HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 11, no. 4, Winter 2000 © Jossey-Bass, a Wiley company 381

The Role of Feedback inManagement Training Settings

K. Peter Kuchinke

This study investigated the role of feedback in nine formal managementtraining settings in a British government agency. This survey-based studysuggests that participants sought information about their performancefrequently and from a variety of sources and also indicates that feedbackseeking is an important aspect in the process of management training.Implications of the findings for further research and the practice ofmanagement training are discussed.

Formal management training is a key element of management developmentand ranks among the most frequently provided types of training. Researchresults of a nationwide study in the United Kingdom in 1999 (Institute of Per-sonnel and Development, 1999) revealed that among four hundred randomlyselected private and public organizations it ranks first, with over 75 percent oforganizations providing “a lot” of management training and an additional20 percent providing “some.” In the United States, it ranks second in frequencyafter new employee orientation, with 93 percent of companies providing thiskind of training (Bassie and Van Buren, 1998). Management training (MT) isbroadly defined as “the attempt to improve managerial effectiveness through aplanned and deliberate learning process” (de Bettignies, 1975, p. 4); the twomost important goals of MT programs, according to a survey by The Confer-ence Board, are to develop leadership skills in managers and to ensure a poolof capable people to run the organization (Walter, 1996). MT usually includestraining in areas such as performance appraisals, implementing regulations andpolicies, managing projects and processes, and planning and budgeting (Bassieand Van Buren, 1998) and is directed to a broad range of employees rangingfrom first-line supervisors and team leaders to midlevel managers. MT is dis-tinct from executive development, which is usually targeted toward currentand potential senior executives, focuses on corporationwide initiatives or majorbusiness units, and includes strategic planning, policymaking, and goal setting(Bassie and Van Buren, 1998).

382 Kuchinke

This study focused on formal, classroom-based management training andin particular on the feedback processes during training. Feedback is a classicconcept in the social sciences and has been the focus of research in fieldsranging from control theory and cybernetics to psychology and education.Feedback has been defined as a “special case of the general communicationprocess in which some sender . . . conveys a message . . . to a recipient”(Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor, 1979, p. 350) related to some aspect of the recip-ient’s behavior. Feedback is critical at the individual, group, and organiza-tional levels because it provides information about possible discrepanciesbetween current and target performance levels and outcomes (Taylor, Fisher,and Ilgen, 1984).

Feedback is a key component of any learning process. In training pro-grams, it forms an important instructional design element (Goldstein, 1993;Kowitz and Smith, 1985). During instructional delivery it can lead to increasedlearning and improve the transfer of learning (Schoenfeldt, 1996). Recent stud-ies have addressed the role of feedback in different training and educationsettings—for instance, in industry training (Viau and Clark, 1987), for super-visors providing in-service staff training (Parsons and Reid, 1995), and incollege and university education settings (Brinko, 1993; Dunkin and Precians,1992; Kuchinke, in press).

The use of feedback in the management development context has beenexplored in a number of studies. These include in particular the important roleof 360-degree feedback and multirater assessments (for example, Antonioni,1996; Bracken, 1994; Church, 1997; Church and Bracken, 1997). As thesestudies suggest, many organizations are very deliberately structuring feedbackprocesses and thus increasing the amount of feedback but may not considerthe full scope of desired outcomes or build systems to support these results.Feedback is valuable not only because it can improve work behavior but alsobecause it can result in increased self-awareness and more dialogue betweenworkers and managers. As these studies conclude, much still needs to beunderstood about the effective use of feedback.

The focus of this study was a particular aspect of feedback: feedback seek-ing by participants in MT programs. Feedback seeking has been described asa process by which actors purposefully and actively seek to obtain informationto “determine the adequacy of behaviors for attaining valued end states”(Ashford, 1986, p. 466). In a comprehensive review of the literature related tofeedback seeking, Madzar (1995) asserted the importance of the concept forHRD practice and suggested its role for training in general and managementtraining in particular.

