of learning
by informing employees why it is necessary to continuously learn. Finally,
competition and innovation are rewarded. Employees strive to perform well and
27
expect others in the organization to have the same high performance standards. At
the same time, the organization strives to perform at the highest standard, by being
the best in the industry. These characteristics contribute to employees expectations
that learning is necessary for an organization to thrive. Their shared expectations
form an organizational value which is how continuous learning becomes embedded
within the culture of the organization (Tracey et al. 1995).
Organizations that embody a learning culture develop and grow over time
as their members value the concept of continuous learning and performance
improvement (London & Mone, 1999). Goldstein and Ford (2002) suggest that the
goal of a learning organization is to urge every member of the organization to
cultivate their skills and improve organizational effectiveness. Gaining knowledge
in organizations with a learning culture becomes an everyday occurrence rather
than being confined solely to formal training experiences.
Egan et al. (2004) found that organizational learning culture is a valid
construct in predicting job satisfaction, motivation to transfer learning, and
turnover intention. Billet (2004) proposed that the workplace is a learning
environment in which an interaction occurs between the organizations
participatory practices that are afforded to members and members participation in
these activities. Organizations regulate employees participation in activities
through social norms, social groups, and cultural practices. In other words Billet
(2004) contended that the activities and social opportunities that are provided to
28
employees and their willingness to participate in these activities impact the learning
that occurs in the workplace.
The current study examined the impact of an organizations learning culture
on the feedback environment. It was anticipated that organizations that support
employee learning and development will impact work outcomes by fostering
favorable feedback environments.
29
Outcomes
Self-Determination
The self-determination theory postulates that innate psychological needs
underlie individual differences in motivation and goals. Within the context of selfdetermination theory, needs are specified as innate psychological necessities that
are crucial for ones psychological growth and welfare (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Deci
and Ryan identified three main psychological needs that significantly impact self
motivation and performance: competence, relatedness, and autonomy. When one or
more of these needs is not satisfied, growth is substantially hindered.
The self-determination theory is concerned with the nature of self
development and the social environments that hinder constructive growth.
Individuals are motivated to act by many different factors. Some examples of such
factors include external coercion, money, values, personal commitment to success
and fear of failure. Those who are motivated for internal reasons perform better
than those who are motivated for external reasons (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Internally
motivated individuals act because they want to, whereas extrinsically motivated
individuals are motivated by other factors such as rewards or recognition.
Cognitive evaluation theory is a component of self-determination theory
that attempts to identify factors that explain differences in individuals internal
motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Cognitive evaluation theory focuses on social
contexts that influence intrinsic motivation and assumes that motivation will be
30
present when conditions allow it. The theory proposes that feedback, rewards, and
other social-contextual events that impact individuals perceptions of their
competence during a particular task can increase intrinsic motivation for that
particular task (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The theory also suggests that people must
believe their behavior is self-determined for intrinsic motivation to occur. Extrinsic
rewards and forced goals tend to reduce internal motivation because they lead to
feelings of external perceived locus of causality. Intrinsic motivation is optimal
when individuals feel that they have a high level of autonomy and are able to make
choices and guide their own development. Finally, the theory suggests that
relatedness impacts intrinsic motivation. Individuals tend to internalize the values
and goals of their social groups. Also, having relational support from others fosters
intrinsic motivation.
In addition to intrinsic motivation, self determined motivation also
encompasses self-regulation of extrinsic motivation. The self-determination theory
focuses on how non-intrinsic motivated behaviors become self-determined and how
social factors affect the process (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Organismic integration
theory is a subtheory of the self-determination theory that explains the types of
extrinsic motivation and the factors that influence the likelihood that it will become
a personal commitment. The self-determination continuum begins with amotivation
which is contrary to motivation. People who are amotivated do not value the work
and act without intent. Next on the continuum are the four types of extrinsic
31
motivation: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and

integrated regulation. External regulation describes the extrinsically motivated
behaviors that fulfill external demands. The behaviors that result from external
regulation motivation are perceived as controlled and are the least autonomously
motivated behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Introjected regulation is described as
somewhat external. Although introjected regulation is somewhat controlled, actions
are performed to avoid internal punishments such as guilt and to achieve internal
rewards such as gratification or self-respect. Introjected regulation is regulation that
lacks feelings of total personal commitment. The third type of extrinsic motivation
is identified regulation. Identified regulation is more autonomous than external and
introjected regulations. When an individual possesses identified regulation, he or
she values the goal and genuinely believes that the action is important. The type of
extrinsic motivation highest on autonomy on the self determination continuum is
integrated regulation. A person experiences integrated regulation when the goals
are a part of the persons values and needs. Integrated regulation is similar to
intrinsic regulation in that the goal is a part of ones values but it differs from
intrinsic motivation because the behavior is not performed for enjoyment but for
some form of extrinsic outcome.
Intrinsic motivation is the highest on autonomy and is synonymous with
self-determination. Individuals are intrinsically motivated when they find the goal
interesting and satisfying. Although intrinsic motivation is the ideal state, the self-
32
determination theory suggests that when certain innate psychological needs are met
- autonomy, competence, and connectedness, individuals cultivate internalization of
the goal and this motivates them to improve performance.
Deci, Connell, and Ryan (1989) studied how managers interpersonal
characteristics impact subordinates self-determination. Based on the literature,
they determined that for a manager to promote a subordinates self-determination,
the manager must take into account the subordinates frame of reference. For a
manager to influence a subordinates self-determination the supervisor must be able
to recognize and understand the feelings and attitudes of that subordinate.
Therefore, supervisors who are able to take a subordinates frame of reference are
likely to have greater emotional intelligence as they should be able to read their
employees feelings. Deci, et al. (1989) contend that the subordinate will trust his
or her supervisor when the supervisor takes that individuals frame of reference and
will use the supervisors suggestions to improve performance. The results from
their study suggest that managers interpersonal characteristics were related to
perceptual, affective, and satisfaction variables in their employees. The results from
the study also indicate that managers can be trained to change their orientation to be
more supportive of subordinates self-determination.
Feedback and Self-Determination. Self-determination theory assumes that
social environments impact individuals self motivation. The social context
considered in the current study is the feedback environment, in particular,
33
supervisors role as the feedback provider. Many of the factors that contribute to
employees self-development are influenced by supervisors (London & Smither,
1999). Deci et al., (1989) suggested that when supervisors create an environment
that supports self-determination, employees will act to satisfy their own
developmental needs. Leaders or supervisors who are supportive promote
employees self-determination and personal commitment to goals that increase
performance (London & Smither, 1999). On the contrary, supervisors who are
controlling have the reverse effect on employees. Controlling supervisors
constantly scrutinize employees behaviors, make major decisions without
employees input, and command employees how to think and act (London &
Smither, 1999). When supervisors are overly controlling employees tend to focus
more on external issues which lessens intrinsic motivation.
Deci et al. (1989) suggest that organizational events can be informational
(e.g. supporting competence) or controlling (e.g. pressuring one to think in a
particular way). Perceiving an event as informational fosters self-determination
whereas experiencing the event as controlling decreases motivation. One way that
supervisors can provide information that supports competence is through providing
feedback. Kluger and DeNisi contend that feedback is a key component of
employee motivation (1996). Williams and Luthans (1992) conducted a laboratory
study to examine the impact of choice of rewards and feedback on performance.
They found that choice of rewards significantly impacted performance. Choice of
34
rewards can be compared to the autonomy component of self-determination in that

choices involving work related actions increased autonomy, which increased selfdetermination. Williams and Luthans (1992) also found that feedback significantly
interacted with choice so that those who received choice of rewards and feedback
performed better on the task than those who did not receive any feedback.
Subordinates perceptions of supervisors intentions are necessary to
consider when examining employees motivation to use performance evaluation
information to change performance. Fedor, Buckley, and Eder (1990) contend that
subordinates will perceive supervisors intentions for giving feedback in at least
one of four ways: to control the subordinate, to make the subordinate aware of unit
standards, to encourage, and/or to improve subordinate performance. When
supervisors intentions are constructive and are intended to further develop
employees but are perceived as controlling or destructive, employees may not use
the information to change performance. Therefore, it is important that supervisors
recognize subordinates perceptions and deliver the feedback in a manner that will
facilitate the motivation necessary to change behaviors. Therefore, it was
anticipated that supervisors who create a favorable feedback environment will
foster self-determination in their employees.
Self development behaviors
Continuous learning has become a core career competency for employees.
Continuous learning can be defined as the process by which employees acquire
35
knowledge, skills, and abilities throughout their career to keep up with current
performance standards and to prepare for changing standards (London & Mone,
1999). In previous decades, employees would work for a company for many years
and their seniority was strongly valued by the organization. Maurer and Rafuse
(2001) contend that there has been a shift in the nature of careers in recent years
such that organizations now value employees who continuously learn and adapt to
changes in the workplace by acquiring new skills.
To continuously grow, employees must take responsibility for their own
development by taking advantage of opportunities offered by their organization and
actively seeking additional opportunities when they need it. Individuals who are
committed to continuously developing themselves search for information that may
suggest a learning gap between their abilities and new performance standards
(London & Mone, 1999). While employers often require that their employees
participate in formal training as part of an on-boarding process or to learn new
technical skills, employees can also take an active role in maintaining and learning
new skills by participating in activities to develop themselves.
Self Development as a Resource. It has long been established that
employees efforts to increase knowledge and improve performance is beneficial to
organizations. However, in recent years self-development has become an even
greater organizational resource due to the ever-changing nature of technology and
the marketplace. Employees who take it upon themselves to participate in activities
36
that will help them maintain their skills and leam new ones are valued by
organizations (Maurer & Rafuse, 2001).
In addition to being a rich resource for organizations, self-development is
very important for individuals. Participating in activities to develop oneself can
increase knowledge and abilities which can lead to promotions in the employees
current organization or lead to career advancement in another organization.
Developmental opportunities can include activities such as training, workshops,
seminars, independent reading, job rotation, viewing videotapes, and seeking input
from supervisors and colleagues (Maurer & Rafuse, 2001). Research has shown
that work situations in which learning and development are supported result in
employees participation in development activities (Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite,
2003). Maurer et al. (2003) suggest that organizations that promote development
will affect the attitudes and intentions of employees to participate in developmental
activities. Therefore, it is likely that organizations that promote employee
development by facilitating a favorable feedback environment should impact
employees self development behaviors. Therefore, the current study examined the
extent to which a favorable feedback environment was related to self determination
which in turn was related to participation in self development behaviors. Self
development behaviors were operationalized in terms of three employee behaviors:
seeking feedback, attending training, and working with a career coach.
37
Feedback seeking
One way subordinates develop is through seeking information about their
job performance from their supervisors. Employees are active in the feedback
process by recognizing evaluations from others and seeking verbal judgments of
their behavior (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Feedback seeking increases
employees understanding of expectations and can improve job performance and
motivation. Proactive feedback seeking provides employees with the opportunity to
receive information concerning their individual progress within the organization,
ask for suggestions for improvement, and to clarify their role in the organization.
Levy, Cober, and Miller (2002) suggest that a subordinate who seeks feedback
regularly is likely to become a more valuable asset to his or her organization.
Research has demonstrated that characteristics of the feedback source,
including source credibility and supportiveness, are linked to feedback seeking
frequency (Williams et al., 1999). Since feedback seeking provides employees with
valuable information, organizations should benefit from putting forth efforts to
create an environment which encourages frequent feedback seeking (Levy et al.,
2002). Research has shown that leader characteristics such as emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership have been linked to employees
feedback seeking behavior (Pittman & Steelman, 2006; Levy et al., 2002). It is
reasonable to believe that supervisors who have a transformational leadership style
or who are high on emotional intelligence should build an environment that
38
increases employees self determination and thus supports frequent feedback

