8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 1/18
Factors Influencing Employee Intentions to Provide HonestUpward Feedback Ratings
Austin F. R. Smith Æ Vincent J. Fortunato
Published online: 24 January 2008
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Based on current research involving rater
motivation, we examined several factors hypothesized toinfluence employee intentions to provide honest upward
feedback. Survey data were collected from a demographi-
cally diverse sample of hospital employees (n = 203). In
summary, we found empirical support for generalizing
extant models of rater motivation to an upward feedback
context: cynicism towards upper management and the
upward feedback process, understanding upward feedback,
and opportunity to observe their supervisors were the pri-
mary predictors of employee intentions to provide honest
upward feedback ratings, mediated by the (a) extent to
which employees perceived positive benefits would result
from rating their supervisors honestly, (b) the extent to
which employees feared retaliation by their supervisors,
and (c) rater self-efficacy.
Keywords Upward feedback Á Multisource feedback ÁMulti-rater feedback Á Performance appraisal ÁRater motivation Á Rater participation Á Rater accuracy
Introduction
In recent years, multisource feedback has become a popular
performance appraisal tool used by an estimated 90% of
Fortune 1000 companies (Bracken et al. 2001; Edwards
and Ewen 1996, 2001; Tornow and Tornow 2001). Also
referred to as 360° and multi-rater feedback, multisource
feedback has been called the ‘‘vital sign of the modern
organization’’ (Church and Waclawski 1998, p. 81).
Unfortunately, the utility of multisource feedback, partic-
ularly upward feedback, may be attenuated when raters
provide inaccurate performance ratings (Bernardin and
Tyler 2001; Bracken and Timmreck 2001). Subordinates
may inflate ratings to avoid retribution, limit interpersonal
conflict, or to ingratiate themselves with the supervisor or
they may deflate ratings to retaliate against a supervisor
who has disciplined or given a low performance rating to
the subordinate (Longenecker et al. 1987; Longenecker
1989; London 2001; Waldman and Atwater 2001).
Thus, the importance of identifying and examining
empirical factors that may influence subordinates inten-
tions to provide honest upward feedback ratings cannot be
understated. In this investigation, we draw from several
models of rater motivation (DeCotiis and Petit 1978; Harris
1994; Mohrman and Lawler 1983; Murphy and Cleveland
1995) and the rater participation literature (Avis and
Kudisch 2000; Kudisch et al. 2006; Westerman and Rosse
1997) in identifying several variables that might be just as
important in predicting employee intentions to honestly
rate their supervisors as they are in predicting supervisor
rating accuracy (see Fig. 1). Specifically, we examined the
extent to which employees (a) are cynical about the
motives of management (cynicism toward top manage-
ment) and the upward feedback process (cynicism toward
upward feedback), (b) believe that providing upward
A. F. R. Smith
Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi,
Hattiesburg, MS, USA
Present Address:
A. F. R. Smith
Personnel Decisions International, New York, NY, USA
V. J. Fortunato
Department of Psychology, Boise State University,
Boise, ID 83725-1758, USA
Present Address:
V. J. Fortunato (&)
People Business LLC, Boise, ID, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
DOI 10.1007/s10869-008-9070-4
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 2/18
feedback ratings is a role appropriate activity (role appro-
priateness), (c) understand the upward feedback process
(knowledge of upward feedback), (d) believe that upward
feedback would be used for either developmental, or
administrative purposes, or both (rating purpose), (e) had
ample opportunity to observe their supervisor (opportunity
to observe), (f) believe that positive benefits would result
from implementing an upward feedback program (per-
ceived benefits), (g) fear retaliation by their supervisors
(fear of retaliation), and (h) believe they have the skills,abilities, and confidence to rate their supervisors accurately
(rater self-efficacy).
Consistent with extant rater motivation theories (i.e.,
DeCotiis and Petit 1978; Harris 1994; Mohrman and
Lawler 1983; Murphy and Cleveland 1995), the model
presented in Fig. 1 indicates that employees will be more
likely to provide honest upward feedback ratings when
they believe that the organizational context in which the
upward feedback system takes place supports an environ-
ment in which employees (a) understand the benefits
inherent in providing honest upward feedback ratings, (b)
do not fear retaliation by their supervisors if they do pro-vide honest upward feedback ratings, and (c) believe that
they are capable of rating their supervisors accurately.
Thus, the model presented in Fig. 1 indicates that per-
ceived benefits, fear of retaliation, and rater self-efficacy
will mediate the relationships between cynicism, rating
purpose, role appropriateness, knowledge of upward feed-
back, and opportunity to observe, with employee intentions
to provide honest upward feedback ratings. For mediation
to occur, we must demonstrate that (a) the independent
variables shown in Fig. 1 relate to the dependent variable
and the mediating variables as hypothesized, (b) the
hypothesized mediating variables relate to the dependent
variable, and (c) variance explained by the independent
variables is substantially reduced when controlling for the
mediating variables (see Baron and Kenny 1986; MacK-
innon et al. 1995).
Hypothesized Relations Between the IndependentVariables and Hypothesized Mediating Variables with
the Dependent Variable
Cynicism
Organizational cynicism has been defined as a ‘‘negative
attitude towards one’s employing organization, comprising
three dimensions: (1) a belief that the organization lacks
integrity; (2) negative affect toward the organization; and
(3) tendencies to engage in disparaging and critical
behaviors toward the organization that are consistent with
these beliefs and affect’’ (Dean et al. 1998, p. 345) thatresult from a pattern of unsuccessful and unsupported
change initiatives (Abraham 2000; Waldman and Atwater
1998). Researchers generally agree that the success of
multi-rater systems depends, in part, on the extent to which
employees trust the motives of upper management (Church
1995; Pollack and Pollack 1996; Wimer and Nowack
1998). Moreover, DeCotiis and Petit (1978), Mohrman and
Lawler (1983) and Murphy and Cleveland (1995) sug-
gested that raters will rate more honestly when they believe
Perceived
Benefits
Rater
Self-Efficacy
Employee
Intentions to
Provide Honest
Upward Feedback
Ratings
Cynicism
Role
Appropriateness
Knowledge of
Upward Fdbk
Opportunity to
Observe
Rating Purpose:
DevelopmentalPerceived
Risk: Fear of
Retaliation
Rating Purpose:
Administrative
Fig. 1 Proposed model based on
current extant models of rater
motivation
192 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 3/18
in the integrity of performance appraisal initiatives. Thus,
employees who are cynical about the motives of manage-
ment, in general, and especially about upward feedback
initiatives, are not likely to provide honest feedback ratings
(Tziner et al. 2005). Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 1: Cynicism in top management and cyni-cism with respect to upward feedback will relate negatively
with employee intentions to provide honest feedback
ratings.
Rating Purpose
There is consistent agreement that rating purpose affects
supervisors’ intentions to rate their employees honestly. In
general, less rating distortion occurs when ratings are used
for developmental purposes (i.e., ratings used only for
employee development) than for administrative purposes(i.e., ratings used to determine pay and promotion: DeC-
otiis and Petit 1978; Longenecker et al. 1987; Mohrman
and Lawler 1983; Murphy and Cleveland 1995; Tziner
et al. 2001, 2002). Rating purpose may also be an impor-
tant factor that influences subordinate motivation in an
upward feedback context. For example, subordinates have
been shown to be more willing to participate in upward
feedback programs if they believe it to be used for devel-
opmental purposes, rather than administrative purposes
(Avis and Kudisch 2000; Westerman and Rosse 1997).
Moreover, when subordinates believe that upward feed-
back will be used for administrative purposes, they tend toprovide distorted and inaccurate ratings (e.g., Dalton 1998;
Lepsinger and Lucia 1997; Van Velsor 1998). Therefore,
we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2a: Employee perceptions regarding the
extent to which upward feedback will be used for devel-
opmental purposes will relate positively with employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 2b: Employee perceptions regarding the
extent to which upward feedback will be used for admin-
istrative purposes will relate negatively with employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Role Appropriateness
Providing supervisory ratings of subordinates is standard
practice in organizations and is typically seen as an
appropriate supervisory job responsibility (Murphy and
Cleveland 1995). However, switching from a supervisor-
only to a multisource feedback system violates traditional
organizational structure and may place both raters and ra-
tees in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations
(Funderburg and Levy 1997; Murphy and Cleveland 1995).
Research has shown that employees who believe that rating
their supervisors is a role appropriate activity are more
likely to participate in an upward feedback system than are
those who do not (Avis and Kudisch 2000; Kudisch et al.