Research on feedback seeking in organizations is based on the premisethat employees continually engage in a process of seeking information abouttwo aspects of their behavior: which goals to pursue and what progress theymake toward these goals. Employees, research shows, seek these two types ofinformation frequently, in a variety of ways, and from a variety of sources.

Whereas traditional feedback research has described the receiver of feedbackas relatively passive, researchers in feedback seeking have ascribed a veryactive role to the individual and tossed “the ball into the seeker’s court. Thatis, they denied the assumption that individuals are passive recipients offeedback . . . and proposed that individuals actively seek feedback in orderto have more control over the outcomes of their behavior” (Madzar, 1995,p. 337).

Studies on feedback seeking are broadly anchored in the tradition of self-regulation research (Bandura, 1986), based on the assumptions that individu-als play an active role in determining what goals to pursue and what progressthey make. Thus, individuals use feedback-seeking strategies for self-monitoring purposes. Management training programs appear well-suited toinvestigate the phenomenon of self-regulation and in particular feedbackseeking. For many participants, MT presents a novel situation where newbehaviors, knowledge, and skills are introduced. These are important becausethey represent the behavioral repertoire required for advancement and newlevels of responsibility. In this context, managing one’s self is critical (Conover,1996), and this includes monitoring progress toward goals and evaluating one’sskills, strengths, and weaknesses.

Research Questions

The study addresses four overall research questions that examined the rela-tionships between feedback sources, individual antecedents of feedback seek-ing, and the outcomes of feedback seeking. Survey information was obtainedfrom MT course participants and their instructors to answer the followingquestions:

What sources of feedback do participants in MT programs use and how useful is theinformation from the various sources?

How accurate are instructors’ perceptions of feedback seeking by trainingparticipants?

How do individual and instructor-level variables affect training participants’feedback-seeking behaviors?

What are the reactions to training that are associated with feedback-seeking behavior?

The theoretical framework with core constructs and scales used in thisstudy is shown in Figure 1. The rationale for selection of the scales and theirdescriptions are presented in the literature review section of this article, whichfollows.

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 383

384 Kuchinke

Literature Review

Information Sources. The first question addressed the sources that par-ticipants used to seek information about their performance during MT. Previ-ous research (Van Dyne, 1992) has established three sources of information forfeedback seeking in work situations: constituencies (for example, supervisors,coworkers, customers, subordinates), systems (tasks, work systems, job aids),and self (one’s own thoughts and feelings). The relative importance of eachsource to the information seeker, however, has not been clearly established.Greller’s (1980) seminal study on feedback sources, for instance, showed thatemployees rated their supervisors as the most important source, whereasHanser and Muchinsky (1978) found that employees rated their own thoughtsand feelings (self ) as the most important feedback source. Related to assessingone’s performance, self-generated information has been shown to be accessedmore frequently than any of the other sources (Greller and Herold, 1975). Infact, feedback research has shown with fair consistency that psychologicallycloser sources of information (such as self, the task, and one’s peers) are moreoften accessed than psychologically more distant sources (such as the manageror supervisor) when seeking feedback. Closer sources are seen as more reliableand easier to obtain (Van Dyne, 1992). Extending this research to MT settings,the first research question addressed the sources of information that partici-pants made use of and their perceived usefulness.

The second research question focused on the accuracy of instructors’ per-ceptions of the sources that participants sought feedback from. This questionis based on previous research that had yielded findings contrary to the com-monly held belief of the importance of a manager’s role in regulating employeeperformance. Greller (1980), when comparing supervisor and subordinate

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework

Perceived InstructorCharacteristics

 Charisma Individual consideration Intellectual stimulation Inspirational motivation

Individual Characteristics

 Goal orientation Tolerance for ambiguity

Feedback Seeking

 Amount, frequency, usefulness From: Instructors, peers, activities, self

Reaction Measures

 Motivation to learn Intention to transfer Reaction to training

perception of the usefulness of six sources of feedback, found that supervisorsgenerally overestimated the importance of their own feedback to subordinatesand simultaneously underestimated the value of task and self-generated feed-back to subordinates. The question in this study, then, centered on whetherinstructors would also overestimate the role of their feedback to course par-ticipants and underestimate the role of self-generated feedback.

