Recent open innovation literature indicates increasing concern about the quality of crowdsourced ideas. Building on a framework of creativity capability, rooted in behavioral literature, and intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) motivation, derived from personnel economics and social psychology literature, this study predicts the influence of feedback on ideation performance. Specifically, the effectiveness of feedback on ideation performance in firm‐sponsored, non–financially incentivized, idea‐crowdsourcing communities may depend on its valence (positive vs. negative), source (peers vs. firm), and ideators’ ideation experience. Field data, obtained using text‐mining techniques from an idea‐crowdsourcing community, reveal that the effects of positive (negative) peer feedback for increasing (decreasing) subsequent idea quality strengthen (weaken) as ideators gain experience. However, the effects of positive (negative) firm feedback for increasing (decreasing) subsequent idea quality weaken with ideation experience. Experienced ideators are more motivated (less demotivated) to improve subsequent ideation performance when they receive positive peer (negative firm) feedback; inexperienced ideators are less motivated by negative peer feedback but more motivated by positive firm feedback. The results are robust to tests with alternative field data and model specifications, as validated by a controlled laboratory experiment. They also suggest feedback strategies that managers can use to boost customer ideation performance in crowdsourcing contexts.
AmabileT. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.45(2): 357–376.
2.
AmabileT. M. 1998. How to kill creativity. Harv. Bus. Rev.76(5): 76–87.
3.
AoyagiM.2010. Information feedback in a dynamic tournament. Games Econ. Behav.70(2): 242–260.
4.
AshfordS. J.TsuiA. S.. 1991. Self‐regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Acad. Manag. J.34(2): 251–280.
5.
BascleG.2008. Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strateg. Organ.6(3): 285–327.
6.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D.. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Rev. Gen. Psychol.5(4): 323–370.
7.
BaumgardnerA. H.KaufmanC. M.LevyP. E.. 1989. Regulating affect interpersonally: When low esteem leads to greater enhancement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.56(6): 907–921.
8.
BayusB. L.2013. Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management Sci.59(1): 226–244.
9.
BeckerT. E.KlimoskiR. J.. 1989. A field study of the relationship between the organizational feedback environment and performance. Pers. Psychol.42(2): 343–358.
10.
BénabouR.TiroleJ.. 2003. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Rev. Econ. Stud.70(3): 489–520.
11.
BloomA. J.HautaluomaJ. E.. 1987. Effects of message valence, communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. J. Soc. Psychol.127(4): 329–338.
12.
BonoJ. E.ColbertA. E.. 2005. Understanding responses to multi‐source feedback: The role of core self‐evaluations. Pers. Psychol.58(1): 171–203.
13.
BoudreauK. J.LakhaniK. R.. 2013. Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harv. Bus. Rev.91(4): 60–69.
14.
BraunsbergerK.MunchJ. M.. 1998. Source expertise versus experience effects in hospital advertising. J. Serv. Mark.12(1): 23–38.
15.
BrettJ. F.AtwaterL. E.. 2001. 360° Feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. J. Appl. Psychol.86(5): 930–942.
16.
BrunJ. P.DugasN.. 2008. An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag.19(4): 716–730.
17.
BurghardtK.AlsinaE. F.GirvanM.RandW.LermanK.. 2017. The myopia of crowds: Cognitive load and collective evaluation of answers on stack exchange. PLoS One12(3): e0173610.
18.
CamachoN.NamH.KannanP. K.StremerschS.. 2019. Tournaments to crowdsource innovation: The role of moderator feedback and participation intensity. J. Market.83(2): 138–157.
19.
CasonT. N.MastersW. A.SheremetaR. M.. 2010. Entry into winner‐take‐all and proportional‐prize contests: An experimental study. J. Pub. Econ.94(9–10): 604–611.
20.
ChakrabartyS.OubreD. T.BrownG.. 2008. The impact of supervisory adaptive selling and supervisory feedback on salesperson performance. Ind. Mark. Manage.37(4): 447–454.
21.
ChanK. W.LiS. Y.ZhuJ.. 2015. Fostering customer ideation in crowdsourcing community: The role of peer‐to‐peer and peer‐to‐firm interactions. J Inter Mark31: 42–62.
22.
ChanK. W.LiS. Y.ZhuJ.. 2018. Good to be novel? Understanding how idea feasibility affects idea adoption decision making in crowdsourcing. J Inter Mark43: 52–68.
23.
ChenL.MarsdenJ. R.ZhangZ.. 2012. Theory and analysis of company‐sponsored value co‐creation. J Manag Inf Syst29(2): 141–172.
24.
ConnollyT.JessupL. M.ValacichJ. S.. 1990. Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer‐mediated groups. Management Sci.36(6): 689–703.
Di GangiP. M.WaskoM. M.HookerR. E.. 2010. Getting customers’ ideas to work for you: Learning from Dell how to succeed with online user innovation communities. MIS Q. Executive9(4): 213–228.