2006; Westerman and Rosse 1997). Therefore, it is alsopossible that subordinates who believe that evaluating their
supervisor is a role appropriate activity might also be more
likely to provide honest ratings than those who do not
believe that such ratings are appropriate. Therefore, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3: Role appropriateness will relate positively
with employee intentions to provide honest upward feed-
back ratings.
Knowledge of Upward Feedback
Rater motivation theories indicate that knowledge of the
rating system and format by which individuals are rated
influence employee motivation to rate honestly (DeCotiis
and Petit 1978; Mohrman and Lawler 1983; Tziner and
Murphy 1999; Tziner et al. 2001, 2002). For example,
when a rating format is misunderstood, completion time
and rating inaccuracies increase (DeCotiis and Petit 1978;
Harris 1994; Mohrman and Lawler 1983). Similarly,
research has shown that rating quality relates positively to
raters’ level of comfort with the rating process (i.e., Tziner
and Murphy 1999; Tziner et al. 2001, 2002). Similarly,
rater participation research has shown that knowledge of
upward feedback relates positively to employee willing-
ness to provide upward ratings (Avis and Kudisch 2000;
Kudisch et al. 2006).
With respect to upward feedback, several researchers
have suggested that participants’ understanding and
knowledge of the upward feedback process is essential for
it to be effectively implemented (Bracken 1994; Church
and Bracken 1997; Church and Waclawski 1998; Milliman
et al. 1995; Rotolo and Kudisch 1996; Waldman and
Atwater 2001). For example, Church and Waclawski
(1998) noted that people are likely to be uncomfortable inrating their supervisors if they do not understand the con-
cept of upward feedback and Antonioni and Woehr (2001)
suggested that communicating the purpose of, and rationale
behind, upward feedback is an important factor in ensuring
the success of the system. Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 4: Knowledge of upward feedback will relate
positively with employee intentions to provide honest
upward feedback ratings.
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 193
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 4/18
Opportunity to Observe
One advantage of upward feedback is that subordinates
often have a better opportunity to observe some aspects of
their manager’s performance than do those who tradition-
ally provide ratings (Murphy and Cleveland 1995). Several
researchers have suggested that it is essential for the suc-
cess of upward feedback programs to have raters who havehad an adequate opportunity to observe their supervisor’s
performance (Bernardin and Tyler 2001; Bracken and
Timmreck 2001; Farr and Newman 2001). Indeed, Wes-
terman and Rosse (1997) found that employees who
indicated having a greater knowledge of their supervisor’s
performance were more willing to participate in an upward
feedback system than were those people who had less
knowledge of their supervisor’s performance. Therefore,
we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 5: Opportunity to observe will relate posi-
tively with employee intentions to provide upwardfeedback ratings.
Perceived Benefits
There is overwhelming support that raters consider the
benefits of rating honestly when rating others (Avis and
Kudisch 2000; Davis 2000; DeCotiis and Petit 1978; Harris
1994; Kudisch et al. 2006; Mohrman and Lawler 1983;
Murphy and Cleveland 1995; Tziner et al. 1998, 2001,
2002; Tziner 1999; Tziner and Murphy 1999; Westerman
and Rosse 1997). Providing an honest appraisal ‘‘is likely
to happen only when the perceived consequences of doingso outweigh the advantages of not doing so’’ (Mohrman
and Lawler 1983, p. 187) and raters consider both the
benefits and risks of rating honestly (Murphy and Cleve-
land 1995). According to Murphy and Cleveland, upward
feedback raters may receive several indirect benefits of
providing honest ratings. For example, providing honest
feedback may be perceived as leading to improved super-
visory performance, enhancing communication and
teamwork, creating a more enjoyable and productive work
environment, and improving organizational functioning.
Based on the above, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 6: The perceived benefits of providing hon-
est ratings will relate positively with employee intentions
to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Fear of Retaliation
Rater motivation theories specify and research shows that
raters also consider the potential negative consequences of
rating honestly when asked to rate others (e.g., Murphy and
Cleveland 1995). In an upward feedback context, one
potential risk of rating a supervisor honestly is retaliation
on the part of the supervisor (Atwater and Waldman 1998;
Waldman and Atwater 2001). Unlike downward ratings, in
which the subordinate has no legitimate power over the
rater (i.e., his or her supervisor), a supervisor has the power
to retaliate by taking such actions as assigning an unde-sirable job, preventing advancement, or even firing the
rater (Church and Waclawski 1998). Retaliation may also
consist of verbal and non-verbal manifestations of resent-
ment that might exist on the part of the supervisor
(Mohrman and Lawler 1983; Murphy and Cleveland 1995).
Although organizations have attempted to limit employees’
fear of retaliation by keeping rater identities confidential,
many employees still fear that their ratings will be identi-
fied and used against them (Tornow and London 1998;
Waldman and Atwater 2001). Therefore, we hypothesize
the following:
Hypothesis 7: Fear of retaliation for providing honest
ratings will relate negatively with employee intentions to
provide honest upward ratings.
Rater Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy has been defined as an individual’s belief
that he or she is capable of executing a specific course
of action (Bandura 1986). In the performance appraisal
literature, rater self-efficacy has been defined as an
individual’s belief that he or she is capable of rating
another accurately (Mohrman and Lawler 1983; Murphy
and Cleveland 1995; Napier and Latham 1986). Harris
(1994, p. 747) suggested that ‘‘lower self-efficacy will be
associated with decreased rater motivation’’, and Mohr-
man and Lawler (1983) suggested that raters will be
motivated to rate others honestly when they believe that
they have the ability to rate accurately. Research has
supported these views. For example, rater self-efficacy
has been shown to relate positively to the quality and
accuracy of performance appraisal ratings (Mohrman and
Lawler 1983; Tziner et al. 1998, 2001, 2002; Tziner andMurphy 1999). Similarly, rater self-efficacy has also
been shown to relate positively with employee willing-
ness to participate in an upward feedback program (Avis
and Kudisch 2000; Westerman and Rosse 1997). Based
on the above, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 8: Rater self-efficacy will relate positively
with employee intentions to provide honest upward feed-
back ratings.
194 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 5/18
Hypothesized Relations Between the Independent
Variables and the Hypothesized Mediating Variables of
Mediation
Perceived Benefits and Fear of Retaliation
We hypothesize that perceived benefits andfear of retaliation
will mediate the relationships between cynicism, ratingpurpose, role appropriateness, knowledge of upward feed-
back, and opportunity to observe with employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings. First, employees
who are cynical towards their organization tend to be skep-
tical regarding the utility of upward feedback (Atwater et al.
2000). Theyare not likely to invest their time and effort into a
program that is perceived as temporary, unimportant, and of
little utility (Church and Waclawski 1998; Kudisch et al.
2006). Similarly, if raters distrust the integrity of the orga-
nization, they may also distrust the organization’s ability to
professionally and ethically implement a successful upward
feedback system and maintain rater confidentiality (Abra-ham 2000; Bracken and Timmreck 2001; Kudisch et al.
2006). As a result, raters with cynical attitudes toward their
organization and the upward feedback process may be
fearful of the consequences of providing candid upward
ratings (i.e., fear retaliation), and consequently, may be
unwilling to provide honest upward assessments. Thus, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 9a: Cynicism will relate negatively with
perceived benefits.
Hypothesis 9b: Perceived benefits will mediate the
relationship between cynicism and employee intentions toprovide honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 9c: Cynicism will relate positively with fear
of retaliation.
Hypothesis 9d: Fear of retaliation will mediate the rela-
tionship between cynicism and employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Second, research indicates that rating purpose may affect
raters’ perceptions of the consequences of providing an
honest upward rating, and, hence, their motivation to do so.
For example, Waldman and Atwater (1998) suggested thatraters view administrative upward feedback systems as more
politically biased and less beneficial than developmentally
based systems. Similarly, because important outcomes are
typically linked to administrative ratings, fear of retaliation
becomes amplified in these settings (Waldman and Atwater
1998). Thus, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 10a: The extent to which upward feedback
ratings are viewed as being administrative in scope will
relate negatively with perceived benefits, whereas the
extent to which upward feedback ratings are viewed as
being developmental in scope will relate positively to
perceive benefits.
Hypothesis 10b: Perceived benefits will mediate the
relationship between rating purpose (both administrative
and developmental) and employee intentions to provide
honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 10c: The extent to which upward feedback
ratings are viewed as being administrative in scope will
relate positively with fear of retaliation, whereas the extent
to which upward feedback ratings are viewed as being
developmental in scope will relate negatively to fear of
retaliation.