seeking.
Additionally, an organization in which continuous learning is valued should
lead to employee feedback seeking. Employee feedback seeking is likely to be
more frequent in organizations with a learning culture because as members of that
organization, employees share the value that learning and growing is important. It
was anticipated that a learning culture will facilitate a favorable feedback
environment which will engender employee self determination and therefore
increase self development behaviors such as feedback seeking.
Training
This study also examined participation in training as a self development
behavior. Employees come across a variety of training and developmental
opportunities during their work career. Formal training classes can include onsite
training from consultants and training experts or programs offered by educational
institutions. Both may involve simulations, coaching, business games, and lectures
(Ford et al, 1997). Training benefits employees because knowledge and skills are
updated which keeps them competitive in their current job and may affect future
promotion opportunities. Training is beneficial to organizations because
effectiveness is maximized when employees are continuously learning and
improving skills. Dave Gilman, chief executive officer of Boulder headquartered
First National Bank of Colorado contends that companies will increase their value
39
if they invest in training rather than cutting employee development opportunities in

difficult financial times. During Gilman's tenure at the bank, assets have grown
from $228 million to $650 million and he credits the profitability in part to training
and development efforts.
Coaching
As an alternative to attending group training classes, employees of some
organizations are given opportunities to meet with a career coach. The organization
in the current study offered their employees this opportunity. Career coaches often
design a personalized program to help employees improve learning, performance,
and interpersonal skills. The employees future is the focus of coaching rather than
dwelling on past failures. The emphasis is on improving performance or assisting a
client in a job transition (Auerbach, 2001). Paine (2006) suggests that as work
becomes more complex, coaching will more often become an option to help
employees develop their careers. Further, Paine suggests that coaching will become
a core part of a learning organization.
Goldstein and Ford (2002) contend that effective training is generated from
a learning environment that is intended to create changes in the workplace.
Similarly, Ford et al. (1997) suggests that the social characteristics of a work
environment influence whether an employee attends training classes. Therefore, it
was anticipated that the feedback environment will indirectly influence employees
40
willingness to participate in training opportunities by increasing their self

determination.
Moderator
Employee engagement
Employee engagement occurs when an employee is intellectually and
emotionally committed to a particular job so that the employee has the desire to put
forth discretionary effort (Woodruffe, 2005). Past studies have linked employee
engagement to desirable work outcomes such as productivity, profitability, and
retention (Luthans & Peterson, 2002). Atkouf (1992) suggests that it is the job of
managers to cultivate engagement in their employees since disengagement is linked
to employees lack of motivation and commitment. Luthans and Peterson (2002)
suggest that further research is needed to examine the relationship between
employee engagement and organizational outcomes. The current study examined
employee engagement as a moderator between employee self determination and
self-development behaviors. It was anticipated that there will be a stronger
relationship between employees self determination and self development
behaviors when employees are engaged in their work.
Although a definitive consensus among organizational researchers
regarding the formal definition of engagement has not been reached, Jones and
Harter (2005) suggest there are commonalities among them that have emerged.
First, employee engagement involves self expression through work. Another point
41
of agreement is that engagement occurs on an every day basis and is applied

through the employees work efforts. Another similarity among definitions is that
engagement is a multidimensional construct, including cognitive, emotional, and
physical dimensions. The fourth commonality that Jones and Harter (2005) discuss
is that engagement leads to benefits for those experiencing it. Some examples of
these benefits are energy and self significance.
For the purpose of this study, Hallberg and Schaufelis (2006)
conceptualization of the construct was used. They define employee engagement as
being dedicated to ones work and being in a continual positive affective state.
Since there has been some disagreement among researchers regarding the definition
of employee engagement, Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006) conducted a study to
determine whether employee engagement is distinctively different from the two
constructs that it is most closely associated with - job involvement and
organizational commitment. The confirmatory factor analysis and latent inter
correlations showed that the three-factor model was the best representation of the
underlying covariances. Their study indicates that employee engagement is
empirically distinct from job involvement and organizational commitment and that
the three constructs reflect different aspects of work attachment.
Woodruffe (2005) claims that employee engagement is considered by some
researchers to be a powerful competitive advantage. However, researchers have
noted that it is one of the biggest challenges organizations face today (Frank,
42
Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004). Greenfield (2004) suggests that OJR (on-the-jobretirement) or employee disengagement is one of the most expensive problems
facing most companies today. Disengaged employees show up for work, complete
only what is required, and leave at the end of the day to begin their lives. On the
other hand, engaged employees put forth extra effort to see that the organization
succeeds (Seijts & Crim, 2006).
Bates (2004) suggests that the employee engagement challenge is greatly
influenced by emotions. Employee engagement is related to how employees feel
about the work experience and how they are treated by others in the organization.
Bates (2004) argues that employee engagement is not about salary or job
satisfaction. He suggests that employees can be very satisfied but not engaged in
their work and can be highly satisfied to be under little pressure to produce
(Bates, 2004). Bates further suggests that organizations can boost employee
engagement by showing care and consideration for their employees and by
providing the opportunity for development and advancement.
Similarly, Woodruffe (2005) suggests that employees will engage in their
work when their needs are met by the organization. This means that managers
should consider each individuals needs and should develop each employee.
Woodruffe (2005) stresses the importance of employee development, suggesting
that employees will be more engaged in their work and will stay with the
organization if they are offered opportunities for development. Seijts and Crim
43
(2006) argue that it is imperative for supervisors to recognize the needs of their
employees and to implement strategies that will facilitate engagement.
For the current study, it was hypothesized that there is a stronger
relationship between self-determination and self development behaviors when
employees are engaged in their work. When employees are engaged at work, they
are more likely to have feelings of self-determination translated into development
behaviors because performing well is important to them. Engaged employees are
more energetic and vigorous toward their work and would therefore be more
inclined to participate in self-development behaviors.
44
The Current Study

The current study examined whether the feedback environment created by
supervisors is linked to employees participation in self development activities. It
was anticipated that a favorable feedback environment fostered by a learning
culture and transformational leadership and leader emotional intelligence will lead
to employee self development behaviors. This relationship was expected to be
mediated by employees self-determination. Further, employee engagement was
anticipated to moderate the relationship between employee self determination and
self development behaviors. The model for the Hypothesized study is shown in
Figure 1 and the hypotheses are depicted below.
Hypothesis 1: Supervisor emotional intelligence will be positively related to
a favorable supervisor feedback environment.
Hypothesis 2: Transformational leadership will be positively related to a
favorable supervisor feedback environment.
Hypothesis 3: A learning culture will be positively related to a favorable
feedback environment.
Hypothesis 4: A favorable supervisor feedback environment will be
positively related to employees self determination.
Hypothesis 5: Employee self determination will positively related to selfdevelopment behaviors.
45
Hypothesis 6: Employee engagement will be a moderator between self

determination and self development behaviors such that there will be a stronger
relationship between self-determination and self-development behaviors for those
employees who have stronger engagement than those who have weaker
engagement.
46
Chapter 2
Methods
Participants
Employees from a government agency in the Southeastern United States
were asked to participate. Employees representing various positions in the
engineering department who use a computer were contacted to participate. The
positions of those contacted ranged from administrative assistant to engineer. The
employees were contacted via email and asked to respond to an anonymous online
survey. Kelloway (1998) recommends a sample size of approximately N = 200
since structural equation modeling is mostly a large sample technique. Twohundred and fifty four employees participated, resulting in a response rate of 49%.
Ten cases were deleted due to missing data and 7 cases were deleted because they
were identified as outliers. As a result, 237 cases were considered for this study.
Participants ages ranged from 18 to 69 years old. 78% of the participants were
male. Although the sample is highly represented by males, this percentage is
consistent with the high representation of males in the organization. Three percent
of participants were African American, 4% were Asian, 14% were Hispanic, 74%
were Caucasian, and 5% classified themselves as other. The majority of
participants (83%) had been with their current supervisor for at least 6 months. The
mean tenure working at the organization was 13 years. Participant demographic
breakdowns are shown in Table 1.
47
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Missing demographic information
161
46
30
68%
20%
12%
Age
<20
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
1
46
33
109
35
9
4
< 1%
19%
14%
46%
15%
4%
2%
Tenure with organization