27.
EarleyP. C.NorthcraftG. B.LeeC.LituchyT. R.. 1990. Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Acad. Manag. J.33(1): 87–105.
28.
EdererF.2010. Feedback and motivation in dynamic tournaments. J. Econ. Manag. Strat.19(3): 733–769.
29.
EisenbergerR.CameronJ.. 1998. Reward, intrinsic interest, and creativity: New findings. Am. Psychol.53(6): 676–679.
30.
EricssonK. A.2005. Recent advances in expertise research: A commentary on the contributions to the special issue. Appl. Cogn. Psychol.19(2): 233–241.
31.
FedorD. B.DavisW. D.MaslynJ. M.MathiesonK.. 2001. Performance improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: The roles of source power and recipient self‐esteem. J. Manage.27(1): 79–97.
32.
FershtmanC.GneezyU.. 2011. The tradeoff between performance and quitting in high‐power tournaments. J. Europ. Econ. Ass.9(2): 318–336.
33.
FinkelsteinS. R.FishbachA.. 2012. Tell me what I did wrong: Experts seek and respond to negative feedback. J. Consum. Res.39(1): 22–38.
34.
FishbachA.EyalT.FinkelsteinS. R.. 2010. How positive and negative feedback motivate goal pursuit. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass4(8): 517–530.
35.
FishbachA.ZhangY.KooM.. 2009. The dynamics of self‐regulation. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol.20(1): 315–344.
36.
FormanC.GhoseA.WiesenfeldB.. 2008. Examining the relationship between reviews and sales: The role of reviewer identity disclosure in electronic markets. Inf. Syst. Res.19(3): 291–313.
37.
FroneM. R.2000. Work‐family conflict and employee psychiatric disorders: The national comorbidity survey. J. Appl. Psychol.85(6): 888–895.
38.
GentzkowM.KellyB.TaddyM.. 2019. Text as data. J. Econ. Lit.57(3): 535–574.
39.
GeorgeJ. M.ZhouJ.. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J.50(3): 605–622.
40.
GrossD. P.2017. Performance feedback in competitive product development. Rand J. Econ.48(2): 438–466.
41.
HarackiewiczJ. M.LarsonJ. R.. 1986. Managing motivation: The impact of supervisor feedback on subordinate task interest. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.51(3): 547–556.
42.
HarrisonS. H.RouseE. D.. 2015. An inductive study of feedback interactions over the course of creative projects. Acad. Manag. J.58(2): 375–404.
43.
HeckmanJ. J.1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econ. J. Econ. Soc.47(1): 153–161.
44.
HeroldD. M.LidenR. C.LeatherwoodM. L.. 1987. Using multiple attributes to assess sources of performance feedback. Acad. Manag. J.30(4): 826–835.
45.
HildebrandC.HäublG.HerrmannA.LandwehrJ. R.. 2013. When social media can be bad for you: Community feedback stifles consumer creativity and reduces satisfaction with self‐designed products. Inf. Syst. Res.24(1): 14–29.
46.
HoeverI. J.ZhouJ.vanKnippenbergD.. 2018. Different strokes for different teams: The contingent effects of positive and negative feedback on the creativity of informationally homogeneous and diverse teams. Acad. Manag. J.61(6): 2159–2181.
47.
HofstetterR.ZhangJ. Z.HerrmannA.. 2018. Successive open innovation contests and incentives: Winner‐take‐all or multiple prizes. J. Prod. Innov. Manag.35(4): 492–517.
48.
HonA. H.ChanW. W.LuL.. 2013. Overcoming work‐related stress and promoting employee creativity in hotel industry: The role of task feedback from supervisor. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.33: 416–424.
49.
HortonJ. J.2010. Online labor markets. Saberi,A. ed. Internet and Network Economics. WINE2010. Vol. 6484, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 512–522.
50.
HuangN.BurtchG.GuB.HongY.LiangC.WangK. et al 2019. Motivating user‐generated content with performance feedback: Evidence from randomized field experiments. Management Sci.65(1): 327–345.
51.
HuangY.Vir SinghP.SrinivasanK.. 2014. Crowdsourcing new product ideas under consumer learning. Management Sci.60(9): 2138–2159.
52.
IlgenD. R.FisherC. D.TaylorM. S.. 1979. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J. Appl. Psychol.64(4): 349–371.
53.
IliesR.De PaterI. E.JudgeT.. 2007. Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the role of self‐esteem. J. Manag. Psychol.22(6): 590–609.
54.
JeppesenL. B.FrederiksenL.. 2006. Why do users contribute to firm‐hosted user communities? The case of computer‐controlled music instruments. Organ. Sci.17(1): 45–63.
55.
JoshiK. D.ChiL.DattaA.HanS.. 2010. Change the competitive landscape: Continuous innovation through IT‐enabled knowledge capabilities. Inf. Syst. Res.21(3): 472–495.