Hypothesis 10d: Fear of retaliation will mediate the
relationship between rating purpose (both administrative
and developmental) and employee intentions to provide
honest upward feedback ratings.
Third, employees who believe that providing upward
feedback is a role appropriate activity tend to believe that
upward feedback will have beneficial consequences (Wes-
terman and Rosse 1997). Conversely, employees also tend to
perceive fewer risks involved with providing an upward
rating if they view rating their supervisor as role appropriate
activity (Kudisch et al. 2006). Thus, employees who hold
perceptions that providing upward feedback is role appro-
priate should perceive the benefits of providing honest
upward feedback ratings and be less likely to fear supervisor
retaliation. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 11a: Role appropriateness will relate posi-tively with perceived benefits.
Hypothesis 11b: Perceived benefits will mediate the
relationship between role appropriateness and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 11c: Role appropriateness will relate nega-
tively with fear of retaliation.
Hypothesis 11d: Fear of retaliation will mediate the
relationship between role appropriateness and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Fourth, when raters understand the content, instructions,and rationale behind the actual rating form, they are more
likely to view the rating process as beneficial and, as a
result, rate more honestly than when they don’t understand
the process (DeCotiis and Petit 1978; Mohrman and Lawler
1983). Conversely, Church and Waclawski (1998) sug-
gested that enhancing raters’ knowledge of the process and
philosophy behind upward feedback is critical in lessening
raters’ fears that negative outcomes, such as retaliation,
will occur. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 195
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 6/18
Hypothesis 12a: Knowledge of upward feedback will
relate positively with perceived benefits.
Hypothesis 12b: Perceived benefits will mediate the
relationship between knowledge of upward feedback and
employee intentions to provide honest upward feedback
ratings.
Hypothesis 12c: Knowledge of upward feedback willrelate negatively with fear of retaliation.
Hypothesis 12d: Fear of retaliation will mediate the
relationship between knowledge of upward feedback and
employee intentions to provide honest upward feedback
ratings.
Fifth, research shows that raters who have had an ample
opportunity to observe their supervisors’ performance
tended to view the rating process as more beneficial than
did raters who did not (Lehr and Facteau 1992). Con-
versely, employees who had fewer opportunities to observe
their supervisors’ performance were more fearful of retal-iation than were those who had ample opportunities to do
so (Lehr and Facteau 1992). Therefore, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 13a: Opportunity to observe will relate pos-
itively with perceived benefits.
Hypothesis 13b: Perceived benefits will mediate the
relationship between opportunity to observe and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 13c: Opportunity to observe will relate neg-
atively with fear of retaliation.
Hypothesis 13d: Fear of retaliation will mediate the
relationship between and employee intentions to provide
honest upward feedback ratings.
Rater Self-efficacy
We hypothesize that rater self-efficacy will mediate the
relationships between role-appropriateness, knowledge of
upward feedback, and opportunity to observe with
employee intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings. People who view upward feedback as a role
appropriate activity, understand the process and content of
upward feedback, and have ample opportunity to observe
their supervisor, are likely to believe in their ability to
provide honest upward feedback ratings, and as a result,
provide honest upward feedback ratings (DeCotiis and Petit
1978; Harris 1994; Heneman and Wexley 1983; Kudisch
et al. 2006). Based on the above, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 14a: Role appropriateness will relate posi-
tively with self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 14b: Rater self-efficacy will mediate the
relationship between role appropriateness and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 14c: Knowledge of upward feedback will
relate positively with self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 14d: Rater self-efficacy will mediate the
relationship knowledge of upward feedback and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Hypothesis 14e: Opportunity to observe will relate pos-
itively with self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 14f: Rater self-efficacy will mediate the
relationship between opportunity to observe and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Participants
Questionnaires were disseminated to all employees of a
behavioral health center (n = 288). Two-hundred and
twenty-five completed surveys were returned. However, 22
surveys were dropped from further consideration because
all items were answered with the same response (e.g.,
answer ‘‘strongly agree’’ to every item), including reverse
scored items, resulting in a net 70% response rate. Sixty-
eight percent of respondents (n = 137) were Caucasian,
32% (n = 65) were African-American, and 0.5% (n = 1)
were of Hispanic or Asian descent. Sixty-six percent of
respondents were women (65.5%). Average job tenure was5 years ( M = 5.16, SD = 4.47). Participants’ educational
levels were as follows: high school degree (23.3%,
n = 47), technical degree (4.0%, n = 8), associates degree
(14.4%, n = 29), bachelors degree (25.7%, n = 52), mas-
ters degree (25.2%, n = 51), and doctoral degree (7.4%,
n = 15). Participants also represented a wide variety of
occupational areas within the behavioral health division:
Alcohol and Drug (19.2%), Administration (6.4%),
Assessment/Business Office (4.4%), Adult Inpatient
(11.8%), Adolescent Day Treatment (6.9%), Child and
Adolescent Inpatient (7.4%), Eating Disorders (6.9%),
Food and Nutrition (6.4%), Outreach/Marketing (3.9%),
Outpatient Counseling (6.4%), Outpatient Psychiatry
(13.8%), Transportation (3.0%), and other (3.5%). Finally,
28% of respondents were in supervisory positions.
Procedure
Administration of the questionnaire was part of a study
to determine the feasibility of implementing an upward
196 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 7/18
feedback system at the behavioral health center. The first
author met individually with center administrators to
solicit support for the data collection process. The
director of the center sent out emails to lower level
administrators and supervisors encouraging participation
in and support for the data collection process. Although
completion of the survey was voluntary, it was strongly
encouraged by the director.Each survey packet included a cover letter, question-
naire, and a sealable interoffice envelope preaddressed to
the first author. The cover letter introduced the
researcher, provided an explanation as to the purpose of
the study, described the upward feedback process, and
provided instructions for returning the completed
surveys.
Surveys were distributed in the following four ways: (a)
at group data collection meetings, (b) hand delivered by the
unit liaison, (c) hand delivered by the first author, or (d)
placed in the participant’s interoffice mailbox. Approxi-
mately 85% of the surveys were collected using thefollowing procedure: The first author identified one or two
liaisons from most of the center’s departmental units to
assist in the data collection process. Data collection
meetings were then scheduled at which the first author gave
each attendee a survey packet. Attendees were asked to
read the cover letter, complete the survey, seal the enve-
lope, and give their completed surveys directly to the first
author. The names of participants who participated in data
collection efforts during these meetings were recorded so
that each departmental liaison could distribute surveys to
those employees who were absent from the meetings.
Liaisons received weekly reminders to distribute and col-
lect surveys from those who did not attend the group
meetings. Liaisons returned completed surveys to the sec-
ond author via interoffice mail.
Approximately 15% of participants received surveys
directly from the first author or had surveys placed in their
office mailboxes. The cover letter received by these indi-
viduals included instructions to send the completed and
sealed surveys directly to the first author via interoffice
mail. Email and/or personal reminders to complete the
surveys were periodically sent to those persons who did not
receive their surveys in group meetings or from their
liaisons.
Measures
The survey included a total of 31 items. All scale items
were rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Survey items
were randomized and approximately 30% of the items were
reverse-coded.
Predictor Variables
Cynicism toward top management was measured using four
items adapted from Vance, Brooks, and Tesluk (1995: e.g.,
‘‘Efforts to make improvements are recognized within
[center’s name]’’ [reverse scored]). Cynicism toward
upward feedback was measured with one item adapted
from Murphy and Cleveland (1995: ‘‘I doubt that [center’sname] upper administration really believes in the impor-
tance of upward feedback’’) and two items adapted from
Kudisch et al. (2006: e.g., ‘‘I trust that [center’s name]
upper administration would commit the time and resources
that are necessary to successfully implement an upward
feedback system [reverse scored]’’; ‘‘I trust that [center’s
name] upper administration would take the steps necessary
to guarantee the anonymity and confidentiality of upward
raters’’ [reverse scored]).
Rating purpose was measured using two items that were
adapted from Avis and Kudisch (2000). One item measured
the extent to which the purpose was viewed as develop-mental (‘‘If an upward feedback system were implemented at
[center name], I trust that [center name] would use the
upward ratings exclusively for the purpose of helping
supervisors develop their management skills’’), and one item
measured the extent to which the purpose was viewed as
administrative (‘‘If an upward feedback system were
implemented at [center name], I believe that [center name]
administrators would use the upward ratings to make deci-
sions about supervisors’ promotion, retention, and/or pay’’).
A three-item measure developed by Avis and Kudisch
(2000) was used to measure role appropriateness (e.g., ‘‘It
is not my place to rate the performance of my supervisor’’
[reverse scored]). Knowledge of upward feedback was
measured using three items adapted from Kudisch et al.