Individual Antecedents. The third research question centered onindividual- and instructor-level antecedents of feedback-seeking behavior.Although many individual-level variables have been proposed as potentialantecedents, only a few have been substantiated in empirical studies. These arean individual’s tolerance for ambiguity, which is negatively correlated with feed-back seeking, an individual’s goal orientation, and an individual’s organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which is positively correlated (Madzar, 1995).Because OBSE is dependent on performance in an actual work context andmight not apply in a learning setting such as MT, it was excluded from thisstudy. Thus, tolerance for ambiguity and goal orientation were investigated aspotential antecedents. The link between goal orientation and feedback seek-ing was described by Vandewalle (1995), who suggested that individuals witha learning-goal orientation seek feedback more readily than individuals with aperformance-goal orientation. Performance-goal oriented individuals seek todemonstrate and validate the adequacy of their abilities by seeking favorablejudgments and avoiding negative judgments about their ability. Those with alearning-goal orientation seek to develop themselves by improving their abil-ities, acquiring new skills, and mastering new situations. The differencebetween the two orientations was expressed by Vandewalle (1995, p. 8) asfollows: “Those with learning goals are oriented toward improving their ability,while those with performance goals are oriented toward proving their abil-ity” [emphasis in the original].

With respect to tolerance for ambiguity, the literature reports negativerelationships between feedback seeking and this attribute: individuals with alower tolerance to ambiguity engage in more feedback-seeking behavior to gaincertainty about their performance (Ashford and Cummings, 1985).

Perceived Instructor Behavior. The third research question also addressedinstructor-related antecedents of feedback seeking. Previous research (Madzar,1995) had found that employees seek information more often from supervi-sors who employ transformational leadership behaviors—that is, who act asrole models, pay individual attention to each employee, and challenge employ-ees to think critically. Transformational leadership behavior has been proposedalso to apply to education and training situations (Kuchinke, in press;Walumbwa and Kuchinke, 1999). In this study, the four scales of the transfor-mational leadership construct as defined by Bass and Avolio (1995) were used:charisma, individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, and inspirationalmotivation. Charismatic instructors are able to gain respect, trust, and confi-dence from course participants, and they convey a sense of mission and vision

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 385

386 Kuchinke

of the desired future. Instructors who are considerate of individual needs givepersonalized attention to the needs of all individuals and make each personfeel valued. Where course instructors display inspirational motivation, theycommunicate a vision related to course goals with confidence and convey asense of optimism and enthusiasm in the attainability of this vision. Instruc-tors who behave in an intellectually stimulating way actively encourageparticipants to question the status quo, seek new solutions, and challengecritically their own and others’ assumptions and beliefs. Transformational lead-ership has been shown to be effective in increasing employee performance inmany studies (for a summary see Bass and Avolio, 1995), and there are indi-cations that transformational behavior is also effective in instructional settings(Kuchinke, 1999, 2000).

Reactions to Training. The fourth research question addressed the effectsof feedback seeking on reactions to training. Reaction measures are limited ingauging the value of training but are valuable in this context, where the pri-mary intent was to measure the outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior andnot to evaluate the effectiveness of training. Assessing student reaction is “stillconsidered appropriate for evaluating the effectiveness of training . . . byresearchers and practitioners who have been pressed to determine the value oftraining activities” (Christoph, Schoenfeldt, and Tansky, 1998, p. 27). Previousresearch showed that feedback in general is positively correlated with reactionsto training. Information generated by the self, the task, or indirectly via com-puter has been perceived as more reliable, more trusted, and more useful thaninformation generated by peers or supervisors (Ang, Cummings, Straub, andEarly, 1993). The question addressed in this study was to what extent feedback-seeking behavior by participants might affect their satisfaction with the course,their willingness to transfer the learning, and their motivation to learn.