56.
JungJ. H.SchneiderC.ValacichJ.. 2010. Enhancing the motivational affordance of information systems: The effects of real‐time performance feedback and goal setting in group collaboration environments. Management Sci.56(4): 724–742.
57.
KornishL. J.UlrichK. T.. 2014. The importance of the raw idea in innovation: Testing the sow's ear hypothesis. J. Mark. Res.51(1): 14–26.
58.
KörpeoğluE.ChoS.‐H.. 2018. Incentives in contests with heterogeneous solvers. Management Sci.64(6): 2709–2715.
59.
LazearE. P.2000. Performance pay and productivity. Am. Econ. Rev.90(5): 1346–1361.
60.
LeungK.SuS.MorrisM. W.. 2001. When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback. Human Relations54(9): 1155–1187.
61.
LiaoJ.HuangM.XiaoB.. 2017. Promoting continual member participation in firm‐hosted online brand communities: An organizational socialization approach. J. Bus. Res.71: 92–101.
62.
LiuY.2006. Word of mouth for movies: Its dynamics and impact on box office revenue. J. Mark.70(3): 74–89.
63.
MehtaR.DahlD. W.ZhuR. J.. 2017. Social‐recognition versus financial incentives? Exploring the effects of creativity‐contingent external rewards on creative performance. J. Cons. Res.44(3): 536–553.
64.
MengucB.AuhS.FisherM.HaddadA.. 2013. To be engaged or not to be engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. J. Business Res.66(11): 2163–2170.
65.
MihmJ.SchlappJ.. 2019. Sourcing innovation: On feedback in contests. Management Sci.65(2): 559–576.
66.
MoonJ. Y.SproullL. S.. 2008. The role of feedback in managing the Internet‐based volunteer workforce. Inf. Syst. Res.19(4): 494–515.
67.
NambisanS.BaronR. A.. 2010. Different roles, different strokes: Organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions. Organ. Sci.21(2): 554–572.
68.
PetrinA.TrainK.. 2010. A control function approach to endogeneity in consumer choice models. J. Mark. Res.47(1): 3–13.
69.
PierceJ. L.GardnerD. G.. 2004. Self‐esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the organization‐based self‐esteem literature. J. Manage.30(5): 591–622.
70.
PoetzM. K.SchreierM.. 2012. The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas?J. Prod. Innov. Manag.29(2): 242–256.
71.
RaemdonckI.StrijbosJ.. 2013. Feedback perceptions and attribution by secretarial employees: Effects of feedback‐content and sender characteristics. Eur. J. Train. Develop.37(1): 24–48.
72.
RobertsJ. A.HannI. H.SlaughterS. A.. 2006. Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Management Sci.52(7): 984–999.
73.
RossiP. E.2014. Even the rich can make themselves poor: A critical examination of the use of IV methods in marketing. Mark. Sci.33(5): 655–672.
74.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L.. 2000. Self‐determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‐being. Am. Psychol.55(1): 68–78.
75.
ShakhnarovishG.DarrellT.IndykP.2008. Nearest‐Neighbor Methods in Learning and Vision. Theory and Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
76.
SridharS.SrinivasanR.. 2012. Social influence effects in online product ratings. J. Mark.76(5): 70–88.
77.
StieglitzS.Dang‐XuanL.. 2013. Emotions and information diffusion in social media—sentiment of microblogs and sharing behavior. J. Manag. Inform. Syst.29(4): 217–248.
78.
SujanH.WeitzB. A.KumarN.. 1994. Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. J. Mark.58(3): 39–52.
79.
TaylorA.GreveH. R.. 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Acad. Manag. J.49(4): 723–740.
80.
VancouverJ. B.TischnerE. C.. 2004. The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self‐concept discrepancies. J. Appl. Psychol.89(6): 1092–1098.
81.
VandeWalleD.2003. A goal orientation model of feedback‐seeking behavior. Human Res. Manag. Rev.13(4): 581–604.
82.
vonHippelE.2017. Free innovation by consumers—how producers can benefit: Consumers’ free innovations represent a potentially valuable resource for industrial innovators. Res. Tech. Manag.60(1): 39–42.
83.
WestermanC. Y.HeuettK. B.RenoK. M.CurryR.. 2014. What makes performance feedback seem just? Synchronicity, channel, and valence effects on perceptions of organizational justice in feedback delivery. Manag. Commun. Q.28(2): 244–263.
84.
WootenJ. O.UlrichK. T.. 2017. Idea generation and the role of feedback: Evidence from field experiments with innovation tournaments. Prod. Oper. Manag.26(1): 80–99.
85.
ZhangJ.GongZ.ZhangS.ZhaoY.. 2017. Impact of the supervisor feedback environment on creative performance: A moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol.8: 256.
86.
ZhouJ.1998. Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. J. Appl. Psychol.83(2): 261–276.