<6 months
6 months to 2 years
2 to 5 years
5 + years
16
17
23
169
12
7%
7%
10%
71%
5%
Tenure with current supervisor

< 6 months
6 months to 2 years
2 to 5 years
5+years
37
103
63
28
6
16%
43%
26%
12%
3%
Total N
237
100%
48
Measures
The requirements of the field sample required shortening most measures to

reduce the time needed to complete the survey. Therefore, a pilot study was
conducted to examine the reliability of the modified measures and a newly
constructed measure (emotional intelligence) and to eliminate items that didnt
contribute to the internal consistency of the measures. The pilot study was
conducted with a sample of 96 undergraduate students at a southeastern university.
The participants completed a paper and pencil survey and were offered extra credit
for participation. The reliabilities were assessed to ensure that the most reliable
items were included in the final scales. Since the organization employed in the
study required a shortened survey, items that did not contribute to the reliability of
the measures were deleted to keep the item number to a minimum. The goal was to
gain the highest alpha with the least amount of survey items possible. The alphas
ranged from 0.88 to 0.95, indicating that the modified versions and newly
constructed measure were reliable. The final measures are included in Appendix B.
Feedback Environment. The Feedback Environment Scale (FES) (Steelman
et al., 2004) was used to assess the supervisor feedback environment. This scale
measures the social and situational aspects of the feedback context for seven
dimensions: source credibility, feedback delivery, feedback seeking promotion,
unfavorable feedback, favorable feedback, source availability, and feedback
quality. Employees rated their responses on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from
49
strongly disagree to strongly agree). Sample items include: My supervisor gives

me useful feedback about my job performance and When my supervisor gives me
performance feedback, he or she is considerate of my feelings. The shortened
scale included 21 items, 3 items for each of the 7 dimensions.
T.earning Culture. The learning culture of the organization was assessed
with a modified scale based on the Dimension of Learning Organization
Questionnaire (DLOQ). Egan, Yang, and Barlett (2004) used the original DLOQ
scale (7 dimensions, 43 items) in their study to assess learning culture. The seven
dimensions include: continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue, team learning,
embedded system, system connection, empowerment, and provide leadership. The
dimensions had reliabilities ranging from .71 to .86 (US Department of Labor,
1999). The current study used a shortened form of the DLOQ that was based on the
version used in the Egan et al. (2004) study. A pilot study was conducted resulting
in an alpha at 0.89 which indicates that the shortened version was reliable. The
shortened measure included 7 items corresponding to the 7 dimensions of learning
culture.
Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership was measured
with a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) short
scale. Participants rated each item on a 5 point frequency scale (not at all to
frequently, if not always) (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). A pilot study was
50
conducted resulting in an alpha at 0.90 which indicates the modified version was
reliable. The final scale included 6 items.
Emotional Intelligence. Subordinates perceptions of their supervisors
emotional intelligence were measured with an 8-item scale which assessed 4
components of emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy,
and social skills. This scale was developed based on a redefined version of Rahims
EQI which measures Golemans five components of emotional intelligence. An
example item from the scale is My supervisor recognizes that his or her feelings
affect other people. A pilot study yielded an alpha of .95, indicating that this scale
was reliable. Subordinates rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (5 = Frequently
to 1 = Not at All). A high score on the scale indicates a high level of supervisor
emotional intelligence as rated by the subordinate.
Employee Engagement Employee engagement was measured with a 7 item
scale. The items are based on The Work Engagement Scale (Salanova, Agut, &
Peiro, 2005). The scale contains three subscales: vigor, dedication or commitment,
and absorption. Vigor was assessed with 2 items, dedication or commitment was
measured with 3 items, and absorption was assessed with 2 items. Employees rated
each item on a seven-point frequency scale (l=Never to 7 = Always). A pilot
study was conducted which resulted in reliable subscales: 0.71 for vigor, 0.87 for
dedication, and 0.73 for absorption. Based on the pilot study, the total engagement
51
scale was considered reliable at 0.88. An example item is: I am enthusiastic about
my job.
Self-Determination. Employees self-determination was measured with a 3item scale based on Deci and Ryans (1985) modified version of the General
Causality Orientation Scale (GCOS). Deci and Ryans modified instrument has
been shown to be reliable with alpha of .75. The scale measures three different
motivational orientations within each individual: autonomy, controlled, and
impersonal. The autonomy orientation, controlled orientation, and impersonal
orientation represent three different subscales. The autonomy orientation measures
the degree to which a person displays self-initiation, seeks challenges, and takes
responsibility for ones actions. The controlled orientation measures the degree to
which a person is motivated by rewards, deadlines, and instructions by others. The
impersonal orientation measures the extent to which an individual believes that
success is a matter of luck and is out of ones control. The scale that was used in
the current study consisted of 3 vignettes and 9 response choices. Each vignette
described a situation and was followed by 3 responses, representing each o f the 3
orientations. The participants rated the degree to which they would most likely
respond to each of the 3 types of responses on a 7 point-Likert scale. An example
item is You are embarking on a new career. The most important consideration is
likely to be: a) whether you can do the work without getting in over your head, b)
52
how interested you are in that kind of work, c) whether there are good possibilities
for advancement.
Self Development Behaviors. Employees self development behaviors were
measured with 3 items which assessed how frequently participants attend training
classes, seek performance feedback, and meet with a career coach. Participants
rated each item on a 7 point frequency scale (never to almost always). An example
item is I attend training classes.
Demographics. The participants were asked about their tenure within the
organization and with their current supervisor. Also, the gender of the respondent
and the gender of the current supervisor were assessed.
Procedure
The measures were distributed electronically in the form of one survey. An

independent data support company was used to administer the surveys. The
employees received an email inviting them to participate in the study. The email
included a link to the online survey. Information explaining the aim of the study
and confidentiality preceded the survey. An email was sent to employees one week
following the initial email to encourage those who had not responded to the survey
to participate in the study. Participants were informed of the purpose of the current
study before beginning the survey. Participation was taken as an indication of
informed consent. All responses were anonymous.
53
Chapter 3
Results
First, data was cleaned and screened for missing data and outliers. Due to
outliers and missing data, 17 cases were deleted from the database. As suggested by
Leong and Austin (1996), the cases that were missing more than 30% of the items
were deleted from the data set. Ten of the 17 cases were deleted because they were
either missing a large percentage of total variables or because they were missing
multiple variables measuring a single construct. For the cases missing only a small
percentage of variables, the data was replaced with the series mean. This procedure
allows a mean to be calculated from the available data to replace missing values
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Next, the descriptive statistics and the internal consistency reliability for
each scale was calculated. The descriptive statistics and the internal consistency of
each scale are shown in Table 2. Although its not a standard rule, typically a level
of .70 is used as defining acceptable levels of internal consistency reliability
(Cascio, 1987). The scales had adequate reliability except for self-determination
and self-development behaviors. It is believed that self-development behavior had
low internal consistency because that scale was composed of three very different
items. Therefore, the three self development behaviors were examined as a
composite, as well as the individual items.
54
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
N
Mean
Variables
SD
Skew
Kurtosis
Alpha
237
3.90
0.69
-0.48
0.35
0.88
Transformational
Leadership
Learning Culture
237
3.61
0.91
-0.53
0.06
0.90
237
5.11
1.11
-0.80
0.48
0.90
237
5.35
0.91
-0.59
0.39
0.94
Self Determination
237
4.60
0.63
0.03
-0.40
0.41
Employee Engagement
237
5.25
0.99
-0.60
0.25
0.86
Self Development
Behaviors
237
3.63
0.94
0.25
0.19
0.45
55
Table 3 presents the scale intercorrelations for the study variables. The
feedback environment was significantly correlated with all of the hypothesized
antecedents (emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and learning
culture), supporting hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. The feedback environment was also
significantly correlated with employee engagement and self development
behaviors. Contrary to hypothesis 4 and hypothesis 5, self-determination was not
correlated with the feedback environment or self development behaviors.
Table 3
Correlational A nalysis for Study Variables
1.
2 .
3.
Variables
4.
5.
7.
1. Emotional
Intelligence
1.0
.
Transformatio
nal Leadership
3. Learning
Culture
4. Feedback
Environment
.6 8 **
1.0
,40**
.50**
1.0
.62**
.69**
.50**
1.0
5. S elf
Determination
.1 0
.07
.09
.11
1.0
6 . S elf
Developm ent
Behaviors
7. Employee
Engagement
.23**
.40**
.34**
.34**
.11
1.0
.2 1 **
.39**
.43**
.28**
.17**
.41**
1.0
**
.28**
,45**
.11
.78**
.29**
1 .0
.31**
44
9.
8 . Feedback
Seeking
9. Training
.1 0
17**
.2 2 **
.81
.92
.58**
.28**
.16*
1.0
10. Coaching
.026
17**
17**
.1 2
.0 2
.6 6 **
.26**
.31**
.1 0
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
56
10.
1.0
Hypothesis testing
Regression Analyses. Regression analyses were conducted to examine the

