A field study was conducted in the United States (n = 269) and England (n = 254) to identify key characteristics of feedback and culture in determining an individual's performance. Relevant hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses conducted on survey data collected in each country from production workers. The results demonstrate that feedback is more strongly related to the performances of American than English production workers. Indirect support for the moderating influence of the cultural dimensions of uncertainty avoidance and power distance in the relation of supervisor-provided feedback to performance was also demonstrated. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for the use of feedback in multicultural settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, H.J. (1982). Moderator variables: A clarification of conceptual, analytic, and psychometric issuesOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29 , 143-174.
2.
Blumberg, P. (1968). Industrial democracy: The sociology of participationNew York: Schoeken.
3.
Brislin, R.W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol.2 . Methodology (pp. 380-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Earley, P.C. (1984). Social interaction: The frequency of use and valuation in the United States, England, and GhanaJournal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 15, 477-485.
5.
Earley, P.C. (1986). Trust, perceived importance of praise and criticism, and work performance: An examination of feedback in the U.Sand England. Journal of Management, 12, 457-473
6.
. Erez, M. (1977). Feedback: A necessary condition for goal setting-performance relationshipJournal of Applied Psychology , 62, 624-627.
7.
Erez, M., & Earley, P.C. (1987). Comparative analysis of goal-setting strategies across culturesJournal of Applied Psychology , 72, 658-665.
8.
Fieg, J.P., & Yaffee, L.E. (1977). Adjusting to the U.S.A.: Orientation for international studentsWashington, DC: Meridian House International.
9.
Goodman, J.F.B., & Whittingham, T.G. (1969). Shop stewards in British industryLondon: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Greller, M.M., & Herold, D.M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigationOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance , 13, 244-256.
11.
Harris, P.R., & Moran, R.T. (1987). Managing cultural differencesHouston: Gulf.
12.
Herold, D.M., & Greller, M.M. (1977). Feedback: The definition of a constructAcademy of Management Journal, 20, 142-147.
13.
Hofstede, G. (1980a). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related valuesBeverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14.
Hofstede, G. (1980b). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?Organizational Dynamics , 12, 42-63.
15.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (abridged ed.). Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.
16.
Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D., & Taylor, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizationsJournal of Applied Psychology , 64, 349-371.
17.
Ivancevich, J.M., & McMahon, J.T. (1982). The effects of goal-setting, external feedback, and self-generated feedback on outcome variables: A field experimentAcademy of Management Journal, 25, 359-372.
18.
James, L.R., & Brett, J.M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediationJournal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.
19.
Komaki, J., Barwick, K.D., & Scott, L.R. (1978). A behavioral approach to occupational safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plantJournal of Applied Psychology, 63, 434-435.
20.
Kopelman, R.E. (1986). Managing productivity in organizationsNew York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Locke, E.A., & Schweiger, D.M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
