Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study proposes and empirically tests a more elaborate model for feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) by including new potential predictors (perceived overqualification, hostile attributional style, and overwork climate) involved with a range of entitlement forms. As well, it aims to identify the extent to which FSB varies within its boundary conditions (i.e., regulatory foci, mutual recognition respect, and motivational climate). A series of hierarchical, moderated regression analyses were used to explore the hypotheses. Data were collected from a stratified sample of 444 employees working largely in manufacturing and IT service industries in eastern China. A hostile attributional style and an overwork climate negatively impact FSB. Although perceived overqualification does not have a direct effect, its interaction with a prevention focus (rather than a promotion focus) easily induces FSB. From the use of the influential predictors and moderators, a thorough understanding of their effects on FSB not only neutralizes the concern over reducing employees’ FSB, but also assists in providing possibilities to create a feedback-rich culture. We provide some insights on how an inflated sense of entitlement can be extended to understand the evolving nature of FSB through another feedback-seeking motive behind the instrumental one. As a different attempt, it adds further value in ongoing feedback research by showing the conditional impacts on such behaviors.

Keywords

feedback-seeking behavior workplace entitlement perceived overqualification hostile attributional style overwork climate

Introduction

Proactive feedback-seeking is an important individual resource for employees. Feedback-seeking behavior (FSB), which is a concerted effort to ascertain the adequacy of one’s actions, enables employees to clarify the expectations of their roles and to make changes or improvements accordingly (Moss et al., 2003). Taking this proactive approach to FSB, closer attention has been paid to uncovering the respective influences and interactions of individual and contextual factors in employees’ seeking feedback. Our understanding of FSB has progressed to the point where we conceive it as being a far-from-straightforward process. Despite the support given, however, we note that sources of mixed findings remained unclear, and the FSB research stream brings instrumental motives to the forefront in order to fill in the blanks (e.g., Sung et al., 2019). We take this shortcoming in the literature as the starting point, and further elaborate on the conventional FSB model by including new potential predictors in a range of entitlement forms that are, unfortunately, rampant in the workplace. The notion of workplace entitlement is a set of attitudes about what an employee feels she or he has a right to expect from others (Farasat et al., 2021). Psychological entitlement, that is, employees’ sense of deservingness at work, is viewed as key to the perception of unfair treatment and the motivation to seek change. While psychological entitlement is global and pervasive across all situations (Dragova-Koleva, 2018), there is little empirical research on employees not to engage in feedback seeking from the perspective of narcissistic entitlement. Research on feedback has neglected to embrace such beliefs among employees, which is simply theorized to be maladaptive because of the cognitive distortions it may fuel (Lee et al., 2019).

Based on the stream of research done, our conceptual model draws on three predictors that reflect today’s entitlement tendency: perceived overqualification in the person carrying out a given task, a hostile attributional style whereby a person tends to perceive others’ intentions as hostile, and an overwork climate in which an employee perceives the environment as unfair (see Figure 1). These are the variables that are likely to go with a sense of entitlement, which causes perceived injustice due to a self-absorbed view of the world (McGann & Steil, 2006; Neville & Fisk, 2019). Although it requires balance on subjective factors to determine which variables may increase feedback willingness, prior works addressed relatively common perceptual experiences such as job tenure (e.g., Anseel et al., 2015), supervisory relationships (e.g., Shen et al., 2019), and workload (e.g., Ashford et al., 2016). Each of our influential drivers, leading to a resource-threat evaluation in a sense of entitlement, could allow more opportunities for interpretation and application in a comprehensive exploration of the complexity of FSB. Additionally, we investigate the interactions of other components, such as regulatory foci (promotion or prevention), mutual recognition respect, and motivational climate (mastery or performance) at each predictor level. Because these variables function as possible triggers of specific performance behaviors (Clarke et al., 2019; Higgins, 1998; Nerstad et al., 2013), they could further help to identify how, and the extent to which, FSB varies.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

We use the psychological entitlement and conservation of resources (COR) theories to explain our model. Under COR theory, resources help shape employee perceptions (Hobfoll, 2002), which aligns with theoretical conceptualizations of entitlement. Entitled people tend to think in ways that increase their perceptions of resources threats (Farasat et al., 2021). Thus, under COR theory, high-entitlement employees should avoid resource loss and obtain additional resources when external situations create an unfavorable threat evaluation (e.g., Laird et al., 2021). Using the ambit of entitlement and COR theory, we attempt to understand the most relevant predictor variables and to reveal precise details on how FSB acts, thereby supplementing existing research on the topic. Although scholars have focused on the self-motivational perspective in conscious processes, adequate empirical work about FSB motives other than instrumentalism are lacking. Also, by testing those interaction terms in the model, our investigation sheds more light on how employees’ feedback-seeking efforts can be predicted. Therefore, from a practical point of view, another valuable insight may be provided in the proactive mechanism of FSB. In the following sections, a detailed review of the literature is presented, and specific hypotheses are developed and tested accordingly.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Feedback-seeking in this study refers to an employee’s search for informal or day-to-day feedback from supervisors or coworkers (Callister et al., 1999). Feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) is generally used to acquire job-related information that enables performance improvement. For the formation mechanism of FSB, Ashford et al. (2003) proposed three key types of motive that influence FSB: ego-based (a desire to defend and protect one’s ego), image-based (a yearning to protect or increase one’s reputation), and instrumental (a desire to achieve a goal by some means). FSB results from a complex cost/benefit analysis wherein these motives compete for attention (Anseel et al., 2007). Although people seek feedback primarily because of an instrumental motive, they often seek it for non-instrumental reasons (Moss et al., 2003). Individuals driven by an instrumental motive should see value in seeking feedback, which consequently affects their likelihood to engage in feedback-seeking. Yet, leaning on the theory of workplace entitlement, driven by self-interest and the desire to look good in the eyes of others (Lee et al., 2019), the instrumental benefit may be of relatively little importance in their short-term analysis. Rather, to justify the resources they believe they deserve, today’s employees are prone to avoid, distort, and discount feedback, or may attempt to enhance their own image by seeking positive feedback (De Stobbeleir et al., 2020). In this, because the inflated-entitlement attitude applies to the feedback process, FSB can be reinterpreted as a proactive self-regulation strategy in harmony with COR’s basic tenet: people conserve their resources in the face of a perceived threat.

Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Perceived Overqualification

Perceived overqualification describes the feeling when employees have more qualifications than required for their work (Maynard et al., 2006). As overqualification is characterized as the surplus capacity relative to the job requirements, the overqualified employees are likely to form a positive view on their abilities (Zhang et al., 2021). In line with the motivation-based view, such situation may rather demotivate employees and arouse their feelings of helplessness. This can be attributed to the irreplaceability of lost resources that psychological entitlement exacerbates, which cannot be eased by transferring organizations, leading them to make hasty judgments on the person–job misfit. Employee overqualification seems like a state of resource abundance, but it leads to a depletion of psychological resources due to a perception of relative deprivation (Schreurs et al., 2021). Under this pressure of resource depletion, employees tend to protect against further loss by decreasing their resource investment; thus, there will be very little instrumental motivation to seek feedback. Meanwhile, considering subservient values like adaptive proficiency, overqualified employees may deliberately get involved in FSB to make others aware of their competence. Perhaps that would be to avoid looking too helpless. However, among Chinese employees who already know about overqualification as a pervasive organizational phenomenon (Y. Li et al., 2019), FSB for such reasons will hardly ever happen. This is also a defensive posture to avoid further resource losses. Accordingly, those who perceive themselves as overqualified for their position will no longer have an obvious form of image enhancement or an instrumental motivation to seek feedback.

H1a: Perceived overqualification will be negatively associated with FSB.

Regulatory Foci as Moderators Between Perceived Overqualification and FSB

Overqualification (i.e., having more education or qualifications, skills, and/or experience than one’s job requires), leaves room for further reasonable query. We thus consider the likelihood of interaction with the two dimensions of regulatory focus that operate differently when serving fundamentally different needs (Higgins, 1998). Employees with a promotion focus are concerned with the presence and absence of positive outcomes (gains and non-gains), whereas those with a prevention focus are concerned with the absence and presence of negative outcomes (non-losses and losses). As such, because promotion focus and prevention focus differ significantly in behavioral motivation, each motivational orientation can provide more explanations on how overqualified employees allocate their resources. When promotion-focused individuals feel overqualified, regulation of their promotion focus may mitigate the negative effects of overqualification. That is because the benefits of taking action are more persuasive for them (Hamstra et al., 2023). Those in a promotion focus are apt to assume that if their stance reads as too defensive, then opportunities for growth and success are reduced as well. Conversely, the combination of a prevention focus with the overqualification perception will not have a moderating influence on FSB. As noted in a study on adaptation to change by Petrou et al. (2015), people with a prevention focus have to see a greater need before they engage in FSB, compared to promotion-focused people. For instance, until they perceive a grave threat, they may prefer the stability they have without engaging in feedback relations. Yet, in line with this reasoning, opposite effects are also possible depending on activation of a loss aversion response, making it complicated to specify a direction for the moderating effect of a prevention orientation. Taking these arguments together, we hypothesize as follows:

H1b: A strong promotion focus mitigates the negative influence of perceived overqualification on FSB, whereas a strong prevention focus does not moderate the relationship between them.

Feedback-Seeking Behavior and a Hostile Attributional Style

Hostile attributional style represents a tendency to attribute the causes of negative workplace events to other employees or to the organization (Harvey et al., 2008). As a provocative interpretation, this extra-punitive frame of mind—very often applicable to psychologically entitled individuals (Harvey & Martinko, 2009)—may be another important factor influencing FSB. According to R. Li and Xia (2020), individuals with a hostile attributional style often tend to interpret others’ behaviors as hostility or malice, which makes them more aggressive towards those who offend their self-esteem or rights. When the employees are in ambiguous circumstances, the tendency becomes stronger, breaking down the trust and cooperative relationships established in social and work environments (Chiu & Peng, 2008). Under COR theory, it seems to be a struggle to protect oneself when a resource loss is clearly expected. Employees with a hostile attributional style will not actively seek feedback from others owing to self-protection motives, but will point out the evaluation provider’s incompetence, inadequate support, lack of understanding, etc. Indeed, employees with more hostile attributional styles act just like victims, and seldom use defensive impression management in front of others to overcome relationship barriers because they already see this situation as causing irreparable damage to social support resources (e.g., Khalid et al., 2020). Drawing on the entitlement mentality, it can be argued that when employees’ professional disappointments increase, they may engage in avoidance or confrontational behavior rather than attempt to actively cultivate an improved relationship by building high-quality communication. As this vicious cycle continues, self-protection motives increasingly reinforce it, and seeking feedback lessens it. Hence, a hostile attributional style is likely to be the main reason to refrain from seeking feedback.