hypotheses prior to analyzing the full model. Three simple regression analyses
revealed that all three antecedents (emotional intelligence, transformational
leadership, and learning culture) significantly predicted supervisor feedback
environment. Since the p value associated with R was less than .05 for these
analyses, the associated strength between the two variables was considered
statistically significant. The regression analyses did not show predictive
relationships between the feedback environment and the hypothesized
consequences of the feedback environment. The feedback environment did not
predict self determination and self determination did not predict self development
behaviors. Also, the mediated regression analyses among these variables did not
detect mediation. However, a regression analysis did show that the feedback
environment predicts employees participation in self-development behaviors.
A moderated regression analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that
employee engagement moderates the relationship between self determination and
self development behaviors. The analysis was conducted using the entry method for
multiple regression analysis in SPSS. For the first step, the independent variable
(self determination) was entered into the equation. In step 2, employee engagement
was entered into the equation. For step 3, the interaction term (self determination x
employee engagement) was entered into the equation. A moderator effect was not
57
found because the interaction was not significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986). It was
anticipated that employee engagement would significantly affect the strength o f the
relationship between employees self determination and their participation in self
development behaviors. However, the results from this analysis do not support this
hypothesis.
A priori analyses
Assumptions of SEM. The assumptions associated with structural equation

modeling were considered prior to conducting the analyses. Multivariate normality
assumes that all variables are normally distributed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001).
Outliers were detected by plotting and visually examining the data. Also, each scale
score was saved as a standardized score so that the individual level data could be
examined. Standardized scores above 3.00 were considered outliers. Seven cases
were deleted from the data set due to outliers. Structural equation modeling also
assumes linearity. Scatterplots revealed that the assumption of linearity was met in
the current sample. Another assumption of structural equation modeling is the
absence o f multicollinearity. A correlational analysis revealed that there is an
absence o f multicollinearity. Although transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence were significantly and highly correlated (r = .68), the relationship was
not strong enough to result in multicollinearity (r = .90 or above). The constructs
are distinctive and can contribute unique variance to the model (Tabachnick &
58
Fidell, 2001). Finally, examination of skewness and kurtosis demonstrated that the
symmetry and peakedness of the distributions were normal.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. To examine the a priori measurement model
a confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted.
Confirmatory factor analysis is one function of structural equation modeling and
assessed whether the scales accurately measure their intended constructs.
Parcels. First, parcels were created for the measurement model. Parcels are
the sets of items contained within the scale. The use of parcels allows for more
precise estimation of the parameters. (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). The parcels
were created by grouping items into subsets based on theoretical rationale. Hall,
Snell, and Foust (1999) suggest that parcels created based on theoretical rationale
lead to more reliable parameter estimates. The feedback environment was
composed of 3 parcels with each o f the parcels containing 6, 7, or 8 items.
Learning culture was composed of 3 parcels containing 7 items. Transformational
leadership was composed of 3 parcels containing 6 items. Emotional intelligence
was composed of 4 parcels containing 2 items each. Self determination contained 3
parcels with one item in each parcel. Employee engagement had 3 parcels
containing 7 items. Self-development behaviors contained 3 parcels composed of 1
item each. The item composition for each parcel is included in Appendix B.
CFA Results. The indicators were specified to load on their intended
constructs. The model was composed o f 7 latent variables and 22 indicators. The
59
model converged in 18 iterations and fit the data well. Although the chi-square was
significant, the other fit statistics indicate that the model fit the data well (NFI =
.94, CFI = .97,GFI = .87, PGFI = .65). Kelloway (1998) suggests that chi-square is
often significant and other fit statistics should be examined to determine model fit.
Kline (1998) suggests that the chi-square/df ratio is also an indication of a
favorable fit if it is less than three. The chi-square/df ratio for this model was 2.14.
The fit statistics are shown in Table 4. The factor loadings for all of the constructs
range between .35 and 1.06, with self-determination being the exception. Selfdetermination had low parcel loadings of .22, .36, .33. Compared to a one factor
measurement model, the hypothesized measurement model is a slightly more
parsimonious model but overall was not significantly different from the one factor
model. The fit statistics are shown in Table 4. The loadings of the measurement
model are shown in Figure 5.
Table 4
Measurement Model Fit Statistics
x2
d f RMR RMSEA
GFI
CFI
PGFI
x2
difif.
A Priori
Measurement
Model
One Factor
Model
Recommended
Statistics
** p <
403.04**
188
0.05
0.06
0.96
0.97
0.65
399.85** 232
0.05
0.05
0.89
0.98
0.63
0.07
<0.05
<0.10
>0.90 >0.90
High
>2
..
.0 1
60
Structural equation modeling
This study utilized structural equation modeling to test the proposed

hypotheses. Structural equation modeling is based on the assumption that every
theory indicates a set of relationships and that if the theory is valid, the theory will
explain or recreate the patterns of relationships found in the data (Kelloway, 1998).
Structural equation modeling was used to test hypotheses related to the
predictive model. Structural equation modeling techniques allow for the testing o f
complex path models with mediational relationships. Kelloway (1998) suggests
that this technique is more rigorous and flexible than testing with multiple
regression analyses. LISREL for structural equation modeling was used to assess
whether the proposed model was a good fit to the data. Structural equation
modeling includes five main steps:
Model Specification. In this step, an a priori model was specified (see
Figure 1). The hypotheses composing the model were drawn from previous
research and theory. The model is comprised of two types of variables, exogenous
and endogenous variables. The proposed model includes 3 exogenous variables
(learning culture, emotional intelligence, and transformational leadership) and 3
endogenous variables (feedback environment, self-determination, self-development
behaviors). The measurement model (see Figure 2) depicts the relationships among
the latent variables (represented by circles), the indicators (represented by squares),
and residuals. The model is recursive in that there are no cyclical relationships.
61
Identification. The next step focuses on whether a unique solution can be

obtained for the model. The model can be underidentified (no solutions possible),
just-identified (perfect fit), or overidentified (multiple solutions possible).
Kelloway (1998) suggests that the ideal situation is to have an overidentified model
as there will be multiple solutions in which to choose the one that best fits the data.
Overidentification can be achieved by restricting the model parameters to be
estimated. The first restriction involves assigning the parameters of the model so
that it is a recursive model, meaning there is a one way causal flow. Also, some
parameters can be set at a predetermined value. Parameter values are set to zero
when those paths are not in the model (Kelloway, 1998). Identification of the
measurement model was determined by examining the degrees of freedom. The
degrees o f freedom for the hypothesized model were positive, indicating that the
model is over-identified. The identification of the structural model was also
examined. Identification of the structural model was determined by using the T
rule. According to the T rule (Kelloway, 1998), one must examine the number of
variables in the covariance matrix (k) multiplied by the number of variables minus
one divided by 2 [q=(k*(k-l))/2)]. The hypothesized model was identified because
the number of parameters in the hypothesized model were fewer than the number of
parameters determined by the t rule for identification.
Estimation This step involves estimation of the model in which the implied
covariance matrix is compared to the observed covariance matrix to determine if
62
the matrices are similar. LISREL gives options for use of three common fitting
criterion (OLS, ML, GLS). Kelloway (1998) contends that ML (maximum
likelihood) is the most popular estimator. ML is considered a full information
technique because it estimates all of the parameters of the model simultaneously.
ML was used to estimate the parameters of the proposed study. In order to use ML
as an estimator, multivariate normality must be met. To ensure multivariate
normality, skewness and kurtosis were examined. Also, structural equation
modeling requires linearity among variables (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2001).
Therefore, scatterplots were examined to ensure that the measured variables have
linear relationships. Finally, Tabachnik and Fidell, (2001) suggest that there must
be an absence of multicollinearity. The covariance matrix was examined to
determine if the variables are very highly correlated. All of the conditions were met
for the proposed study.
Model Fit. In this step the fit of the model was assessed. Fit indices tell the
researcher how well a model fits the data. The chi-square (%2) fit test was first
examined. If %2 is nonsignificant it implies that there is not a significant difference
between the model and population covariance matrices, indicating that the model
fits the data. For the hypothesized model, % was significant (312.94**). Since
they2test is affected by sample size, additional fit indices were also examined. The
root mean squared residual (RMR) is the simplest fit index provided by LISREL,
low values (<0.05) indicate a good fit. The RMR for the hypothesized model
63
resulted in 0.05, indicating a good model fit with the data. The root mean squared
error of approximation (RMSEA) was also examined. This fit index is based on the
analysis of residuals. RMSEA must be less than 0.10 for the model to be
considered a good fit to the data, with lower values indicating a very good fit. The
RMSEA for this study is 0.07, indicating a very good fit. Further, the goodness-offit index (GFI) was examined, values exceeding 0.9 indicate a good fit. The GFI
resulted in 0.88 which is just below the criteria for a good model fit. The adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI) makes adjustments for the degrees of freedom in the
model, values exceeding 0.9 indicate a good fit. The AGFI for this model is 0.84,
just below the criteria for a good fitting model. The parsimonious goodness-of-fit
index (PGFI) focuses on the cost benefit tradeoff of degrees of freedom and
goodness of fit. Higher values associated with PGFI indicate a more parsimonious
fit (Kelloway, 1998). The PGFI for the current study is 0.67. The fit statistics are
shown in Table 4. Overall, the fit statistics met the predetermined parameters and
indicated that the hypothesized model was a good fit to the data.
Model Manipulation. This step involves comparing the fit of the alternative
model to the fit of the proposed model. The assessment of the comparative fit is
rooted in the understanding that a researcher can always find a better fitting model
by estimating more parameters. The proposed model (Figure 1) was compared to an
alternative model (shown in Figure 4). The alternative model suggests that
supervisor emotional intelligence and transformational leadership influence an
64
organizations learning culture. Bass and Avolio (1993) suggest that an