Methodology

The population for this study consisted of participants and instructors of MTtraining programs in a British government agency of about three thousandemployees. The agency had an HRD unit of sixteen employees responsible fordevelopment and training services as well as internal consulting. MT consti-tuted a key responsibility of the HRD unit because of the need to develop andretain managerial talent and to ensure a pool of qualified employees for inter-nal promotion and succession. The focus of this study was a series of five-daytraining courses for employees who had been identified by their supervisorsas potential future leaders or who had nominated themselves and received per-mission from their supervisors to attend. Courses were offered on average onceper month and were attended by ten to fifteen participants from various partsof the agency. The courses followed a highly standardized curriculumand delivery process to ensure consistency of learning across courses and weredelivered by teams of two instructors from the HRD unit. The curriculum

focused on organizational issues, such as the overall strategic direction of theagency and strategic planning and strategy implementation, and on organiza-tional behavior issues, such as motivation, team building, communication, andlearning styles. The courses were primarily instructor- and theory-centered,but they also included some role-plays, case studies, and action planning.Prior to a course, participants met with their supervisor and developed aperformance contract that specified the particular issues on which to focusduring the training. There was also in place a follow-up process designed toensure the transfer of learning to the workplace.

The researcher observed several courses prior to the study and workedwith HRD management and training personnel on the study design. The designand instrumentation were judged to be appropriate and relevant to the agencyby the head of the HRD unit and the instructors. Survey data were collectedfrom nine consecutively held courses over a seven-month period in 1998. Fivecourses were taught in a residential mode and held at a seaside resort inthe south of England. Four courses were taught in a nonresidential modewhere participants attended during working hours and then left for home. Atotal of ninety-eight participants and nine instructors completed the surveys,resulting in a response rate of over 95 percent for participants and 100 percentfor instructors. MT participants were on average thirty-four years of age, hadeleven years of professional experience, and were relatively new to their cur-rent position. Instructors, on average, were older and had lower levels of for-mal education but longer professional and job-related experience (see Table 1).

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 387

Table 1. Demographic Information on Instructors and Participants in Nine Courses

Instructors Participants

Valid Responses 9 98

Gender:

Male 56% 40%

Female 44% 60%

Age:Mean (s.d.) 41.89 (9.73) 34.13 (8.71)

Education:

GCSE/O Level 44% 27%

A-level 44% 37%

B.A. 11% 22%

M.A. 8%

Professional ExperienceMean years (s.d.) 24.33 (10.92) 11.00 (9.91)

Tenure in current positionMean years (s.d.) 4.22 (3.19) 1.69 (.84)

388 Kuchinke

Participant and instructor versions of the instruments were given out onthe final training day, completed anonymously, and forwarded to the researcher.Initial results and conclusions were reported to the agency in late 1998 withthe intent of identifying opportunities to improve the training course.

The survey instrument consisted of fifty Likert-type questions using exist-ing scales with known and acceptable psychometric properties. The student-related independent variables—performance-goal orientation and tolerance forambiguity—were measured using instruments developed by Dweck (1986)and Bennett, Herold, and Ashford (1990), respectively. Instructor-related inde-pendent variables were measured using an instrument developed by Bass andAvolio (1995). The dependent variables related to amount, frequency, and use-fulness of feedback sought from different sources were measured using aninstrument developed by Greller and Herold (1975). Student reaction mea-sures were obtained using the reaction-to-training scale (Kuchinke, Brown,Anderson, and Hobson, 1998), the intention-to-transfer scale by Holton, Bates,Seyler, and Carvalho (1997), and the motivation-to-learn scale from Weinstein(1994). The instrument also included standard demographic questions. Theinstrument was pilot-tested with a group of HRD graduate students inthe United States and twelve MT participants at the agency; the results of thepilot confirmed the reliability of the scales, yielding Chronbach alphas of .7 orhigher. The appendix at the end of this article contains the fifty questions usedin this study (excluding the first eight demographic questions).