(2006: e.g., ‘‘Performance information that is collected
from multiple raters will provide a more comprehensive
and accurate view of performance than will information
that is collected only from a single rater’’). Opportunity to
observe supervisory behavior was measured using three
items adapted from Lehr and Facteau (1992; e.g., ‘‘I
observe important aspects of my immediate supervisor’s
job performance’’).
Perceived benefits was measured using a 10-item scale
adapted from Kudisch et al. (2006). Five items asked
employees to assess their own perception of the perceived
benefitsto the organization if the survey respondent provided
an honest upward feedback rating (e.g., ‘‘If I provided honest
performance feedback to my immediate supervisor, I believe
that open communication in my department would
increase’’) and five items asked employees to assess their
perceptions of benefits if others’ provided honest upward
feedback ratings (e.g., ‘‘If others at [center’s name] provided
honest performance feedback to their immediate
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 197
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 8/18
supervisors, I believe that open communication at [center
name] would increase’’). Fear of retaliation was measured
using a three-item scale adapted from Kudisch et al. (2006;
e.g., ‘‘I will be able to provide candid feedback to my
supervisor without fear of retaliation’’ [reverse scored]).
Rater self-efficacy was measured using a three item scale
adapted from Avis and Kudisch(2000; e.g., ‘‘I have the skills
and abilities that are necessary to accurately rate my imme-diate supervisor’s performance’’).
Employee Intentions to Provide Honest Upward Feedback
Ratings
A 2-item scale adapted from Davis (2000) was used to
assess employee intent to provide honest upward feedback
ratings (i.e., If an upward feedback system was imple-
mented at [center name] and I was asked to rate the
performance of my immediate supervisor : (a) ‘‘I would
share my honest opinions about my immediate supervisor;’’(b) ‘‘I would provide ratings that reflect what I really think
about my immediate supervisor’s performance’’).
Results
Factor Analyses
Exploratory factor analysis using oblimin rotation was per-
formed on the predictor items. Six factors were derived,
explaining 64% of the variance. The first factor explained
33%of the variance andincluded all of the perceived benefitsitems. The second factor explained 20% of the variance and
included all of the cynicism items, the fear of retaliation
items andthe purpose—developmental item. Thethird factor
explained 7% of the variance and included the role appro-
priateness and knowledge of upward feedback items. The
three other factors consisted of the opportunity to observe
items, self-efficacy items, and the purpose—administrative
item, respectively. Because the cynicism toward top man-
agement and cynicism toward upward feedback loaded on a
single factor and represent similar constructs, these items
were combined into a single scale we refer to as cynicism.
However, although role appropriateness and knowledge of upward feedback items also loaded on a single factor,
because we believe that they represent different constructs
we did not combine these items.
Test for Common Method Variance
Because we were concerned that method bias may have
played a role in our analyses, we examined our data
using Harmon’s one-factor test (see Podsakoff and Organ
1986). The assumption of this test is that if common
method variance was present, then (a) one general factor
would account for a large portion of the covariance
among the measured variables or (b) a single factor
would be found. However, our analysis indicated that
three factors with eigenvalues over 1.0 explained 69% of
the variance among scores on our measures. Moreover,as shown in Table 1, we found both positive and nega-
tive statistically significant correlations as well as several
statistically non-significant correlations. Thus, although
common method variance was not completely ruled out,
our findings indicate that it was not a major cause for
concern in our study.
Demographic Variables
We examined the relationships between our sample char-acteristics (i.e., age, race, sex, and education) and the study
variables. Few statistically significant differences were
found. Age correlated positively with perceived benefits,
r = 0.23, p\ 0.01 and negatively with cynicism, r = -
0.22, p\ 0.01; Men ( M = 3.81) reported higher levels of
perceived benefits than women ( M = 3.52), t (200) = 2.56,
p\ 0.05; and Caucasians reported higher levels of
knowledge of upward feedback ( M = 4.10) and lower
levels of perceived benefits ( M = 3.53) than African-
Americans ( M s = 3.70 and 3.81, respectively), t s(200) =
2.47 and -4.53, ps\ 0.05. We also found statistically
significant Analyses of Variance with respect to educationand (a) role appropriateness, F (5, 196) = 2.80, p\ 0.05,
and (b) knowledge of upward feedback, F (5, 196) = 2.53,
p\ 0.05. Follow-up Tukey’s post hoc tests indicated that
individuals with high school degree’s reported lower levels
of role appropriateness ( M = 3.74) and knowledge of
upward feedback ( M = 3.77) than people with Master’s
degrees ( M s = 4.17 and 4.17, respectively). None of the
sample characteristics related to employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings were statistically
significant.
Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities, and
Correlation Coefficients
Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability were computed on
all study variables. Table 1 shows scale means, standard
deviations, coefficient alpha estimates of reliabilities for
each variable, and correlation coefficients among the pre-
dictor and criterion variables.
198 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 9/18
Hypothesized Relations between the Independent
Variables and Hypothesized Mediating Variables with
the Dependent Variable
Hypothesis 1 stated that cynicism would relate negatively
with employee intentions to provide honest upward feed-
back ratings. This hypothesis was supported, r = -0.22,
p\ 0.01. Hypotheses 2a and 2b stated that rating pur-
pose—developmental would relate positively and rating
purpose—administrative would relate negatively, respec-
tively, with employee intentions to provide honest upward
feedback ratings. However, neither variable correlated
statistically significantly with employee intentions to pro-
vide honest upward feedback ratings. Thus, Hypothesis 2
was not supported.We were concerned that the lack of support for
Hypothesis 2 might have been the result of range restric-
tion. However, as shown in Table 1, respondents’ scores on
the two rating purpose items fell near the mid-point of the
five point scale with standard deviations actually higher
than those reported for the other predictor variables (rating
purpose—administrative: M = 2.94; SD = 1.02; rating
purpose—developmental: M = 3.53; SD = 0.88). Thus,
range restriction does not appear to have affected statistical
conclusion validity.
However, it is possible that slight differences in the
wording of the items might have accounted for this unex-pected finding. For rating purpose—developmental, we
asked ‘‘…I trust that [the organization] would use the
upward feedback ratings exclusively for the purpose of
helping supervisors develop their managerial skills’’.
Conversely, for rating purpose—administrative, we asked
‘‘…I believe that [the organization’s administrators] would
use the upward ratings to make decisions about supervi-
sors’ promotion, retention, and/or pay’’ might have
accounted for the unexpected findings. Having trust and
believing are two different cognitive points of view and as
a result, affected individuals’ responses to the two items
differently.
1
Hypotheses 3 and 4 stated that role appropriateness and
knowledge of upward feedback, respectively, would relate
positively with employee intentions to provide honest
upward feedback ratings. These hypotheses were sup-
ported: Role appropriateness and knowledge of upward
feedback both correlated positively with employee inten-
tions to provide honest upward feedback ratings, r s = 0.35
and 0.35, ps\ 0.01, respectively. Hypothesis 5 stated that
opportunity to observe would relate positively with
employee intentions to provide honest upward feedback
ratings. This hypothesis was supported, r = 0.27,
p\ 0.01.Hypotheses 6–8 stated that perceived benefits and rater
self-efficacy would relate positively and fear of retaliation
would relate negatively with employee intentions to pro-
vide honest upward feedback ratings, respectively. These
hypotheses were supported, r = 0.38, p\ 0.01 for per-
ceived benefits; r = 0.38; p\ 0.01 for rater self-efficacy;
and r = -026, p\ 0.01 for fear of retaliation.
Hypothesized Relations Between the Independent
Variables and Hypothesized Mediating Variables
Hypotheses 9a and 9c stated that cynicism would relate
negativelywith perceived benefitsand positively with fear of
retaliation, respectively. Both hypotheses were supported:
r = -0.55, p\ 0.01 and r = 0.69, p\ 0.01. Hypothesis
10a stated that rating purpose—administrative will relate
negatively with perceived benefits, whereas rating pur-
pose—developmental will relate positively with perceive
Table 1 Zero-order correlations among study variables and scale reliabilities (n = 203)
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Cynicism 2.68 0.78 (0.86)
2. Purpose: Administrative 2.94 1.02 -0.05 –
3. Purpose: Developmental 3.53 0.88 -0.53** -0.02 –
4. Role Appropriateness 3.98 0.63 -0.15* -0.11* 0.21** (0.71)
5. Knowledge of Up. Fdbk. 3.98 0.62 -0.16* -0.07 0.21** 0.45** (0.55)
6. Opportunity to observe 3.67 0.74 -0.19* 0.03 0.26** 0.27** 0.17* (0.60)
7. Perceived benefits 3.62 0.76 -0.54** 0.07 0.40** 0.21** 0.29** 0.31** (0.97)
8. Fear of retaliation 2.51 0.93 0.69** 0.08 -0.43** -0.19** -0.16* -0.25** -0.39** (0.85)
9. Rater self-efficacy 3.94 0.63 -0.17** 0.03 0.25** 0.49** 0.36** 0.46** 0.37** -0.20** (0.70)
10. Intentions to rate 4.12 0.67 -0.22** -0.02 0.10 0.35** 0.35** 0.27** 0.38** -0.26** 0.38** (0.70)
Note: Scale values range from 1 = ‘‘Strongly Disagree’’ to 5 = ‘‘Strongly Agree’’; Coefficient alpha estimates of reliability are in parentheses
* p\ 0.05, one-tailed; ** p\ 0.01, one-tailed
1 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this possible explanation.