H2a: A hostile attributional style will be negatively associated with FSB.

Mutual Recognition Respect as a Moderator Between Hostile Attribution and FSB

The hostile attributional style that basically discounts a relationship may be remedied with a trusting relationship. Mutual recognition represents a kind of interpersonal relationship mode beyond the value evaluation (Clarke et al., 2019). This is rooted in the idea that individuals are owed respect by virtue of their intrinsic worth or dignity. In contrast to appraisals, mutual recognition respect arises out of judgments based on some feature of the judgment target being morally correct, unbiased, or fair (Clarke & Mahadi, 2017). This means that even if a person’s ability is low, and there is no outstanding job performance, others may respect their personality. In this context of relationships, employees should avoid imposing their own cultural values on others and actively try to understand and accept different cultures and values (Khan et al., 2022). This form of respect will thus minimize excessive concern for self-protection in seeking feedback. Grounded in mutual recognition, changed thinking about image defense is also likely to motivate employees to be more communicative while simultaneously reducing their interest in pointing out the causes of their failure to supervisors. Because of this complementarity, high levels of mutual recognition respect can alleviate the attributes of the hostile attributional style, thereby allowing employees’ FSB to recover slowly.

H2b: Mutual recognition respect mitigates the negative influence of a hostile attributional style on FSB.

Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Overwork Climate

In a work environment, employees can perceive a climate that expects them to work overtime to complete their tasks. This psychological climate is called an overwork climate (Mazzetti et al., 2016). This perception can arise from factors such as a competitive work environment, pressure to meet deadlines or quotas, or a norm that working longer hours equates to greater productivity and success, all of which indicate that the organizational performance should take priority over employee welfare (Ishaq et al., 2021). An attitude toward overwork situations can be driven by the meanings and interpretations that employees attribute to a depletion of internal resources, which is reminiscent of the entitlement tendency, like the predictors above. The employees’ sense of entitlement is directly tied to their views of authority figures (e.g., the employer) and how the authority should treat them (Khan et al., 2022). Certainly, an egotistical evaluation of the work situation may lead to a lack of both instrumental and image-based motives when they adopt FSB. Those disappointed employees who feel unfairly treated by the organization progressively transition from voluntary to mechanical employment, and their motivation for relaxation may be stronger. Ultimately their tendency to seek feedback and improve efficiency may be compromised for the restoration of resources. In fact, when seen from the frequent possibility of abusive experiences and knowledge-hiding behaviors (Khalid et al., 2020), there is also little need for impression management to highlight heavy workloads. Such employees not only worry about being punished by their superiors, but they also worry they will be assigned additional tasks to pay for their mistakes. Owing to these psychological phenomena, employees do not actively seek superiors’ feedback.

H3a: An overwork climate will be negatively associated with FSB.

Motivational Climate as a Moderator Between Overwork Climate and FSB

The perceived motivational climate (i.e., performance or mastery) represents different conceptions of success at work (Nerstad et al., 2013). In each situation, specific indications determine whether a task mastery or a normative comparison will be more salient. We here consider these two types of motivational climate as boundary conditions that strengthen/weaken the negative relationship between an overwork climate and FSB. A perceived performance climate is a situation of negative interdependence among colleagues, where other colleagues’ rewards or gains will be negatively related to one’s own (Kopperud et al., 2020). Although it seems that working overtime is a good way for workers to compete in such a climate, this demand is likely to further increase their psychological burdens, leading to a serious decline in social and communicative functions. It may be more so if they already have a pre-existing perception that they are superior to others. Applying this logic to the context of our study, the above negative relationship may be strengthened by the perceived performance climate. In a perceived mastery climate, however, since the emphasis is on employees’ efforts and progress, rather than their ability, it can arouse employees’ feedback-seeking needs (Wang et al., 2022). Individual achievements are more positively independent of each other. Moreover, there are many opportunities to share responsibility with a supervisor for making choices, giving directions, and monitoring work. Even due to the relative comfort this climate provides, intrinsic motivation—which involves self-improvement—more or less complements the missing extrinsic instrumental motive—which involves viewing feedback as a means to something else. Taking these arguments together, we hypothesize the following:

H3b: A perceived performance climate strengthens the negative influence of an overwork climate on FSB, whereas a perceived mastery climate mitigates the relationship between them.

Method

In this section, we describe the methods used to test the study hypotheses.

Sample and Procedures

Data were collected from a stratified sample of employees working for 20 organizations in different economic sectors, the largest of which were manufacturing and IT services (51.6% and 39.2% respectively). By sampling different firms with over 1,000 employees, we wanted to include participants from a variety of jobs. Shandong, which has the only province in China to have a comprehensive industry chain, was suitable for this purpose. We approached the firms through telephone and personal contact, explaining the objectives of the research and inviting their participation in the study. After obtaining their approval, participants were recruited via intranet announcement that asked for volunteers to take part. Though random samples were taken within each stratum (company), we restricted participants count to approximately 35, excluding managers, with most departments limited to a maximum of 10 participants. They were asked to mail the completed questionnaire in the return envelope that accompanied each one. This data collection procedure enabled the participants to complete the questionnaire at a time and place of their choice and assured their anonymity. Through each HR officer who was the survey coordinator in the participating firm, a single follow-up was done approximately 2 weeks after initial delivery. The completed surveys were hand-collected by the lead author.