organizations culture is impacted by its leadership. They contend that leaders can
affect an organizations culture by transforming it to fit with the new directions
identified by the members or leaders. Similarly, London and Mone (1999) suggest
that continuous learning may be encouraged through leader support for learning.
Although it was anticipated that the a priori model will be a better fit with the data,
the literature also supports the notion that the current supervisors of the
organization directly influence learning culture. The alternative model suggests that
leadership characteristics will impact the learning culture of the organization. As
shown in Table 4, the fit statistics associated with the alternative model indicate
that it is not as good of fit to the data as the hypothesized model. Further, to
compare the fit of the models, a %2 difference test was used. The difference
between the %2 of each of model was divided by the degrees of freedom to
determine the extent that the models are different. The models are considered
significantly different if the result of the %2 difference test is greater than 2
(Kelloway, 1998). The %2 difference test yielded 0.47, indicating that the models
are not significantly different. Garson (2007) recommends using the AIC (Akailce
Information Criterion) to compare models that are not nested. The model with the
lowest AIC statistic is the better fitting model. The alternative model has a lower
AIC statistic than the hypothesized model which indicates that it is a better fit to the
data. However, the RMR associated with the alternative model is large indicating a
65
significant amount of error which is one reason to prefer the hypothesized model
over the alternative model. Further, the PGFI fit statistic supports the hypothesized
model over the alternative model.
66
Table 5
Hypothesized M odel Fit Statistics
x2
A Priori
Measurement
M odel
Hypothesized
M odel
Alternative M odel
Recomm ended
Statistics
df
RM R
RM SEA
GFI
CFI
PGF
I
AIC
x2
diff
403.04**
188
0.05
0.06
0.96
0.97
0.65
312.94**
144
0.05
0.07
0 .8 8
0.97
0.67
1312
407.50**
146
0 .11
0.08
0.85
<0.05
<0 .1 0
>0.90
0.95
> 0.90
0 .6 6
High
471
Low
.47
> 2
** p < . 01
Moderator Analysis. Cortina, Chen, and Dunlap (2001) discuss several

approaches to testing for moderators in LISREL. One of those approaches - the
Ping method was used in the current study to determine whether employee
engagement moderated the relationship between self-determination and self
development behaviors. Pings approach is similar to testing a moderator in
regression analysis in that the researcher examines the relationships between the
independent and dependent variables, the dependent variable and the moderator,
and the interaction of the moderator and independent variable on the dependent
variable. The LISREL code was outlined by Cortina et al. (2001). The results
showed that employee engagement did not moderate the relationship between selfdetermination and self-development behaviors. The interaction term was not
67
significant which is consistent with the results from the moderated regression
analysis.
Exploratory Analyses. Exploratory alternative models were examined to
determine if the model would be a better fit to the data without self-determination
in the model. Since the self-determination scale had low reliability and was not
significantly correlated with the feedback environment or self-development
behaviors, it was anticipated that alternative models without this variable would be
a better fit to the data. The first model that was examined was the hypothesized
model without self-determination. The antecedents lead to the feedback
environment and the feedback environment was then linked to self-development
behaviors. Surprisingly, this model was not a significantly better fit than the
hypothesized model. In fact, the fit statistics are almost identical to the fit statistics
of the hypothesized model. The fit statistics are shown in Table 6. The path
diagram is shown in Figure 8.
A second exploratory model was developed to determine whether the
feedback environment leads to learning culture. Exploratory model 2 is depicted in
Figure 9. This model proposed that emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership would lead to the feedback environment which would then lead to
learning culture and subsequently self-development behaviors. The results of this
model are similar to the results of Exploratory model 1. This model was not a
68
significantly better fit to the data than the hypothesized model. The fit statistics are
shown in Table 6.
Finally, a third exploratory model was developed to examine whether the
feedback environment is related to employees engagement. This model examined
whether emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and learning culture
leads to the feedback environment which then leads to employee engagement and
subsequently self-development behaviors. This model was also not a better fit to
the data than the hypothesized model. The model is depicted in Figure 10 and the
fit statistics are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Alternative Model Fit Statistics
Hypothesized Model
Alternative Model
Exploratory Model 1
Exploratory Model 2
Exploratory Model 3
Recommended
Statistics
X2
312.94**
407.50**
232.08**
268.15**
397.67**
Non
significant
df
144
146
97
99
144
RMR
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.09
0.12
<0.05
RMSEA
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.08
<0.10
GFI
0.88
0.85
0.89
0.88
0.86
>0.90
CFI
0.97
0.95
0.98
0.97
0.96
>0.90
PGFI
0.67
0.66
0.64
0.64
0.65
High
* * p < .01
Method Bias Analysis. A method bias analysis was conducted to determine

whether the method used to measure the constructs contributed to systematic error
in the measurement of the variables. Doty and Glick (1998) recommend using
several different scales to reduce common method bias. Several different formats
were used in the current study such as agreement scales, frequency scales, and
situational items. However, since the method used to collect data was in a single
69
source, self report format, a method bias analysis was conducted to ensure that the
study was free of method bias. An item unrelated to the study (i.e., a marker
variable) was included in the survey to extract the common variance in the
indicators of the measurement model (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2003).
A chi-square difference test was conducted to determine whether the model with
the method bias indicator was significantly different from the hypothesized model.
The chi square difference test resulted in -0.98, meaning that there was no
significant differences between the models. This indicates that the method bias
variable did not significantly impact the model.
70
Chapter 4
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify antecedents and consequences of
the feedback environment. Previous studies have shown that there is a significant
relationship between a favorable feedback environment and certain leader
characteristics (Anseel & Lievens, in press; Steelman, Levy & Snell, 2004; Pittman
& Steelman, 2006). This study provides more support for this relationship and adds
to the literature by identifying transformational leadership as an antecedent.
Through regression analyses, emotional intelligence, transformational leadership,
and organizational learning culture were identified as antecedents of a favorable
feedback environment supporting hypotheses 1,2, and 3. These results suggest that
leaders who are emotionally intelligent or have a transformational leadership style
foster an environment that is favorable for employees to seek and receive
constructive feedback. These results are consistent with the literature in that studies
have shown that certain types of leaders create better feedback environments than
others (Levy et al., 2002; Pittman & Steelman, 2006). Also, an organizations
learning culture was found to significantly impact the feedback environment.
Favorable feedback environments are fostered in organizations that promote
employees learning and are supportive of their development efforts.
Although the regression analyses did not show that the feedback
environment was related to self-determination or that self-determination was
71
significantly related to self-development behaviors (not supporting hypotheses 4

and 5), the fit statistics demonstrated that the entire model is a fairly good fit to the
data. The unsupported results may be due in part to the scales used to measure selfdetermination and self-development behaviors. Both scales had low reliabilities and
the self-development scale was composed of only 3 items. Since the overall model
was not a poor fit to the data, it is possible that with better measurement, selfdetermination and self-development behaviors could be identified as consequences
of the feedback environment. Future research should further investigate these
constructs.
Hypothesis 6 stated that employee engagement would moderate the
relationship between self-determination and self-development behaviors. This
relationship was not supported. This could also be attributed to the poor
measurement of self-determination. Also, it has been suggested that it is difficult to
detect moderating effects in field research (McClelland & Judd, 1993). McClelland
and Judd suggest that moderating effects in field research may be difficult to detect
because of the properties of the joint distribution of the independent variables.
Although a direct relationship between the feedback environment and
participation in self development behaviors was not hypothesized, a regression
analysis showed that the feedback environment significantly predicted employees
participation in self-development. It is not surprising that a feedback environment
facilitated by a learning culture would significantly contribute to employees
72
willingness to participate in activities that would help them learn and grow.
Learning organizations are comprised of members who value continuous learning
and performance improvement (London & Mone, 1999). The leaders of these
organizations value learning for themselves and others in the organization, and thus
foster a feedback environment that will enable employees to learn from their
performance. In turn, a favorable feedback environment may give employees the
information they need to take the necessary actions to further develop themselves.
Goldstein and Ford (2002) contend that the goal of a learning organization is to
encourage every member of the organization to cultivate their skills and improve
overall effectiveness. The results of this study indicate that leaders of learning
organizations do this in part by facilitating a favorable feedback environment.
Further, employees who are exposed to a favorable feedback environment
have fewer perceptions of organizational politics (Rosen, Levy & Hall, 2006). I
believe that this enables employees to seek out development opportunities without
worrying that it will have a negative impact on their career. Employees might not
feel comfortable admitting their need to improve a competency if organizational
politics are high. Additionally, Harland et al.s (2005) proposition that
transformational leaders engender approach coping in subordinates helps provide
some theoretical underpinning for this relationship. Similar to that theory, certain
leaders may engender positive responses from subordinates during performance
challenges such as participating in self-development behaviors.
73
Overall, the goal of this study was to examine potential antecedents and
consequences of the feedback environment. The antecedents of the feedback
environment were supported. Learning culture, emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership were shown to facilitate a favorable feedback
environment. This is a contribution to the literature because although we know
some things about the outcome of the feedback environment, we do not know much
about its drivers. This information can help organizations create a favorable
feedback environment. Matthews et al. (2007) suggest that emotional intelligence is
an ability that can be trained. Therefore, organizations could train supervisors on
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership so they are better equipped
to foster a favorable feedback environment. Furthermore, supervisors may be more
willing to adopt these leader characteristics when it is communicated to them that
their leadership style impacts employee development. Also, organizations can use
this information to select more effective leaders. Since developing subordinates is
such an important part of a leaders job, it makes sense that organizations consider
emotional intelligence and transformational leadership as important competencies
to test for when selecting new leaders.
The data did not support the hypothesized consequences of the feedback
environment. Self-determination was not identified as a consequence of the
feedback environment but other potential consequences should be examined in the
future. We now have empirical support for self-development behaviors as a direct
74
consequence of the feedback environment. This is useful information as