Survey information was obtained from MT participants and instructorsabout their own behaviors. This data collection method incurs the risk of self-report and single-method bias. The single-method bias does present a limitationto this study and should be taken into account when interpreting the results.

Results

Table 2 shows descriptive statistics, reliability indices, and zero-order correla-tions among the variables. All scales showed sufficient (Nunnally, 1967) relia-bility. The mean scores for the four feedback sources suggested that theninety-eight participants in nine MT courses did engage in feedback seekingand that they sought feedback from a variety of sources. Participants furtherrated their instructors as inspiring, charismatic, and considerate of their indi-vidual needs. They also felt challenged by their instructors. Participants scoredhigher on the variable learning orientation than on performance orientation, indi-cating that, on average, they were more concerned with obtaining new infor-mation and insight than demonstrating what they already knew. The averagescore for tolerance for ambiguity (M 5 2.30, SD 5 .69) was on the lower endof the distribution, especially when compared to similar research, such asMadzar’s (1996) study of seventy-five U.S. managers with an average score of2.79 (SD 5 .89). Participants scored in the middle range with respect tointention to transfer (M 5 2.14, SD 5 .55) and motivation to learn (M 5 2.15,

Tab

le 2

.C

ours

e P

arti

cip

ants

’ Des

crip

tive

Sta

tist

ics

and

Zer

o-O

rder

Cor

rela

tion

s ,

.05

Vari

able

Mea

n (s

.d.)

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

Feed

back

Sou

rces

1. I

nstr

ucto

rs3.

60 (

1.05

)(.

79)

2. P

eers

3.46

(.9

8).8

6(.

79)

3. C

ours

e ac

tivi

ties

3.44

(1.

07)

.76

.79

(.83

)

4.Se

lf3.

21 (

.77)

.53

.61

.58

(.68

)

Inst

ruct

or B

ehav

ior

5.C

hari

smat

ic4.

21 (

.48)

.45

.43

.38

.36

(.74

)

6.In

spir

ing

4.44

(.5

0).7

6(.

68)

7.St

imul

atin

g4.

17 (

.67)

.75

(.72

)

8.C

onsi

dera

te4.

11 (

.83)

.42

.34

.29

.68

.75

(.76

)

Indi

vidu

al V

aria

ble

9.Le

arni

ng o

rien

tati

on2.

89 (

.61)

.24

(.70

)

10.

Perf

orm

ance

ori

enta

tion

2.09

(1.

2)(.

69)

11.

Tole

ranc

e am

bigu

ity

2.3

(.69

)2

.38

(.72

)

Rea

ctio

n M

easu

res

12.

Inte

nt t

o tr

ansf

er2.

14 (

.55)

2.3

02

.30

(.83

)

13.

Mot

ivat

ion

to le

arn

2.15

(.5

9)2

.28

2.2

52

.24

2.3

3.2

0.5

6(.

86)

14.

Sati

sfac

tion

1.56

(.5

0)2

.47

2.4

62

.30

2.3

22

.37

.33

2.2

2.5

7.5

6(.

97)

Not

e:C

ronb

ach

alph

a va

lues

list

ed in

par

enth

eses

. N5

98.

390 Kuchinke

SD 5 .59) but did not express a high degree of overall satisfaction with thetraining (M 5 1.56, SD 5 .50).

The zero-order correlations in each group of variables—feedback sources,instructor behavior, individual variables, and reaction measures—were mod-erate to high, indicating that the variables in each group were related. Therewere low and moderate intercorrelations between charismatic and considerateinstructor behaviors and feedback, and low and moderate negative correlationsbetween reaction measures and feedback.