From a sample of 700 employees, we obtained 630 questionnaires, of which 186 were not usable due to incomplete information (an effective response rate of 70.5%). Of the 444 valid responses, 225 (51.1%) were from males, and 69.9% of all respondents were in their 30s and 40s. The majority (64.9%) had at least a college degree. Concerning employment, 39.9% had worked for more than 5 years in their current jobs, and most respondents spent at least 5 hr daily (on average) with their supervisors.

Measures

The measurement items for each construct were selected based on scales that are well known in their respective domains and were reported as reliable and valid in prior research. Items were somewhat tailored to fit into the study context. Unless otherwise specified, participants were asked to rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). In every case, higher scores reflect a higher relevance for the construct. A brief description of measurements for each variable follows.

Feedback-Seeking Behavior

This was measured using four items adapted from a scale developed by Callister et al. (1999). The measure assessed the frequency with which employees proactively seek feedback from their superior about their role/position, performance, or job targets. A sample item is “I often ask my supervisor how I am doing.” The reliability estimate for these data (Cronbach’s alpha) in our study was .82.

Perceived Overqualification

This construct was measured with a nine-item scale adapted from Maynard et al. (2006). The items asked employees to rate the extent to which they feel their qualifications exceed the formal job requirements. A sample is “My job requires less education than I have.” The reliability estimate for these data in our study was .77.

Regulatory Focus

The scale used to measure regulatory focus was an 18-item instrument from Akhtar and Lee (2014) composed of two dimensions: promotion and prevention. Pursuit of positive outcomes was assessed with nine items (e.g., “I take chances at work to maximize my advancement goals”), and an avoidance of negative outcomes was assessed with nine additional items (e.g., “Fulfilling my work duties is very important to me”). Cronbach’s alpha for the promotion and prevention dimensions were .82 and .88, respectively.

Hostile Attributional Style

The organizational attributional style questionnaire (OASQ; Kent & Martinko, 1995) was used to evaluate hostile attributional styles. Participants were presented with five possible negative workplace scenarios (e.g., “I do not have good career prospects”). After reading each scenario, they were asked to identify the cause of the negative outcome in terms of locus of causality and stability. The former assesses the extent to which employees think the cause of an outcome is their supervisor (1 = completely due to me; 5 = completely due to my supervisor); the latter measures the stability of the cause (1 = changeable in future situations; 5 = unchangeable in future situations). The hostile attributional style was calculated as the average of all items, and Cronbach’s alpha for the reliability estimate was .88.

Mutual Recognition Respect

This was measured with eight items taken from a scale developed by Clarke and Mahadi (2017). The measure assesses the degree of mutual respect between employees and superiors based on emotional cognition. A sample item is, “My supervisor and I treat each other with consideration.” The reliability estimate for these data was .92.

Overwork Climate

The employees were asked to assess the overwork climate by using a seven-item scale developed by Mazzetti et al. (2016). The scale measures an employee’s perception of an organizational overtime culture. A sample item is, “Performing overwork is important for being promoted.” The reliability estimate for these data was .83.

Motivational Climate

The scale used to measure motivational climate was a 14-item instrument developed by Nerstad et al. (2013) and composed of two dimensions: mastery climate and performance climate. Emphasis on ability development, task mastery, and cooperation was assessed with six items (e.g., “In my department/work group, each individual’s learning and development is emphasized”), and a focus only on performance was assessed with eight items (e.g., “In my department/work group, rivalry between employees is encouraged”). The Cronbach’s alpha measures in our study for the mastery and performance climates were .92 and .85, respectively.

Control Variables

Respondents’ demographic information, such as age, gender, education, and work tenure, were controlled because they were reported in previous research to have a significant influence on FSB. In addition, because frequent contact with superiors can deepen a subordinate’s familiarity with that supervisor, we controlled for average daily time spent together, which may impact the concern about feedback-seeking.

Results

Table 1 shows the mean, standard deviation, and correlation for the variables. The data confirm the reliability of all the measures, showing a coefficient alpha above the .70 threshold. The correlation coefficients of each pair of variables were relatively modest, and interestingly, perceived overqualification was not correlated with FSB (r = .00, p = .99), which is inconsistent with H1a. We further assessed the variance inflation factor (VIF) scores to test for factor collinearity and found minimal evidence of multi-collinearity (VIF scores < 2). In addition, data on a scatter plot computed between dependent and independent variables to check for linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity met the assumptions for regression.

Table 1.

Mean, Standard Deviation, and Correlation for the Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Gender	.51	.50
2. Age	2.07	.93	.03
3. Education	.65	.48	.07	−.47**
4. Time	3.31	1.03	−.04	−.06	−.01
5. Tenure	2.39	1.01	.03	.39**	.04	−.06
6. POQ	3.19	.55	−.03	.03	.00	.06	−.01
7. Pro-F	3.34	.61	.08	−.15**	.16**	.01	−.02	.13**
8. Pre-F	3.86	.56	−.13**	.01	−.10*	.12*	−.02	.24**	.35**
9. HAS	2.83	.71	−.03	.07	.03	−.04	.22**	.21**	−.04	−.04
10. MRR	3.76	.69	−.06	.02	−.04	.18**	−.09	.08	.26**	.48**	−.29**
11. OC	2.48	.74	.10**	−.09*	.16**	−.03	.11*	−.01	.03	−.19**	.26**	−.22**
12. MC	3.79	.71	−.10*	−.01	−.02	.14**	.02	.04	.23**	.45**	−.18**	.47**	−.12*
13. PC	3.29	.64	.05	.06	−.05	.13**	.15**	.11*	.36**	.31**	.01	.21**	.16**	.40**
14. FSB	2.91	.85	.04	−.06	.08	.11*	−.10*	.00	.27**	.12*	−.22**	.28**	−.13*	.14**	.11*