employees willingness to develop themselves is valuable to organizations. It is
likely that multiple consequences exist but have not been tested empirically yet.
75
Limitations
Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, the use of emotional
intelligence as a construct is a limitation of the current study. Researchers often
disagree about what constitutes emotional intelligence and how it should be
measured. Fox (2002) contends that emotional intelligence has not yet achieved the
status of a unique psychological construct. Emotional intelligence encompasses a
broad definition and it is therefore difficult to assess. The operationalization of
emotional intelligence is complicated by the fact that emotional experiences are
naturally subjective (Furnham & Petrides, 2003). Similarly, Day (2004) notes that
the contribution of emotional intelligence to prediction of success over and beyond
personality and ability may be limited in that the behavioral criteria is often
subjective.
In addition to issues related to the definition and assessment of the
construct, this study examines others perceptions of supervisor emotional
intelligence. This is a limitation of the study because of potential method bias. The
participants of the study rated their own self-determination, their own self
development efforts, their supervisors emotional intelligence, transformational
leadership, and learning culture. A bias can occur when information is collected
from a single source (Spector, 1994). The hypothesized model was compared to a
one factor model to determine whether method bias existed. The one factor model
was not significantly different from the hypothesized model suggesting that it is
76
possible that some method bias was present. However, a method bias analysis was
conducted to determine if the method used to assess the constructs contributed to
systematic error. Although the method bias analysis suggested that systematic error
was limited, it should be noted that there are some disadvantages of using the
marker variable method to test method bias. An empirical limitation of this method
is that it doesnt take measurement error into consideration. Further, common
method variance can inflate, deflate, or have no impact on the relationships
between variables (Podsakoff & Farh, 1989). Conceptually, this method is limited
in that it doesnt control for several types of method bias such as implicit theories
and social desirability.
Also, the self-determination and self-development scales had low internal
consistency. It is possible that these constructs were not adequately measured. The
fit of the hypothesized and alternative models may have been better if more reliable
measures of self-determination and self-development behaviors were used.
Finally, one must consider the possibility of model misspecification as there
may be other possible antecedents and consequences of the feedback environment
that were not considered in the current study. Model misspecification occurs when
important variables, paths, or errors are not included in the study (Garson, 2007). It
is possible that the hypothesized model might not be a true representation of the
population. It is likely there are other true relationships that are not included in this
77
study. However, the fit o f the hypothesized model indicates that some antecedents
and consequences of the feedback environment were identified.
78
Future Research
There are several potential areas of study that arise from the discussion
above. First, future research on the construct of emotional intelligence is necessary
to determine the characteristics encompassed by the definition. More research
needs to examine how emotional intelligence is measured and the validity of these
scales. The conceptual development of the construct is critical in order for us to
thoroughly understand the relation between emotional intelligence and other work
behavior outcomes. Further, it would be helpful to study the relationship between
employees perception of their supervisors emotional intelligence and that
supervisors actual emotional intelligence. It would be valuable to know which
measurement perspective is most valid, and if researchers can validly measure
emotional intelligence from another persons perspective.
Second, I think it would be useful to further examine the relationship
between the feedback environment and self-determination. It is possible that a
relationship does exist but wasnt detected in the current study due to an unreliable
measure of self-determination. Also, this research could be expanded by adding
other consequences to the model. Future research should further investigate the
relationship between the feedback environment and other potential consequences. I
think it would be interesting to look at work ethic as a consequence of the feedback
environment. Employees may be more willing to go the extra mile when their
supervisors take the time to provide constructive feedback and create a social
79
environment that encourages feedback seeking. It is also recommended that future

research examine the antecedents and consequences of a coworker feedback
environment. In particular, a relationship between the coworker feedback
environment and organizational learning culture should be examined. Based on
learning organization theory, it is plausible that a learning culture organization
would facilitate an environment conducive to coworkers sharing constructive
performance evaluation information.
80
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Despite the importance of knowing which organizational factors lead to a

favorable feedback environment, only a few empirical studies have reported
specific antecedents or outcomes of this construct. This study addressed a
limitation in the current literature by examining characteristics hypothesized to lead
to a favorable feedback environment and the consequences it has on employee
development. This study focused on emotional intelligence, transformational
leadership, and organizational learning culture as antecedents and selfdetermination and self-development behaviors as consequences of a favorable
supervisor feedback environment. This model also examined employee engagement
as a possible moderator between self-determination and self-development
behaviors.
Structural equation modeling was used to test the overall model and
regression analyses confirmed 3 of the individual hypotheses. Overall, the model
was a good fit to the data. All of the hypothesized antecedents were supported.
These findings are meaningful because they can help organizations determine
which leadership characteristics are important to develop and why. Although the
hypothesized consequences were not supported, a significant relationship was
found between the feedback environment and self-development behaviors.
81
Continuous learning has become such an important part of todays organization and
this finding identifies a mechanism through which employees self-development
behaviors may be engendered.
This study adds to our knowledge of the social context surrounding the
feedback process and will help organizations better understand how the feedback
environment impacts employees willingness to develop themselves.
Understanding precisely how emotional intelligence and transformational
leadership relates to effective leadership may have implications for practitioners for
developing leaders and researchers for further developing leadership theory.
Further, knowing how an organizations learning culture influences the feedback
environment may inspire HR professionals and consultants to work towards
developing an organizational culture that supports continuous learning.
82
References
Ang, S., Cummings, L.L., Straub, D.W., & Earley, P.C. (1993). The effects of
information technology and the perceived mood of the feedback giver on
feedback seeking. Information Systems Research, 4, 240-261.
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., & Cummings, L.L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The
instrumental use of the information environment. Journal o f Occupational
Psychology, 58 61-19.
Ashford, S.J., & Tsui, A.S. (1991). Self-Regulation for managerial effectiveness:
The role of active feedback seeking. Academy o f Management Journal,
34(2), 251-280.
Ashford, SJ., Blatt, R., VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A
review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal
o f Management.
Ashkanasy, N.M., Hartel, C.E., Zerbe, W.J. (2000). Emotions in the Workplace:
Research, Theory, and Practice. Connecticut: Quorum Books.
Atkouf, O. (1992). Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward

A critical radical humanism. Academy o f Management Revies, 1 7, 407-431.
83
Auerbach, J.E. (2001). Personal and Executive Coaching. Ventura California:

Executive College Press.
Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1998). Individual consideration viewed at multiple
levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of
transformational leadership. In F. Danseraeau & F.J. Yammarino (Eds),
Monographs in organizational behavior and industrial relations (Vol. 24,
pp. 53-76). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the mulitfactors leadership
questionnaire. Journal o f Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72,
441-462.
Bass, B.M., Waldman, D.A., & Avolio, B.J. (1987). Transformational leadership
and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12(1), 7387.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational
culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.
Bates, S. (2004). Getting Engaged. HR Magazine, 44-51.
Billet, S. (2004). Workplace participatory practices: conceptualizing workplaces as
learning environments. Journal o f Workplace Learning, 16(6), 312-324.
84
Bogle, C. & Steelman, L.A. (2007). The relationship between the feedback
environment and ocb: An examination o f the mediating effect ofjob
satisfaction and organizational justice. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

New York City, NY.
Brown, F.W., Bryant, S.E., & Reilly, M.D. (2006). Does emotional intelligence - as
measured by the EQI - influence transformational leadership and/or
desirable outcomes? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27
(5), 330-351.
Bums, N.R., Bastian, V.A., & Nettelbeck, T. (2007). Emotional intelligence: More
than personality and cognitive ability? In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner & R.D.
Robers (Eds.), The Science o f Emotional Intelligence. New York: Oxford.
Cascio, W. F. (1987). Applied psychology in personnel management. (Third
Edition), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cavallo, K., & Brienza D. (2002). Emotional competence and Leadership
excellence at Johnson & Johnson. Retrieved April 6, 2004, from
http://www.eiconsortium.org.
Chemiss, C. (2000). Emotional intelligence: What it is and why it matters. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
85
Ciarrochi, J.V., Chan, A.Y.C, & Caputi, P. (1999). A critical evaluation of the
emotional intelligence construct. Personality & Individual Differences, 28,
539-561.
Connelly, C.E. & Kelloway, E.K. (2003). Predictors of employee perceptions of
knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 24(5/6), 294-301.
Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (1999). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and
validity of the BarOn emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i) in university
students. Personality and Individual Differences 28, 797-812.
Day, A. (2004). The Measurement of Emotional Intelligence: The good, the bad
and the ugly. In G. Geher (Ed.), Measuring emotional intelligence:
Common ground and controversy (pp. 245-270). New York: Nova Science.
In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner & R.D. Robers (Eds.), The Science o f
Emotional Intelligence. New York: Oxford
Deci, E. L., Connell, J.P., & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Self-determination in a work
organization. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 74 (4), 580-590.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227268.
86
Dorfman, P.W., Stephan, W.G., & Loveland, J. (1986). Performance appraisal

behaviors: Supervisor perceptions and subordinate reactions. Personnel
Psychology p. 579-597.
Doty, D.H., & Glick, W.H. (1998). Common method bias: Does common methods
variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374-406.
Dulewicz, V. & Higgs, M. (2003). Leadership at the top: The need for emotional
intelligence in Organizations. International Journal of Organizational
Analysis 11(3), 193-211.
Egan, T.M., Yang, B. & Barlett, K.R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning
culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover
intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(3), 279-301.
Fedor, D.B., Buckley, M.R., Eder, R.W. (1990). Measuring subordinate perceptions
of supervisor feedback intentions: some unsettling results. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 50(1), 73-89.
Ferres, N. & Connell, J. (2004). Emotional intelligence in Leaders: an antidote for

cynicism towards change? Strategic Change 13, 61-71.
Ford, J.K.; Kozlowski, S.W., Kraiger, K., Salas, E., Teachout, M.S. (1997).
Improving Training effectiveness in work organizations. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87
Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P . ,Taylor, C.R. (2004). The race for talent: retaining
and engaging workers in the 21st century. Human Resource Planning, Vol
27.
Garson, G. David (2007). "Structural Equation Modeling", from Statnotes: Topics

in Multivariate Analysis. Retrieved 9/13/2007 from
http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.htm.
th
Goldstein, I.L. & Ford, J.K. (2002). Training in Organizations. (4 Ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Group.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New
York:Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam
Books.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2001). Primal leadership. Harvard
BusinessReview, 79(11), 42.
Greenfield, W.M. (2004). Decision making and employee engagement.