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 199
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 10/18
benefits and Hypothesis 10c stated that rating purpose—
administrative will relate positively with fear of retaliation,
whereas rating purpose—developmental will relate nega-
tively with fear of retaliation. Hypotheses 10a and 10c were
supported only with respect to rating purpose developmen-
tal, r = 0.40, p\ 0.01 for perceived benefits and r = -0.43,
p\ 0.01 for fear of retaliation. Rating purpose—adminis-
trative did not correlate statistically significantly with eitherperceived benefits or fear of retaliation.
Hypotheses 11a and 12a stated that role appropriateness
and knowledge of upward feedback, respectively, would
correlate positively with perceived benefits, whereas
Hypotheses 11c and 12c stated that role appropriateness
and knowledge of upward feedback, respectively, would
relate negatively with fear of retaliation. These hypotheses
were supported: Role appropriateness and knowledge of
upward feedback both correlated positively with perceived
benefits, r s = 0.21 and 0.19, ps\ 0.01, respectively, and
negatively with fear of retaliation, r s = -0.19 and -0.16,
ps\ 0.01, respectively.Hypotheses 13a and 13c stated that opportunity to
observe will relate positively with perceived benefits and
negatively with fear of retaliation, respectively. These
hypotheses were supported, r = 0.31, p\ 0.01 for per-
ceived benefits and -0.25, p\ 0.01 for fear of retaliation.
Hypotheses 14a, 14c, 14e stated that role appropriate-
ness, knowledge of upward feedback, and opportunity to
observe, respectively, would all relate positively with rater
self-efficacy. These hypotheses were supported: r s = 0.49,
0.36, and 0.46, ps\ 0.01, for role appropriateness,
knowledge of upward feedback, and opportunity to
observe, respectively.
Mediation
According to Baron and Kenny (1986), four steps need to
be satisfied to determine whether a relationship between an
independent variable and a dependent variable is mediated
by a third variable. First, the independent variable must
relate statistically significantly with the dependent variable
(Model 1). Second, the hypothesized mediating variable
must relate statistically significantly with independent
variable (Model 2). Third, the mediating variable must
relate statistically significantly with the dependent variable.
Fourth, for complete mediation, the relationship between
the independent variable and the dependent variable must
become statistical non-significant when controlling for the
variance of the mediating variable on the dependent vari-
able (Model 3). Otherwise, partial mediation occurs when
the path coefficient between the independent variable and
dependent variable is substantially reduced and the pro-
portion of the total effect that is accounted for by the
indirect effect (via the hypothesized mediator) differs sta-
tistically significantly from zero (MacKinnon et al. 1995;
Sobel 1986). We followed the procedures outlined by
Mackinnon et al. (1995) in order to calculate the proportion
of the total effect accounted for by the hypothesized
mediating variable. Specifically, we calculated the pro-
portion of the indirect effect to the total effect:
ab=ðs0 þ abÞ
where a is the regression coefficient between the inde-
pendent variable and the mediating variable, b is the
regression coefficient between the mediating variable and
the dependent variable, and s0 is the regression coefficient
between the independent variable and the dependent vari-
able, controlling for the mediating variable. Next, we used
an on-line interactive tool developed by Preacher and
Leonardelli (2001, March) based on Sobel’s (1986) method
for calculating whether the indirect effect differed statis-
tically significantly from zero.
Table 2 shows the results of the regression analyses forall of the models tested. Note that with the exception of
rating purpose—administrative and rating purpose—
developmental, neither of which related statistically sig-
nificantly to either the dependent or hypothesized
mediating variables, all of the tests of Model 1 (dependent
variable on the independent variable) and Model 2
(hypothesized mediating variable on the independent var-
iable) were statistically significant. Thus, with the
exception of the rating purpose measures, the first two
conditions of mediation were satisfied. Note also that in all
of the tests of Model 3 (dependent variable regressed on
both the independent variable and hypothesized mediatingvariable), the hypothesized mediating variable related sta-
tistically significantly with the dependent variable. Thus,
the third condition was satisfied for all of the variables.
Finally, as shown in Table 2, the path coefficients between
the independent variables and dependent variable were
substantially reduced in all of the equations. In all cases,
the proportion of the total effect accounted for by the
indirect effect was statistically significant. A discussion of
each test with respect to the hypothesized mediating effects
is presented in the subsequent paragraphs.
Hypotheses 9b and 9d stated that perceived benefits and
fear of retaliation, respectively, would mediate the rela-tionship between cynicism and employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings. One hundred
percent of the total effect between cynicism and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback was medi-
ated by perceived benefits, t = -4.26, p\ 0.05). Similarly,
100% of the total effect between cynicism and employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback was medi-
ated by fear of retaliation, t = -2.39, p\ 0.05. Thus,
Hypotheses 9b and 9d were supported.
200 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 11/18
Hypotheses 10b and 10d indicated that the relationship
between rating purpose and employee intentions to provide
honest upward feedback ratings would be mediated by
perceived benefits and fear of retaliation, respectively.
However, neither variable related statistically significantly
with the dependent variable in Model 1. Thus, the first
condition necessary for mediation was not satisfied. As a
result, Hypotheses 10b and 10d were not supported.