Note: N = 444. Two-tailed tests. Gender (1 = male, 0 = female); Education (1 = college degree or above, 0 = high school diploma or lower); Time = average time spent daily with the supervisor; Tenure = years on the job; POQ = perceived overqualification; Pro-F = promotion focus; Pre-F = prevention focus; HAS = hostile attributional style; MRR = mutual recognition respect; OC = overwork climate; MC = mastery climate; and PC = performance climate.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Construct Validity and Common Method Bias

Before testing the hypotheses further, construct validity and common method variance were examined with a series of confirmatory factor analyses. First, our measurement model—which allowed every item to load on its respective construct—demonstrated a good fit: χ²(2,047) = 3,447.27, p < .05, CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.04, and SRMR = 0.05. Factor loadings of all items on the nine scales exceeded .48, with t-values greater than 4.17 (p < .001), providing evidence of convergent validity for all measures. We then performed Harman’s one-factor analysis, a statistical remedy that is popularly used for diagnosing method bias (Fuller et al., 2016). Harmon’s one-factor model demonstrated a very poor model fit (χ²(2,144) = 12,744.13, p < .001, CFI = 0.30, TLI = 0.28, and RMSEA = 0.11), and the chi-square difference test indicated that the one-factor model fits the data significantly worse than the original nine-factor model. This statistical procedure provided evidence that our data are not affected by common method bias.

Hypotheses Testing

A series of hierarchical, moderated regression analyses were performed to test the research hypotheses. In order to neutralize the potential influence on our outcome variable, three separate regression models were constructed with each focal moderator. In the models, the control variables were entered in Step 1, followed by the main and moderator variables in Step 2; in Step 3, the interact terms between them were included. Before analysis, the main predictors were mean-centered to reduce any multi-collinearity. Table 2 shows hostile attributional style and overwork climate related negatively to FSB (β = −.16, p< .01, CI = [−0.28, −0.05]; β = −.17, p < .05, CI = [−0.31, −0.02], respectively), supporting H2a and H3a. But perceived overqualification was not a significant negative predictor (β = −.07, ns, CI = [−0.21, 0.08]), providing no support for H1a. Perhaps this is a replication of the findings by Jayasingam et al. (2021) in an expanded sample, supporting an association between perceived overqualification and knowledge sharing.

Table 2.

Regression Analysis Results to Test the Hypotheses.

Variables	Dependent variable: FSB
	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3
Gender	.03	.01	.01	.03	.04	.03	.03	.05	.05
Age	.05	.08	.07	.05	.03	.03	.05	.03	.03
Education	−.16	−.13	−.13	−.16	−.17	−.17	−.16	−.18	−.19
Time	.07**	.07**	.07**	.07**	.05	.05	.07**	.06*	.06*
Tenure	−.10*	−.10*	−.08*	−.10*	−.05	−.05	−.10*	−.10*	−.10*
Perceived overqualification		−.07	−.05
Promotion focus		.36***	.37***
Prevention focus		.04	.04
Hostile attributional style					−.16**	−.16**
Mutual recognition respect					.27***	.29***
Overwork climate								−.17*	−.16*
Mastery climate								.09	.09
Performance climate								.10	.08
Perceived overqualification× Promotion focus			.07
Perceived overqualification × Prevention focus			.27*
Hostile attributional style × Mutual recognition respect						−.10
Overwork climate × Masteryclimate									−.01
Overwork climate× Performance climate									−.07
ΔF	2.70*	10.86***	3.58*	2.70*	18.93***	1.99	2.70*	4.65**	.66
R ²	.03	.10	.12	.03	.11	.12	.03	.06	.07
ΔR²	.03	.07	.02	.03	.08	.01	.03	.03	.01

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Meanwhile, when the interaction terms were examined, the results showed no support for H2b and H3b. In Step 3 of each model, neither mutual recognition respect nor the two motivational climates (mastery or performance) involved interaction effects (CI = [−0.24, 0.03], CI = [−0.16, 0.14], and CI = [−0.23, 0.08]), rejecting the last set of hypotheses. Contrary to our prediction, however, the only significant interaction (CI = [0.04, 0.51]) was found between prevention focus and perceived overqualification, where the main effect was not significant, but not with the promotion focus (CI = [−0.14, 0.27]). The same inconsistency regarding prevention focus and overqualification will likely involve the concerns about inflows of low wage workers (Nikolovski & Kaše, 2022). We further plotted Figure 2 to illustrate the simple slope difference regarding the effect of perceived overqualification under high or low levels of prevention focus (±1 SD). Certainly, there appears to be a positive relationship between the overqualification perception and FSB under a high prevention focus, as well as a negative relationship between perceived overqualification and FSB under a low prevention focus. This illustrates how the perception of overqualification can interact simultaneously with prevention focus groups, but in very different ways.

Figure 2.

Interactions of perceived overqualification and a prevention focus concerning.