Employment Relations Today, 31(2), 13-24.
Hall, R.J., Snell, A.F. & Foust, M.S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM:
Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs.
Organizational Research Methods, 2(3), 233-256.
88
Hallberg, U. E. & Schaufeli, W.B. (2006). Same Same but different? Can work
engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational
commitment1 European Psychologist, 11(2), 119-127.
Harland, L., Harrison, W., Jones, J.R., and Reiter-Palmon, R. (2005). Leadership
behaviors and subordinate resilience. Journal o f Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 11 (2), 2-14.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. (2004). Organizational behavior. (10th Ed.). Mason,
Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequence of individual
feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 64
(4), 349.
Ilgen, D.R., Mitchell, T. R. & Fredrickson, J.W. (1981). Poor performers:
supervisorsand subordinates responses. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 27, 386-410.
Illeris, K. A model for learning in working life. Journal o f Workplace Learning, 16

(8), 431-441.
Janovics, J., Christiansen, N. D., (2001, April). Emotional Intelligence in the

workplace. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
89
Jones, J.R. & Harter, J.K. (2005). Race effects on the employee engagementtumover intention relationship. Journal o f Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 11(2), 78-88.
Kelloway, E.K. (1998). Using LISREL fo r Structural Equation Modeling.

Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Kinicki, A., Wu, B., Prussia, G., & McKee-Ryan, F. (2004). A covariance structure
analysis o f employees response to performance feedback. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1057-1069.
Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on

performance:A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Levy, P.E; Cober, R.T; & Miller, T. (2002). The effect of transformational and
transactional leadership and perceptions on feedback-seeking intentions.
Journal o f applied social psychology, 32(8), 1703-1720.
London, M., & Mone, E.M. (1999). Continuous learning. In D.R. Ilgen & E.D.
Pulakos (Eds). The changing nature ofperformance: Implications fo r
staffing, motivation and development (ppl 19-153). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
London, M. and Smither, J.W. (1999). Empowered self-development and
continuous learning. Human Resource Management, 38 (1), p. 3-15.
90
London, M. (2003). Job feedback: giving, seeking, and using feedback for
performance improvement. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
2003.
Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J. (2002). Employee engagement and manger selfefficacy: Implications for managerial effectiveness and development. The
Journal o f Management Development, 21(5/6), 376-387.
MacCallum, R.C. & Austin, J.T. (2000). Application of structural equation

modeling in psychological research. Annu. Rev. Psychology, 51, 201-226.
Mandell, B. & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence
and Transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal o f
business and psychology, 17(3), 387-403.
Matthews, G., Zeidner, M., & Roberts, R., (Eds.), The Science o f Emotional
Intelligence Knowns and Unknowns. New York: Oxford.
Maurer, T.J. & Rafuse, N.E. (2001). Learning, not litigating: Managing employee
Development and avoiding claims of age discrimination. The Academy o f
Management Executive, 75(4), 110-121.
Maurer, T.J., Weiss, E.M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in

work- related learning and development activity: The effects of individual,
situational, motivational, and age variables. Journal o f Applied Psychology,
88(4), 707-724.
91
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Selecting a measure of

emotional intelligence: A case for ability scales. In R. Bar-On & J. D. A.
Parker (Eds.), The handbook o f emotional intelligence: Theory
development, assessment, and application at home, school, and in the
workplace (pp. 320-342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K.R. & Cleveland, J.N. (1995). Understanding Performance Appraisal:

Social Organizational, and Goal-Based Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SagePublications.
Nachman-Hunt, N. (2003). Employee training pays back big, first national ceo
believes. Boulder County Business Report, 22(2).
Norris-Watts, C., & Levy, P.E. (2004). The mediating role of affective commitment
in the relation of the feedback environment to work outcomes. Journal o f
Vocational Behavior, 65(3), 651.
Paine, N. (2006). Does coaching beat training? Human Resources. London: 2006.
Palmer, B., Walls, M., Burgess, Z., Stough, C. (2001). Emotional intelligence and
effective leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
22(1), 5-10.
Parker, J. Taylor, G., & Bagby, R. (2001). The relationship between emotional
intelligence and alexithymia. In G. Matthews, M. Zeidner & R.D. Roberts,
R. (Eds.), The Science o f Emotional Intelligence. New York: Oxford.
92
Pittman, J. P. and Steelman, L. A. (2006).The influence o f emotional intelligence on

feedback seeking behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.

Podsakoff, P.M. and Farh, J.L. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and credibility on
goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 44, 45-67.
Rahim, M. A., Psenicka, C., Polychroniou, P., Zhao, J. H., Yu, C. S., Chan, K. A.,
Yee, K. W., Alves. M. G., Lee, C. W., Rahman, M. S., Ferdausy, S., &
Wyk, R.V.(2002). A model of emotional intelligence and conflict
management strategies: A study in seven countries. International Journal o f
Organizational Analysis, 10,302-326. fhttp:/ssm.com/abstract=429760L
Rosen, C. C., Levy, P. E., & Hall, R. J. (2006). Placing perceptions of politics in
the context of the feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job
performance. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 91 (1), 211-220.
Rubin, R.S., Munz, D.C., & Bommer, W.H. (2005). Leading from within: The
effects o f emotion recognition and personality on transformational
leadership behavior.
Academy o f Management Journal, 48(5), 845-858.
Ryan, R.M & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well being. American
Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
93
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition,

and personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: JoseyBass.

Seijts, G.H. & Crim, D. (2006). What engages employees the most or, the ten cs of
employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal, March/April.
Senge, P. (1990). The Leaders New Work: Building Learning Organizations.
Sloan Management Review, 32(1), p.7.
Sosik, J.J., Megerian, L.E. (1999). Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance: The role of self other agreement on transformational
leadership perceptions. Group and Organization Management, 24(3) 367390.
Spector, P.E. (2003). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and
practice. (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Steelman, L. A. & Rutkowski, K.A. (2004). Moderators of employee reactions to

negative feedback. Journal o f Managerial Psychology 19 (1/2), p. 6.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Taylor & Bagby (2000). An overview o f the alexithymia construct. In R. BarOn
&J.D.A. Parker (Eds.), The handbook o f emotional intelligence (pp. 40-67).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
94
Tracey, J.B., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Kavanagh, M.J. (1995). Applying trained skills
on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 80, 239-252.
Van Rooy, D.L., Viswesvaran, C., Pluta, P. (in press). A meta-analytic evaluation
of the construct validity: What is this thing called emotional intelligence?
Human Performance
Williams, S. and Luthans, F. (1992). The impact o f choice of rewards and feedback
on task performance. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 13, p. 653-666.
95
Appendix A
Selfdetermination
Self Development
Behaviors
of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
Emotional
Intelligence
FES
with permission
Transformational
Leadership
Employee
Engagement
Reproduced
Learning
Culture
prohibited without perm ission.
Figure 1. Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment Structural Model
Feedback
Environment
Self
Determination
Employee
Engagement
Self
Development
Behaviors
C"-
LC1
<3\
LC2
LI
L2
L3
SA
LC3
FES1
EMP
FES2
t.
ir
FES3
Emotional
Intelligence
with permission
Transformational
Leadership
Reproduced
Learning
Culture
Figure 2. Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment Measurement Model
Figure 3. Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment Measurement and Structural Model
LI
L2
Self
Determination
Feedback
Environment
Self
Development
Behaviors
L3
FES1
Emotional
Intelligence
SA
Transformational
Leadership
SR
EMP
FES2
FES3
oo
ON
LC2
with permission
LC2
LC1
Employee
Engagement
Reproduced
Learning
Culture
Learning
Culture
>
FES
> Selfdetermination
1r
Self Development
Behaviors
O
O
Emotional
Intelligence
n
n
with permission
Transformational
Leadership
Reproduced
Employee
Engagement
Figure 4. Alternative Structural Model
df=188,
O
t
<S>
t
Oi
'
J L
H >G
nJa ieL isii iJL r ii
P-value=0.QOOOO,
\\\\\\t\U U /t////////
\ o
o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
w Ci >a
(0 w fv
co 01 fv
H o o'
H
<aw
00 o Cn
OO O/
o HW
j ia j
V I CO CT
KMSEA=Q.065
100
Figure 5. Measurement Model Results
Chi-Square=377.99,
01
tr
Htoi
vQ
CO
I*
N
o
i
Cn
vl
l"1
fD
0It0
o00
Ln
\i
t/
h*
p,
i-h
II
M
3
I
<
0
hft
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
VL
m
o%
CO
o
-2
o
H
Cn
CO
O
o
H*
O
05
101
Figure 6. Structural and Measurement Model Results.
(0
Cn
ifr
Figure 7. Alternative Model Results
O
Chi-Square=383.48,
o
co
df=146,
-o
Cn
cd
P-value=0.00000,
RMSEA=0.083
o :
H
Cn
co
05
CO
o00
o-J
if*.
(Jl
&
CO
ifr
CO
ifr
n
Cn
tn
CO
o
Cn
CD
102
103
104
105
Appendix B
Feedback Environment Scale (TESf
1. My supervisor was generally familiar with my performance on the job.
2.My supervisor gave me useful feedback about my job performance.
3.When my supervisor gave me performance feedback, he or she was considerate
of my feelings.
4.1 seldom received praise from my supervisor.
5.On those occasions when my job performance fell below what was expected, my
supervisor let me know.
6. The feedback I received from my supervisor helped me do my job.
7. My supervisor was usually available when I wanted performance information.
8. My supervisor was often annoyed when I directly asked for performance
feedback.
9. My supervisor was fair when evaluating my job performance.
10. My supervisor generally provided feedback in a thoughtless manner.
11. My supervisor generally let me know when I did a good job at work.
12. On those occasions when I made a mistake at work, my supervisor told me.
13. My supervisor was too busy to give me feedback.
14. The performance information I received from my supervisor was generally not
very meaningful.
15.1 frequently received positive feedback from my supervisor.
16.1 felt comfortable asking my supervisor for feedback about my work
performance.
17. My supervisor was tactful when he or she gave me performance feedback
18. My supervisor encouraged me to ask for feedback whenever I was uncertain
about my job performance.
19. The only time I received performance feedback from my supervisor was during
my performance review.
2 0 .1 frequently received negative feedback from my supervisor.
21. In general, I respected my supervisor's opinions about my job performance.
Learning Culture
22. Opportunities for ongoing education and growth are provided at work.
23. Our organizational culture supports questioning, feedback and experimentation.
24. Our organization helps employees increase their capacity to listen and inquire
into views of others.
25. Collaboration is valued by our organization's culture.
26. Employees are helped to see the impact of their work on the company.
27. Employees scan the environment to adjust work practices as required.
28. The leaders of our organization support learning.
106
Employee Engagement
2 9 .1 can continue working for long periods at a time.
30. In my job, I feel vigorous.
3 1 .1 am enthusiastic about my job.
32. My job inspires me.
3 3 .1 am proud of the work I do.
34. Time flies when I'm working.
35. When I am working, I forget everything else around me.
Self-Development Behaviors
3 6 .1 attend training classes.
3 7 .1 meet with a coach about my career.
3 8 .1 ask my supervisor for information about my work performance.
Self-Determination
39. You are asked to plan a picnic for yourself and your fellow employees. Your
style for approaching this project could most likely be characterized as:
a)Take charge: that is, you would make most of the major decisions
yourself.
b)Follow precedent: you're not really up to the task so you'd do it the way
it's been done before.
c) Seek participation: get inputs from others who want to make them before
you make the final plans.
40. Recently a position opened up at your place of work that could have meant a
promotion for you. However, a person you work with was offered the job rather
than you. In evaluating the situation, you're likely to think:
a) You didn't really expect the job; you frequently get passed over.
b)The other person probably 'did the right things' politically to get the job.
c)You would probably take a look at factors in your own performance that
led you to be passed over.
41. You are embarking on a new career. The most important consideration is likely
to be:
a)Whether you can do the work without getting in over your head.
b)How interested you are in that kind of work.
c)Whether there are good possibilities for advancement.
Transformational Leadership
My supervisor:
42. Is an inspiration to us.
43. Makes everyone around him/her enthusiastic about assignments.
44. Is satisfied when I meet the agreed-upon standards for good work.
107
45. Recognizes when I do a job well.