Hypotheses 11b and 12b indicated that the relationships
between role appropriateness and knowledge of upward
feedback and employee intentions to provide honest
upward feedback ratings would be mediated by perceived
benefits. As shown in Table 2, 23% of the total effect
between role appropriateness and employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings was mediated by
perceived benefits, t = 2.62, p\ 0.05, and 14% of the total
Table 2 Hierarchical regression analyses used to assess whether (a) perceived benefits, (b) fear of retaliation, and (c) rater self-efficacy mediated
the relationships between cynicism, rating purpose, understanding upward feedback, and opportunity to observe with employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings (n = 203)
Independent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 % Mediationa t -testb
r 2
B SE b r 2
B SE b sr 2
B SE b Mediating variable
Cynicism 0.04* 0.19 0.06 -0.20* 0.00 0.00 0.07 -0.01 100 -4.26*
Perceived benefits 0.30* -0.53 0.06 -0.54* 0.10* 0.34 0.07 0.38*Cynicism 0.04* 0.19 0.06 -0.20* 0.00 0.00 0.09 -0.03 100 -2.39*
Fear of retaliation 0.47* 0.82 0.06 0.69* 0.03* -0.17 0.07 -0.24*
Rating purpose—Adm 0.00 -0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.04 -0.03 0 0.99
Perceived benefits 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.14* 0.34 0.05 0.38*
Rating purpose—Adm 0.00 -0.01 0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0 -1.09
Fear of retaliation 0.01 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07* -0.19 0.05 -0.26*
Rating purpose—devel. 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.00 -0.05 0.05 -0.07 169 4.12*
Perceived benefits 0.16* 0.34 0 .06 0.40* 0 .14* 0.36 0 .06 -0.41*
Rating purpose—devel. 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.00 -0.02 0.06 -0.02 127 2.97*
Fear of retaliation 0.19* -0.46 0.07 -0.43* 0.06* -0.20 0.06 -0.27*
Role appropriateness 0.12* 0.36 0.07 0.35* 0.08* 0.29 0.07 0.28* 23 2.62
Perceived benefits 0.04* 0.25 0.08 0.21* 0.11* 0.29 0.06 0.32*
Role appropriateness 0.12* 0.36 0.07 0.35* 0.10* 0.33 0.07 0.31* 14 -2.18*
Fear of retaliation 0.04* -0.27 0.10 -0.19* 0.05* -0.15 0.05 -0.21*
Knowledge of Up. Fdbk. 0.11* 0.35 0.07 0.33* 0.11* 0.26 0.07 0.24* 30 3.11*
Perceived benefits 0.08* 0.35 0.08 0.29* 0.15* 0.28 0.06 0.32
Knowledge of Up. Fdbk. 0.11* 0.35 0.07 0.33* 0.09* 0.31 0.07 0.29* 12 1.22
Fear of retaliation 0.02* -0.23 0.11 -0.16* 0.05* -0.16 0.05 -0.21*
Opportunity to observe 0.07* 0.24 0.06 0.27* 0.02* 0.15 0.06 0.16* 38 3.22*
Perceived benefits 0.10* 0.32 0.07 0.31* 0.10* 0.29 0.06 0.33*
Opportunity to observe 0.07* 0.24 0.06 0.27* 0.04* 0.19 0.06 0.21* 20 2.29*
Fear of retaliation 0.06* -0.32 0.09 -0.25* 0.04* -0.15 0.05 -0.21*
Understanding of UF 0.16* 0.50 0.08 0.39* 0.05* 0.34 0.09 0.27* 30 3.01* Rater self-efficacy 0.20 0.54 0.08 0.54 0.06* 0.27 0.08 0.25*
Opportunity to observe 0.07* 0.24 0.06 0.27* 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.11 58 3.90*
Rater self-efficacy 0.21 0.39 0.05 0.46 0.09* 0.36 0.08 0.33*
Note: The predictor is listed in regular font. The mediator is listed in italic font. Model 1: The dependent variable is regressed on the independent
variable. Model 2: The hypothesized mediating variable is regressed on the independent variable. Model 3: The dependent variable is regressed
on both the independent and hypothesized mediating variablesa % Indirect = Percentage of total effect that is mediated (ab /(s0
+ ab)), where a = unstandardized regression coefficient of the independent
variable on the mediating variable, b = unstandardized regression coefficient of the mediating variable on the dependent variable, and
s0= unstandardized regression coefficient of the independent variable on the dependent variable, controlling for the mediating variable
bt-test examining whether the indirect effect (mediation) differs statistically significantly from zero (Preacher and Leonardelli 2001; Sobel
1986)
* p\ 0.05
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 201
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 12/18
effect between role appropriateness and employee inten-
tions to provide honest upward feedback ratings was
mediated by fear of retaliation, t = -2.18, p\ 0.05. Thus,
Hypotheses 11b and 12b were supported. Similarly,
Hypotheses 11d and 12d indicated that the relationships
between role appropriateness and knowledge of upward
feedback and employee intentions to provide honest
upward feedback ratings would be mediated by fear of retaliation. As shown in Table 2, 30% of the total effect
between role appropriateness and employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings was mediated by
perceived benefits, t = 3.11, p\ 0.05. Thus, Hypothesis
11d was supported. However, although 12% of the total
effect between role appropriateness and employee inten-
tions to provide honest upward feedback ratings was
mediated by fear of retaliation, this result was not statis-
tically significant, t = -1.22, p[ 0.05. Thus, Hypotheses
12d was not supported.
Hypotheses 13b and 13d indicated that the relationship
between opportunity to observe and employee intentions toprovide honest upward feedback ratings would be mediated
by perceived benefits and fear of retaliation, respectively.
Thirty-eight percent of the total effect between opportunity
to observe and employee intentions to provide honest
upward feedback ratings was mediated by perceived ben-
efits, t = 3.22, p\ 0.05. Similarly, 20% of the total effect
between opportunity to observe and employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings was mediated fear
of retaliation, t = 2.29, p\ 0.05. Thus, Hypotheses 13b
and 13d were supported.
Hypotheses 14b and 14d stated that rater self-efficacy
would mediate the relationships between role appropriate-
ness and knowledge of upward feedback, respectively.
Thirty percent of the total effect between understanding
upward feedback and employee intentions to provide
honest upward feedback ratings was mediated by rater self-
efficacy, t = 3.01, p\ 0.05. Thus, Hypotheses 14b and
14d were supported.
Finally, Hypothesis 14f stated that rater self-efficacy
would mediate the relationship between opportunity to
observe and employee intentions to provide honest upward
feedback ratings. Fifty-eight percent of the total effect
between opportunity to observe and employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings was mediated by
rater self-efficacy, t = 3.90, p\ 0.05. Thus, Hypothesis
14f was supported.
Structural Equation Modeling
Structural equation modeling was used to examine the
overall fit of the hypothesized model presented in Fig. 1
and the relative importance of the various predictor and
mediating variables. Testing was based on the covariance
matrix and used maximum likelihood estimation as
implemented in LISREL VIII (Joreskog and Sorbom
1992). For predictor scales that had more than five items,
two or more subscales were created by randomly assigning
three or more items to each subscale. The unreliability of
variables based on single indicators was computed and
specified by fixing the error term for the indicator to oneminus the reliability of the measure (estimated using
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha) times the variance of scores
on the measure (1 - r xx)*s2. Several measures of model fit
were assessed: v2, comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-
of-fit index (GFI), adjusted-goodness-of-fit index (AGFI),
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and
standardized mean square residual (RMSR).
Structural equation modeling results indicated a perfect
fit between the hypothesized model and the data
(v2 = 246.61, df = 595, p = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.00;
GFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; NFI = 1.00; RMSR = 0.00).
Standardized and unstandardized path coefficients for thestructural model are presented in Fig. 2. When statistically
controlling for the variability explained for by the other
mediators, perceived benefits (b = 0.20, p\ 0.05) and
rater self-efficacy (b = 0.43, p\ 0.05) accounted for
unique variance in self ratings of employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings.
When statistically controlling the variability accounted
for by the other predictors, employee cynicism explained
unique variance in perceived benefits (b = -0.49,
p\ 0.05) and fear of retaliation (b = 0.81, p\ 0.05);
opportunity to observe explained unique variance in per-
ceived benefits (b = 0.27, p\ 0.05), fear of retaliation
(b = -0.25, p\ 0.05), and rater self-efficacy (b = 0.62,
p\ 0.05); and understanding of upward feedback explained
unique variance in rater self-efficacy (b = 0.40, p\ 0.05).
In summary, the structural equation analysis indicated that
the most important predictors of employee intentions to
provide honest upward feedback ratings were cynicism,
understanding upward feedback, and opportunity to observe
mediated by perceived benefits and rater self-efficacy.
Discussion
Although multisource feedback has become a powerful and
popular performance appraisal tool (Bracken et al. 2001;
Edwards and Ewen 1996, 2001; Tornow and Tornow
2001), its utility may be limited by raters who intentionally
distort or provide inaccurate ratings (Bernardin and Tyler
2001; Bracken and Timmreck 2001). Based on extant
models of rater motivation (DeCotiis and Petit 1978; Harris
1994; Mohrman and Lawler 1983; Murphy and Cleveland
1995), we hypothesized that cynicism, rating purpose,
202 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 13/18
knowledge of upward feedback, role appropriateness,
opportunity to observe, perceived benefits, fear of retalia-
tion, and rater self-efficacy would correlate with employee
intentions to provide honest upward feedback ratings.
Moreover, we hypothesized that perceived benefits, fear of
retaliation, and rater self-efficacy would mediate the rela-
tionships between the other predictor variables and
employee intentions to provide upward feedback ratings.
In general, our findings supported our hypotheses andsuggest that extant rater motivation models generalize to an
upward feedback context. Specifically, cynicism, knowl-
edge of upward feedback, role appropriateness, and
opportunity to observe, all correlated as hypothesized with
employee intentions to provide honest upward feedback
ratings, mediated in part or in full by perceived benefits,
fear of retaliation, and rater self-efficacy.
One interesting finding is that despite common practice
that suggests that multi-rater feedback should be used
primarily for developmental and not administrative pur-
poses (Dalton 1998; Lepsinger and Lucia 1997; Van Velsor
1998), rating purpose did not influence employee intentions
to provide honest ratings. It is typically assumed that raters
are likely to distort their ratings for both political and
personal gain, often retaliating against supervisors and
coworkers with whom they do not get along or inflating
ratings of those they like, especially when raters know that
their ratings can affect administrative decisions regarding
their supervisors or peers. Our findings are encouraging in
that they suggest raters desire to be fair when rating others,
regardless of how multisource ratings are to be used.