Discussion

In this study, we examined three predictors of motives underlying employees’ FSB by applying the sense of entitlement and COR theory, and we tested the boundary conditions in each relationship. The results demonstrated that a hostile attributional style and an overwork climate are important factors that reduce FSB. Although perceived overqualification had no direct effect, the interaction between a prevention focus and perceived overqualification predicted FSB. In addition, neither mutual recognition respect nor the two dimensions of motivational climate showed any moderating effect.

Contrary to the hypothesis, perceived overqualification was not associated with employees seeking feedback, suggesting that the subjective experience of person–job fit is nothing more than an ideal among Chinese employees. This indicates that replaceable employees are in vulnerable positions that do not create an instrumental or image-based need to seek feedback. In addition, regarding moderation from a regulatory focus, the promotion focus did not play a role. This implies that when employees are perceived as overqualified, even if a promotion focus favors an eager strategy, it does not have the expected effect. Interestingly, the interaction between a prevention focus and perceived overqualification did predict FSB. Unlike our expectation, this shows that employees with a prevention focus display more FSB when they are perceived as overqualified. In other words, they approach FSB defensively in a vigilant and careful manner to not miss their entitlement goal (Higgins, 1998). Perhaps this behavior comes from intentions to identify and follow courses of action that are likely to prevent negative outcomes. This might also be associated with the fact that prevention-focused employees are more prone to engage in defensive impression management than their promotion-focused counterparts (Bian et al., 2020).

As in previous research highlighting the role of person–supervisor fit, the hostile attributional style that is instigated within an interpersonal context was a statistically significant variable in predicting lower FSB. This reveals that fast and arbitrary hostile interpretations of situational cues can affect feedback avoidance with an ego-defense motive. A lower LMX that is caused by a hostile attributional style, or vice versa, is a direct cause of an employee’s failure to take the initiative (Martinko et al., 2012). Essentially a worsened relationship quality mainly due to unmet expectations can cause a higher cognitive bias, which in turn diminishes the need for feedback. Our results also indicate that mutual recognition respect cannot change the intensity and trajectory of the hostile attributional style–FSB relationship. This indicates that the influences of mutual recognition respect and the attribution of hostile intent are independent. When considering employees’ behaviors to restore a damaged sense of self-esteem, a relational property would not have existed in their self-concept, suggesting that it may be difficult for employees with a cognitive bias to form mutual recognition relationships with their superiors (Martinko et al., 2012).

Our results also revealed that perceived overwork can be a predictor of employees’ reluctance to seek feedback. This is in line with other evidence that an overwork climate harms employees as well as the organization. Yet rather than highly intense workloads, working in low-reward jobs would be the real reason for the lack of feedback-seeking. The equity sensitivity that underlies an attitude of overwork lets employees show antipathy toward organizations (Huang et al., 2020), which can reduce their initiative by weakening the instrumental and image-enhancement need to seek feedback. Contrary to the hypotheses, the negative effect of an overwork climate on FSB was not moderated by the two forms of motivational climate. Based on our findings, it appears that the role of an overwork climate is more robust to the interpretation of an achievement setting, such as making improvements in skill development, or outperforming others. That is, regardless of the extent to which a mastery or performance climate can improve the intrinsic motivation of employees (Nerstad et al., 2013), qualitatively different motivations cannot stimulate employees to work enthusiastically in an overwork climate. Perceived overwork itself is a hindrance to seeking feedback.

Managerial Implications

The results of this study have several interesting and useful implications for managers. First, in light of no linkage between perceived overqualification and FSB, managers are advised to take a more cautious approach to overqualified employees. Given that an internal mechanism of perceived overqualification has advantages in the form of proactive behaviors in addition to its known shortcomings (Zhang et al., 2021), they need to consider practical steps to deal with the person–job misfit under the approach of organizational silence. Perhaps it should begin with a distinction between the terms perceived and objective overqualification. For managers who cannot provide jobs that match personal abilities, special attention is required to avoid filling vacancies with people who have a high preventive focus. Although the positive side of overqualification is seemingly more likely to appear in employees whose prevention focus is dominant, at the same time, those employees engage in opportunistic silence without a sense of responsibility or guilty. While the sense of entitlement is perplexing, there is now an urgent need to rethink workforce employment and retention in its entirety.

Second, managers should also realize that having a hostile attributional style is a risk factor for lower FSB, and it is not appropriate to raise employees’ enthusiasm through meaningful relationships of mutual recognition respect with superiors. Even in China, which attaches great importance to harmonious interpersonal relationships (e.g., guanxi), a decrease in enthusiasm caused by such cognitive bias cannot be improved. The hostile attributional style is more harmful by virtue of generating mistrust in organizations because it is linked to immoral actions (Lee et al., 2019). Compared with applying education and training to the requirements, it is an effective alternative to pre-screening candidates with a strong interpretive bias by conducting personality examinations during talent selection. But if the hostile attributional style results from continual vulnerability to unmet expectations, then this may be a signal that alerts managers to dangerous conditions or tells them to reform the overall HR system of the organization. Indeed, managers should establish good communication links to be good at managing conflict before employees form hostile attribution.