46. Provides me with new ways of looking at things.
47. Enables me to think about old problems in new ways.
My supervisor:
48. Displays emotions in a manner that inspires others to perform well.
49. Stays composed in potentially upsetting situations.
50. Is mindful of his or her strengths and weaknesses.
51. Recognizes that his or her feelings' affects other people.
52. Understands the connection between others' feelings and their behaviors.
53. Handles his or her stress well.
54. Is empathetic to the needs and feelings of others.
55. Handles emotional conflict in a tasteful way.
Demographics:
56. Please indicate your current age group.
57. Please indicate how long you have worked with your current supervisor.
58. Please indicate how long you have worked for NASA.
59. Please indicate your ethnicity.
60. Please indicate your gender.
108
Parcel Information
Emotional Intelligence Parcel
Item
Parcel
1. Recognizes that his or her feelings affects other people.
Self Awareness
2. Is mindful of his or her strengths and weaknesses
1. Handles his or her stress well
Self Regulation
2. Stays composed in potentially upsetting situations
1. Is empathetic to the feelings and needs of others
Empathy
2. Understands the connection between others feelings and
their behaviors
Social Skills
1. Displays emotions in a manner that inspires others to
perform well
2. Handles emotional conflict in a tasteful way
Self Determination Parcel
Parcel
Item (Listed in Appendix A)
Autonomy
1. lc
2. 2c
3. 3b
Control
1. la
2. 2b
3. 3c
Personal
1. lb
2. 2a
3. 3a
Transformational Leadership Parcel
Item
Parcel
Inspirational
1. Is an inspiration to us
Leadership
2. Makes everyone around him/her enthusiastic about
assignments
Individual
1. Is satisfied when I meet the agreed-upon standards for
Consideration
good work
2. Recognizes when I do a job well.
Intellectual
1. Provides me with new ways of looking at things.
Stimulation
2. Enables me to think about old problems in new ways
Learning Culture Parcel
Parcel
Item
L1
1. Opportunities for ongoing education and growth are
provided at work
2. Our organizational culture supports questioning, feedback
and experimentation
109
L2
1. Our organization helps employees increase their capacity to

listen and inquire into views of others.
2. Collaboration is valued by our organization's culture

1. Employees are helped to see the impact of their work on the
L3
company
2. Employees scan the environment to adjust work practices as
required
3. The leaders of our organization support learning
Feedback Environment Parcel
Item
Parcel
1. My supervisor gave me useful feedback about my job
FI
performance
2. When my supervisor gave me performance feedback, he or she
was considerate of my feelings
3. My supervisor was usually available when I wanted
performance information.
4. My supervisor was often annoyed when I directly asked for
performance feedback.
5. On those occasions when I made a mistake at work, my
supervisor told me.
6. The performance information I received from my supervisor
was generally not very meaningful.
7. The only time I received performance feedback from my
supervisor was during my performance review.
8. In general, I respected my supervisor's opinions about my job
performance.
F2
1. My supervisor was generally familiar with my performance on
the job.
2. On those occasions when my job performance fell below what
was expected, my supervisor let me know.
3. My supervisor was fair when evaluating my job performance.
4. My supervisor was too busy to give me feedback.
5 .1 frequently received positive feedback from my supervisor.
6 .1 felt comfortable asking my supervisor for feedback about my
work performance.
7 .1 frequently received negative feedback from my supervisor.
1 .1 seldom received praise from my supervisor.
F3
2. The feedback I received from my supervisor helped me do my
job.
3. My supervisor generally provided feedback in a thoughtless
manner.
110
4. My supervisor generally let me know when I did a good job at

work.
5. My supervisor was tactful when he or she gave me performance
feedback
6. My supervisor encouraged me to ask for feedback whenever I
was uncertain about my job performance.
Self Development Behavior Parcel
Item
Parcel
Training
1 .1 attend training classes.
Coaching
1 .1 meet with a coach about my career.
Feedback Seeking
1 .1 ask my supervisor for information about my work
performance.
Emplovee Engagement Parcel
Parcel
Item
Vigor
1 .1 can continue working for long periods at a time
2. In my job, I feel vigorous
Dedication
1 .1 am enthusiastic about my job.
2. My job inspires me.
3 .1 am proud o f the work I do.
Absorption
1. Time flies when I'm working.
2. When I am working, I forget everything else around me
Ill

Antecedents and Consequences of The Feedback Environment PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Antecedents and Consequences of The Feedback Environment PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment

UMI N um ber: 3282717

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright 2007 Jaclyn Pamela Pittman

make single copies

We the undersigned committee hereby recommend that the attached document be

Richard Grimm, Ph.D.

Roger Manley, Ph.D.

lary Bern Kenkel, Ph.D.

Figure 2. Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment

Figure 3. Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment

Figure 4. Alternative Structural Model

Figure 5. Measurement Model Results

Figure 6. Structural and Measurement Model Results

Figure 7. Alternative Model Results

Figure 8. Exploratory Results - Model 1

Figure 9. Exploratory Results - Model 2

Figure 10. Exploratory Results - Model 3

Table 1. Sample Characteristics

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Table 3. Correlational Analysis for Study Variables

Table 4. Measurement Model Fit Statistics

Table 5. Hypothesized Model Fit Statistics

Table 6. Alternative Model Fit Statistics

Antecedents and Consequences of the Feedback Environment

Increasingly, growing and changing organizations demand that employees

One important aspect of the context surrounding feedback is the feedback

antecedent of the feedback environment. An organizations learning culture reflects

work outcomes such as affective commitment and organizational citizenship

feedback is a crucial part of developing successful employees. An important aspect

feedback rich environment and source credibility was significantly related to

Lievens suggested that an employees perceptions of his/her supervisors feedback

MSCEIT. Also, measures of emotional intelligence have been found to be related

individuals ability by asking the participant to solve a problem or perform a task.

to be cynical when lead by an emotionally intelligent supervisor (Ferres & Connell,

individualized consideration would be equipped to recognize when a subordinate

frequency of their subordinates by creating a favorable feedback environment.

leadership characteristics that affect subordinates behaviors and development at

Argyris (1997) suggests that learning is a process that involves the

on the capability of the organization to adapt to changes in the external

motivation: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and

rewards can be compared to the autonomy component of self-determination in that

increases employees self determination and thus supports frequent feedback

if they invest in training rather than cutting employee development opportunities in

willingness to participate in training opportunities by increasing their self

of agreement is that engagement occurs on an every day basis and is applied

The Current Study

Hypothesis 6: Employee engagement will be a moderator between self

Tenure with organization

Tenure with current supervisor

The requirements of the field sample required shortening most measures to

strongly disagree to strongly agree). Sample items include: My supervisor gives

The measures were distributed electronically in the form of one survey. An

Regression Analyses. Regression analyses were conducted to examine the

Assumptions of SEM. The assumptions associated with structural equation

Structural equation modeling

This study utilized structural equation modeling to test the proposed

Identification. The next step focuses on whether a unique solution can be

organizations learning culture. Bass and Avolio (1993) suggest that an

Hypothesized M odel Fit Statistics

Moderator Analysis. Cortina, Chen, and Dunlap (2001) discuss several

Method Bias Analysis. A method bias analysis was conducted to determine

significantly related to self-development behaviors (not supporting hypotheses 4