We also note that although fear of retaliation correlated as
predicted with employee intentions to provide honest upward
feedback ratings, it did not account for unique variance over
and above that explained by perceived benefits and rater self-
efficacy in the structural model. However, the lack of statis-
tical significance for fear of retaliation as a mediator was in
part due to the strong relationship between organizational
cynicism and fear of retaliation (r = 0.69). That is, multico-
linearity between the two variables might have attenuated thepotential mediating effect of fear of retaliation. Most likely,
employees who held cynical attitudes about the motives of
management were also those who were skeptical that their
supervisors would not retaliate against them for providing
honest, and potentially negative, feedback. Our findings also
indicated that althoughemployees were informed that upward
feedback would be used for developmental purposes, those
who were most cynical of upward feedback were also more
likely to believe that it wouldbe not be usedfor developmental
purposes (r = -0.53 between rating purpose—develop-
mental and cynicism). Thus, in general, it appears that
employees who held littletrust in the manner in whichupward
feedback would be used not only feared retaliation, but also
believed that upward feedback would not be used for its
intended purpose.
Practical Implications
Church and Waclawski (2001, p. 93) stated the following:
‘‘What is needed now in the field is a detailed set of
Perceived
Benefits
Cynicism
Knowledge of
Upward Fdbk
Opportunity to
Observe
Purpose:
Developmental
Employee Intentions
to Provide Honest
Upward Feedback
Ratings: Self
Purpose:
Administrative
-.48* (-.65)
.79* (1.35)
-.03 (-.02)
.01 (.00)
.03 (.02)
-.16 (.28)
-.19 (-.30)
.10 (.09)
.27* (.45)
-.29* (-.59)
.62* (.76)
.21* (.20)
-.07 (-.05)
.43* (.54)
-.12 (-.07)
Role
Appropriateness
.38 (.81)
.32 (.40)
Rater
Self-
Efficacy
.38 (.81)
Fear of
Retaliation
Fig. 2 Structural model
showing standardized and
unstandardized (in parentheses)
path coefficients among
measured variables,
v2 = 384.15, df = 222,
p\ 0.01; RMSEA = 0.06;
GFI = 0.88; CFI = 0.94;
NFI = 0.88; RMSR = 0.04.
Although not shown,
correlations among the predictor
variables and among the
mediating variables were
estimated. * p\ 0.05
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 203
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 14/18
criteria, recommendations for best practice, and alterna-
tives with valences that consulting practitioners can use for
decision-making around multisource feedback implemen-
tations’’. Although some suggestions for soliciting honest
rater responses are given in The Handbook of Multisource
Feedback (i.e., use for developmental purposes only,
gather anonymous ratings), the number of practical sug-
gestions provided in the literature is small relative to thenegative impact that dishonest ratings have on the validity
of multisource feedback systems. Currently, practitioners
attempting to encourage honest ratings are left to rely more
on common sense and guesswork than research-backed
guidelines.
Our findings provide several practical tips for soliciting
more honest ratings. Most importantly, organizations
should build employee trust and minimize cynical atti-
tudes, perhaps by having senior-level executives
demonstrate and articulate visible and enthusiastic support
for the upward feedback or multisource process as sug-
gested by Church (1995), Milliman et al. (1995), Pollack and Pollack (1996), and Wimer and Nowack (1998).
However, communication supportive of the process is a
necessary but not sufficient condition when implementing a
multisource feedback system. Our findings also indicate
that employees are likely to provide honest ratings when
they do not fear retaliation by their supervisors or top
management. Thus, it is critical that organizations imple-
ment strategies to protect rater confidentiality, discourage
retaliation, and provide a grievance process to report any
instances of retaliation that might occur. Moreover, our
findings suggest that organizations develop training pro-
grams that describe multisource feedback and articulate
how multisource feedback is beneficial for both organiza-
tional productivity and for developing employees. Training
programs should also include strategies on how to effec-
tively observe and rate supervisor behavior.
Although training programs designed to communicate
the what, why, and how of multisource feedback can
improve rating honesty and although implementing strate-
gies that ensure confidentiality of responses can mitigate
fear of retaliation, and although raters may ideally intend to
rater others honestly regardless of the purpose of the rat-
ings, organizational political and personal factors may still
affect rater honesty. One way to minimize the potential for
dishonest ratings is to incorporate validity and reverse-
coded items into multisource feedback questionnaires. For
example, questionnaires may include ‘‘Yes/No’’ items such
as the following: (a) ‘‘Do you fear that the ratee and/or
others will retaliate against you for providing completely
honest responses to this survey?’’ (b) ‘‘Do you have enough
knowledge of the ratee’s work behavior to accurately
complete this survey?’’ and (c) ‘‘Do your responses on this
survey reflect your honest opinions about the ratee’s
behavior at work?’’ A ‘‘no’’ response on any of the above
three items would suggest less-than-honest-and-accurate
responses. Further, multisource feedback surveys should
include at least one item designed to detect socially
desirable ratings (e.g., ‘‘My supervisor is perfect’’).
Reverse-coded items are also needed to reduce method
bias, whether due to an unmotivated rater, careless, or halo
errors (e.g., marking ‘‘Strongly Agree’’ for every item on a5-point Likert-type scale). Incorporating the aforemen-
tioned issues into survey design would provide
practitioners with a method of detecting less-than-honest
response sets, whether intentional or unintentional. Practi-
tioners could then exclude questionable ratings from the
multisource feedback report.
In summary, organizations should attempt to create a
rating context in which persons trust the organization,
understand the upward feedback process, have ample
opportunity to observe their supervisor’s performance,
perceive the process to be beneficial, have little fear of
retaliation, and have the ability to rate accurately. Also, therating form should include items that can assess the validity
of individuals responses, identify social desirable response
sets, and detect less than honest and/or accurate response
sets.
Strengths and Limitations
A couple of strengths of the current study deserve
mention. First, our overall response rate was 70%, sug-
gesting that the relationships observed in our sample
adequately represented the views the employees of the
behavioral health center from which we drew our sam-
ple. Second, consistent with Longnecker’s (1986)
recommendation for more field research on rater moti-
vation, this study was conducted in an organizational
setting, thereby enhancing the external conclusion
validity of both our findings and the theoretical frame-
works from which our hypotheses were drawn.
This study also had a few limitations. One limitation is
that we measured rater intentions rather than actual
behavior. Although it doesn’t necessary follow that some-
one will actually behave in a manner consistent with their
stated intentions, Armitage and Conner (2001) found meta-
analytic support for the relationship between individuals’
stated intentions and their actual behavior. This is consis-
tent with Ajzen’s Theory of Reasoned Action, which states
that a ‘‘person’s intention to perform (or not perform) a
behavior is the immediate determinant of action, and bar-
ring unforeseen events, people are expected to act in
accordance with their intentions’’ (Ajzen 1985, p. 12).
A second limitation of this study was that the reliability
estimate for scores on the opportunity to observe variable
204 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 15/18
was only 0.60. Unreliability of scores in a measure atten-
uates observed correlations, thereby threatening the
statistical conclusion validity of research findings. How-
ever, estimates of reliability, such as Cronbach’s alpha
used in the present study are influenced not only by how
well items correlate with one another, but also by how
many items exist in the measure. In this study, the oppor-
tunity to observe scale consisted of only three items, itemsthat correlated at acceptable levels among themselves (r s
between 0.30 and 0.38: see Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
Using the Spearman–Brown prophecy formula, had we
doubled the scale to six or to nine items, we would have
increased our reliability estimates to 0.75 and 0.82,
respectively. As a result, all of our observed correlations
would have increased had we used a measure with more
than three items. For example, the correlation between
opportunity to observe and employee intentions to provide
honest upward feedback ratings (r = 0.27) would have
increased to r = 0.37 if we had used a six-item measure
instead of a three-item measure (see Nunnally and Bern-stein 1994).
More importantly, despite a reliability estimate of 0.60,
we did find substantive and statistically significant corre-
lations in the hypothesized direction between scores on the
opportunity to observe variable and scores on measures of
other variables: all of the observed correlations were
greater than r = 0:25j j. Thus, statistical conclusion validity
was not a problem in the present study.
Conclusion and Future Research
The main challenge in implementing a successful upward
system is ensuring that raters rate their supervisors hon-
estly. In this study, we examined several factors
hypothesized to influence employee intentions to rate their
supervisors honestly. In summary, we found support for
generalizing current rater motivation models to an upward
feedback context. More importantly, our findings provide
empirical support for many of the recommendations
researchers and practitioners have been making for years
regarding the requirements necessary for successfully
implementing upward feedback programs.