Third, if management wants to cultivate a healthy cycle of feedback in the workplace, they need to keep in mind that employees are relatively intolerant of being under-rewarded. This does not end here, in the wake of disappointment, ego threat, or perceived injustice; employees are likely to attempt to take an inflated view of themselves, leading to a reinforcement of entitlement beliefs, thereby initiating the cycle again (e.g., Farasat et al., 2021). Given that this psychological environment of an individual is the end product of reinterpretation and redefinition of the objective environment, it should not become part of the long-term organizational culture. Even try to build a collaborative cultural climate, overwork often puts the worker into chaotic time allocation, frequent family disputes, and energy exhaustion (Yu & Leka, 2022). Although rapid economic development leads to the inevitability of overtime, managers should allow employees a certain degree of autonomy, such as providing voluntary overtime and additional compensation. Like overqualification, an overwork climate has gradually become a major disaster in China, and it needs to be overcome to improve organizational health and ensure global competitive advantage.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study’s results should be interpreted cautiously owing to the following limitations. Our findings are not immune to the possibility that Chinese cultural values may have influenced FSB and its predictors. For example, compared to Western cultures, Asians often refrain from asking for feedback, because they think it might be inconvenient. This is probably why the FSB mean was below the midpoint. In a similar vein, to get more generalizable results, we should have considered controlling for organizational features along with the control variables. Considering the influence of the feedback environment, this omission may be a weakness in the analyzed results of the study. In addition, the analysis was based on a self-reported survey. Despite attempts to minimize this problem, the possibility remains that a source of uncontrolled error from the common variance may have been included. Furthermore, the tendency to provide socially desirable responses in self-reports on sensitive behaviors (such as a hostile attributional style) is a concern. Finally, future research should investigate the possible effects of potential independent variables not considered in this study. As an example, our model only examined the influence of independent variables reflecting the entitlement tendency; the facets of narcissism, such as psychological entitlement, need to be dealt with directly in a follow-up study.

Conclusion

This study adopted a workplace entitlement lens to understand the evolving nature of FSB. A more elaborate model for FSB could shed light on other non-instrumental reasons in order to make a substantive contribution to ongoing study of the topic. Incorporating this phenomenon into the domain of feedback-seeking research is also salient in providing managers or HR professionals with insights into how interventions for a feedback-rich environment should be rolled out and combined.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement included at the end of the article

Authors Contributions

All the authors contributed to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting and revising the article. The lead author collected the primary data. All the authors approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Inha University Research Grant (2023).

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

ORCID iDs

Xinqi Du

Md Sohel Chowdhury

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used in this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Akhtar

Lee

J. S.

(2014). Assessing factor structure and convergent validity of the work regulatory focus scale. Psychological Reports, 115(1), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.2466/08.01.PR0.115c13z5

Anseel

Beatty

A. S.

Shen

Lievens

Sackett

P. R.

(2015). How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Management, 41(1), 318–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313484521

Anseel

Lievens

Levy

P. E.

(2007). A self-motives perspective on feedback-seeking behavior: Linking organizational behavior and social psychology research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(3), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00210.x

Ashford

S. J.

Blatt

VandeWalle

(2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6), 773–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00079-5

Ashford

S. J.

De Stobbeleir

Nujella

(2016). To seek or not to seek: Is that the only question? Recent developments in feedback-seeking literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 213–239. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062314

Bian

Sun

Lin

Gao

Yuan

Xie

(2020). The moderating role of interviewer’s regulatory focus in the effectiveness of impression management tactics: Regulatory fit as a source of subjective value. British Journal of Psychology, 111(2), 369–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12403

Callister

R. R.

Kramer

M. W.

Turban

D. B.

(1999). Feedback seeking following career transitions. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.5465/257013

Chiu

S. F.

Peng

J. C.

(2008). The relationship between psychological contract breach and employee deviance: The moderating role of hostile attributional style. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.006

Clarke

Alshenalfi

Garavan

(2019). Upward influence tactics and their effects on job performance ratings and flexible working arrangements: The mediating roles of mutual recognition respect and mutual appraisal respect. Human Resource Management, 58(4), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21967

10.

Clarke

Mahadi

(2017). Mutual recognition respect between leaders and followers: Its relationship to follower job performance and well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.08.006

11.

De Stobbeleir

Ashford

Zhang

(2020). Shifting focus: Antecedents and outcomes of proactive feedback seeking from peers. Human Relations, 73(3), 303–325. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719828448

12.

Dragova-Koleva

S. A.

(2018). Entitlement attitude in the workplace and its relationship to job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 6(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.5114/cipp.2017.67230

13.

Farasat

Azam

Hassan

(2021). Supervisor bottom-line mentality, workaholism, and workplace cheating behavior: The moderating effect of employee entitlement. Ethics & Behavior, 31(8), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1835483

14.

Fuller

C. M.

Simmering

M. J.

Atinc

Babin

B. J.

(2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

15.

Hamstra

M. R.

Schreurs

Maxim Laurijssen

Marescaux

(2023). Who wants to leave when facing mass lay-off: A regulatory focus perspective on turnover intentions and mobility-oriented behavior. Career Development International, 28(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2022-0315

16.

Harvey

Harris

K. J.

Martinko

M. J.

(2008). The mediated influence of hostile attributional style on turnover intentions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(4), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9073-1

17.

Harvey

Martinko

M. J.

(2009). An empirical examination of the role of attributions in psychological entitlement and its outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.549

18.

Higgins

E. T.

(1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0

19.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

20.

Huang

Xia

Zhao

Pan

Zhou

(2020). Overwork, job embeddedness and turnover intention among Chinese knowledge workers. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 59(3), 442–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12272

21.

Ishaq

Bashir

Khan

A. K.

Hassan

M. M.

Zakariya

(2021). Epistemic curiosity and perceived workload: A moderated mediation model of achievement striving and overwork climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(18), 3888–3911.https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1641734

22.

Jayasingam

Chong

M. M. K.

Abu Bakar

(2021). Knowledge sharing behaviour of overqualified repatriates. Journal of Global Mobility: The Home of Expatriate Management Research, 9(4), 543–573. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGM-04-2021-0050

23.

Kent

Martinko

(1995). The development and the evaluation of a scale to measure organizational attributional style. In Martinko

M. J.

(Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 53–75). Routledge.

24.

Khalid

Gulzar

Khan

A. K.

(2020). When and how the psychologically entitled employees hide more knowledge? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 89, 102413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102413

25.

Khan

Chowdhury

M. S.

Kang

(2022). Leaders’ emotion regulation and the influence of respect and entitlement on employee silence. Sustainability, 14(4), 2389. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042389

26.

Kopperud

K. H.

Nerstad

C. G.

Dysvik

(2020). Should I stay or should I go? The role of motivational climate and work–home spillover for turnover intentions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 510463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01107

27.

Laird

M. D.

Zboja

J. J.

Harvey

Victoravich

L. M.

Narayan

(2021). Entitlement: Friend or foe of work-family conflict? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 36(5), 447–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2020-0326

28.

Lee

Schwarz

Newman

Legood

(2019). Investigating when and why psychological entitlement predicts unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 154(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3456-z

29.

Xia

L. X.

(2020). The mediating mechanisms underlying the longitudinal effect of trait anger on social aggression: Testing a temporal path model. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 104018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104018

30.

Zhang

(2019). Dual relational model of perceived overqualification: Employee’s self-concept and task performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(4), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12261

31.

Martinko

M. J.

Sikora

Harvey

(2012). The relationships between attribution styles, LMX, and perceptions of abusive supervision. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19(4), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811435791

32.

Maynard

D. C.

Joseph

T. A.

Maynard

A. M.

(2006). Underemployment, job attitudes, and turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 509–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.389

33.

Mazzetti

Schaufeli

W. B.

Guglielmi

Depolo

(2016). Overwork climate scale: Psychometric properties and relationships with working hard. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(4), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2014-0100

34.

McGann

V. L.

Steil

J. M.

(2006). The sense of entitlement: Implications for gender equality and psychological well-being. In Worell

Goodheart

C. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological health: Gender and well-being across the lifespan (pp. 175–182). Oxford University Press.

35.

Moss

S. E.

Valenzi

E. R.

Taggart

(2003). Are you hiding from your boss? The development of a taxonomy and instrument to assess the feedback management behaviors of good and bad performers. Journal of Management, 29(4), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00022-9

36.

Nerstad

C. G.

Roberts

G. C.

Richardsen

A. M.

(2013). Achieving success at work: Development and validation of the motivational climate at work questionnaire (MCWQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2231–2250. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12174

37.

Neville

Fisk

G. M.

(2019). Getting to excess: Psychological entitlement and negotiation attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(4), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9557-6

38.

Nikolovski

Kaše

(2022). Determinants of country-level employee overqualification: A configurational app-roach. Economic and Business Review, 24(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1301

39.

Petrou

Demerouti

Häfner

(2015). When fit matters more: The effect of regulatory fit on adaptation to change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(1), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.832209

40.

Schreurs

Hamstra

M. R. W.

Jawahar

I. M.

Akkermans

(2021). Perceived overqualification and counterproductive work behavior: Testing the mediating role of relative deprivation and the moderating role of ambition. Personnel Review, 50(3), 1038–1055. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-05-2019-0237

41.

Shen

Yang

Y. J.

(2019). How does abusive supervision restrict employees’ feedback-seeking behavior? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(8), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2018-0480

42.

Sung

S. Y.

Rhee

Y. W.

Lee

J. E.

Choi

J. N.

Yoon

H. J.

(2019). Multilevel social predictors of employee feedback-seeking behavior: A cost–benefit perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7977

43.

Wang

Chen

Feng

(2022). Double-edged sword of perceived mastery climate on evasive knowledge hiding: The mediating roles of perceived status and perceived social support. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(8), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-09-2021-0490

44.

Leka

(2022). The effect of worktime control on overtime employees’ mental health and work-family conflict: The mediating role of voluntary overtime. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3767. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073767

45.

Zhang

Wang

Qian

Parker

S. K.

(2021). Job crafting towards strengths and job crafting towards interests in overqualified employees: Different outcomes and boundary effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(5), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2517

Antecedents of Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Its Conditional Impacts: Applying the Framework of Workplace Entitlement

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Perceived Overqualification

Regulatory Foci as Moderators Between Perceived Overqualification and FSB

Feedback-Seeking Behavior and a Hostile Attributional Style

Mutual Recognition Respect as a Moderator Between Hostile Attribution and FSB

Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Overwork Climate

Motivational Climate as a Moderator Between Overwork Climate and FSB

Method

Sample and Procedures

Measures

Feedback-Seeking Behavior

Perceived Overqualification

Regulatory Focus

Hostile Attributional Style

Mutual Recognition Respect

Overwork Climate

Motivational Climate

Control Variables

Results

Construct Validity and Common Method Bias

Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Authors Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References