However, because of the paucity of research on rater
motivation applied to multisource feedback systems, sev-
eral areas for future research are suggested. In addition to
replicating the current study using a different employee
sample, future research should identify and examine
additional contextual predictors of rater motivation in
upward feedback systems, such as computerized versus
non-computerized systems, rating source, organizational
commitment, rater accountability, size of rater group,
organizational climate, and power distance, as well as
additional individual difference variables, such as goal
orientation, mood, and perceived openness to feedback.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr. Tony
Calabrese, Director of Psychology Services at Pine Grove Recovery
Center, for his assistance in facilitating data collection. This article
was based on Austin F. R. Smith’s dissertation under the supervision
of Vincent J. Fortunato. The authors contributed equally to this
article.
References
Abraham, R. (2000). Organizational cynicism: Bases and conse-
quences. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,
126 , 269–292.
Ajzen, I. (1985). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), From intentions to
actions: A theory of planned behavior . Heidelberg: Springer.
Antonioni, D., & Woehr, D. J. (2001). Improving the quality of
multisource rater performance. In D. W. Bracken, C. W.
Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource
feedback: The comprehensive resource for designing and
implementing MSF processes (pp. 114–129). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of
planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.
Atwater, L., & Waldman, D. (1998). Accountability in 360-degree
feedback. HR Magazine, 43, 96–102.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An
upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors’ cynicism,
reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 53, 275–297.
Avis, J. M., & Kudisch, J. D. (2000). Factors influencing subordi-
nates’ willingness to participate in upward feedback. Paper
presented at the 21st annual Industrial & Organizational
Behavior Graduate Conference, Knoxville, TN.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baron, R. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bernardin, H. J., & Tyler, C. L. (2001). Legal and ethical issues in
multisource feedback. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A.
H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback: The
comprehensive resource for designing and implementing MSF
processes (pp. 447–462). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bracken, D. W. (1994). Straight talk about multirater feedback.
Training and Development, 48, 44–51.
Bracken, D. W., & Timmreck, C. W. (2001). Success and sustain-
ability: A systems view of multisource feedback. In D. W.Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The
handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource
for designing and implementing MSF processes (pp. 478–494).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (Eds.). (2001).
The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive
resource for designing and implementing MSF processes . San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Church, A. H. (1995). First-rate multirater feedback. Training and
Development, 49, 42–43.
Church, A. H., & Bracken, D. W. (1997). Advancing the state of the
art of 360-degree feedback: Guest editors’ comments on the
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 205
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 16/18
research and practice of multirater assessment methods. Group
and Organizational Management, 22, 149–161.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1998). Making multirater feedback
systems work. Quality Progress, 31, 81–89.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (2001). A five-phase framework for
designing a successful multisource feedback system. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53, 82–95.
Dalton, M. (1998). Best practices: Five rationales for using 360-
degree feedback in organizations. In W. W. Tornow & M.
London (Eds.), Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: A
process for successful individual and organizational develop-
ment (pp. 59–77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, L. T. (2000, April). The effect of organizational factors on
intended rating behavior . Poster session presented at the 15th
annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Dean, J. W., Brandes, P., & Dharwadkar, R. (1998). Organizational
cynicism. Academy of Management Review, 23, 341–352.
DeCotiis, T., & Petit, A. (1978). The performance appraisal process:
A model and some testable propositions. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 3, 635–646.
Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. (1996). 360-degree feedback: The
powerful new model for employee assessment and performance
improvement . New York: AMACON.
Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. (2001). Readiness for multisource
feedback. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church
(Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehen-
sive resource for designing and implementing MSF processes
(pp. 33–47). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Farr, J. L., & Newman, D. A. (2001). Rater selection: Sources of
feedback. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church
(Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehen-
sive resource for designing and implementing MSF processes
(pp. 96–113). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Funderburg, S. A., & Levy, P. A. (1997). The influence of individual
and contextual variables on 360-degree feedback system
attitudes. Group and Organizational Management, 22, 210–235.
Harris, M. M. (1994). Rater motivation in the performance appraisal
context: A theoretical framework. Journal of Management, 20,
737–756.
Heneman, R. L., & Wexley, K. N. (1983). The effects of delay in
rating and amount of information observed on performance
rating accuracy. Academy of Management Journal, 26 , 677–686.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1992). LISREL VIII: Analysis of linear
structural relations. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software, Inc.
Kudisch, J. D., Fortunato, V. J., & Smith, A. F. R. (2006). Contextual
and individual difference factors predicting individuals’ desire to
provide upward feedback. Group and Organization Manage-
ment, 31, 509–529.
Lehr, C. O., & Facteau, J. D. (1992, May). Individual and contextual
factors related to subordinate appraisal system effectiveness.
Paper presented at the 7th annual conference for the Society of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal.
Lepsinger, R., & Lucia, A. D. (1997). The art and science of 360degree feedback . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
London, M. (2001). The great debate: Should multisource feedback
be used for administrative or development only? In D. W.
Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The
handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource
for designing and implementing MSF processes (pp. 368–388).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Longnecker, C. O. (1989). Truth or consequences: Politics and
performance appraisals. Business Horizons, 32, 76–82.
Longnecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the
mask: The politics of employee appraisal. The Academy of
Management Executive, 1, 183–193.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation
study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 30(1), 41–62.
Milliman, J. F., Zawacki, R. A., Schulz, B., Wiggins, S., & Norman,
C. A. (1995). Customer service drives 360-degree goal setting.
Personnel Journal, 74, 136–142.
Mohrman, A. M., & Lawler, E. E. (1983). Motivation and
performance appraisal behavior. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J.
Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory (pp.
173–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding perfor-
mance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Napier, N. K., & Latham, G. P. (1986). Outcome expectancies of
people who conduct performance appraisals. Personnel Psy-
chology, 39, 827–837.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
edn.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organization
research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12,
531–544.
Pollack, D. M., & Pollack, L. J. (1996). Using 360-feedback in
performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 25, 507–
529.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001, March). Calculation for
the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests
(Computer software). Available from http://www.unc.edu/
*preacher/sobel.htm.
Rotolo, C. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1996). Important considerations in
developing and implementing a successful multi-source assess-
ment system. International Personnel Management Association
News, 14, 18–19.
Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their
standard errors in covariance structural models. In N. Tuma
(Ed.), Sociological methodology 1986 (pp. 159–186). Washing-
ton DC: American Sociological Association.
Tornow, W. W., & London, M. (1998). Maximizing the value of 360-
degree feedback: A process for successful individual and
organizational development . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tornow, W. W., & Tornow, C. P. (2001). Linking multisource
feedback content with organizational needs. In D. W. Bracken,
C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of
multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource for design-
ing and implementing MSF processes (pp. 48–62). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tziner, A. (1999). The relationship between distal and proximal
factors and the use of political considerations in performance
appraisal. Journal of Business and Psychology, 14, 217–231.
Tziner, A., & Murphy, K. R. (1999). Additional evidence of
attitudinal influences in performance appraisal. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 13, 407–419.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2001). Relationships
between attitudes toward organizations and performance apprai-
sal systems and rating behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 226–241.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2002). Does
conscientiousness moderate the relationship between attitudes
and beliefs regarding performance appraisal and rating behavior?
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 218–224.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (2005). Contextual and
rater factors affecting rater behavior. Group and Organization
Management, 30, 89–98.
Tziner, A., Murphy, K. R., Cleveland, J. N., Beaudin, G., &
Marchand, S. (1998). Impact of rater beliefs regarding perfor-
mance appraisal and its organizational context on appraisal
quality. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 457–467.
206 J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 17/18
Vance, R. J., Brooks, S. M., & Tesluk, P. E. (1995, May).
Organizational cynicism, cynical cultures, and organizational
change efforts. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Conference of
the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Orlando, FL.
Van Velsor, E. (1998). Designing 360-degree feedback to enhance
involvement, self-determination, and commitment. In W. W.
Tornow & M. London (Eds.), Maximizing the value of 360-
degree feedback: A process for successful individual and
organizational development (pp. 149–195). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360 degree
feedback: How to leverage performance evaluations for top
productivity. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Waldman, D. A., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). Confronting barriers to
successful implementation of multisource feedback. In D. W.
Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The
handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource
for designing and implementing MSF processes (pp. 463–477).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Westerman, J. W., & Rosse, J. G. (1997). Reducing the threat of rater
nonparticipation in 360-degree feedback systems: An explor-
atory examination of antecedents to participation in upward
ratings. Group and Organizational Management, 22, 288–309.
Wimer, S., & Nowack, K. M. (1998). Thirteen common mistakes
using 360-degree feedback. Training and Development, 52,
69–78.
J Bus Psychol (2008) 22:191–207 207
123
8/3/2019 Factors Influencing Employee Intentions
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/factors-influencing-employee-intentions 18/18
Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.
Top Related