The first research question concerned the sources that course participantsaccessed to obtain feedback about their performance and about learning goals.Previous research with employees in standard work settings (Greller andHerold, 1975) had found that individuals used their own thoughts and feel-ings most often to obtain information about performance goals and progresstoward them. Comparing the mean scores of feedback sought from varioussources, the previous findings were not confirmed in this study. Although par-ticipants accessed the four sources (instructor, peers, course activities, and self )quite frequently (M 5 3.60, SD 5 1.05; M 5 3.46, SD 5 .98; M 5 3.44,SD 5 1.07; and M 5 3.21, SD 5 .77, respectively), there was a clear rankingamong the sources. In the learning situation of the MT course, instructors wereseen as the most important source of feedback and participants’ own thoughtsand feelings as the least important (Table 2). Thus, for this sample, participantssought feedback from the instructors more often, sought larger amounts offeedback, and found their feedback more useful than feedback from peers,course activities, and self. This was true for feedback concerning learning goalsand feedback about how well participants were meeting these goals.

Interestingly, however, the delivery mode of the course affected the feed-back sought from peers and course activities. Although in both residential andnonresidential courses the instructor ranked highest as a source of feedbackand the self the lowest, residential course participants sought feedback fromtheir peers and the course activities to a much higher degree than nonresi-dential course participants. The mean scores for feedback from peers forresidential and nonresidential were 3.63 and 3.12 respectively (F(1,94) 5 4.80,p 5 .031). The mean scores for feedback from the course activities for resi-dential and nonresidential were 3.64 and 3.13 respectively (F(1,93) 5 5.45,p 5 .022).

The second research question focused on instructors’ perception of courseparticipants’ feedback-seeking patterns. Previous research (Greller, 1980) hadsuggested that managers might overestimate their own role in providing feed-back and at the same time underestimate the role of employees’ own thoughtsand feelings. Employees, thus, are thought to play a much more active role insetting their own performance goals and monitoring their progress towardthose goals than managers think they do. The first part of these previous find-ings was validated in this study. Comparing participant and instructor answersto questions about sources of course participant feedback, instructors tended

to rate the frequency with which they provided feedback to course participantsas higher than participants did themselves. The mean scores of frequencyof feedback provided by the instructor for course participants was 2.88(SD 5 .93) compared with instructor mean score of 3.78 (SD 5 .83). Usingstandardized scores to eliminate spurious findings because of different base-lines of participants and instructors, the difference between instructor and par-ticipant scores for frequency of feedback obtained from the instructor wassignificant at the .05 level (t 5 22.33, p 5 .03). No differences were foundbetween course participant and instructor scores related to feedback from theself. With respect to Greller’s (1980) previous research, this finding was notconfirmed with this sample.

The third research question was concerned with individual- and instructor-level variables and their influence on feedback-seeking behavior. Previousresearch with employees in work settings had found that tolerance for ambigu-ity and goal orientation were powerful predictors of feedback-seeking behavior(Madzar, 1996). Madzar also found that where employees perceived theirmanagers to be charismatic, considerate of individual needs, intellectuallychallenging, and motivating, employee feedback seeking increased. Zero-ordercorrelations (Table 2) had indicated some initial low- to moderate-sizerelationships between these variables. A series of four stepwise multiple regres-sion analyses was performed with feedback (from the four sources) as depen-dent variable and the following independent variables: demographics (age,gender, education, professional experience, and tenure in current position) instep 1, individual characteristics (goal orientation, tolerance for ambiguity)in step 2, and instructor variables (charisma, inspiration, stimulating, andconsiderate) in step 3. At each step, the variables entered previously werestatistically controlled for and did not affect subsequent analyses (Cohen andCohen, 1983). As Table 3 shows, two instructor-related scales—charismaand inspirational motivation—emerged as significant (p , .05) predictors offeedback seeking among course participants. Charismatic behavior by course

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 391

Table 3. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analysis, Dependent Variable: Feedback Seeking from All Sources

Variable R2 R2adj. DR2

ad B SE B b

Step 1:Demographics n.s.

Step 2:Individual variables n.s.

Step 3:Instructor Behavior:

Charisma inspiration .19 .17 1.65 .45 .87***

Motivation .29 .25 .08** 2.91 .40 2.54**

Note: **p , .01; ***p , .001; p-to-enter, .05; p-to-remove, .10. N 5 98

392 Kuchinke

instructors led to an increase in feedback seeking by course participants, butinspirational motivation, surprisingly, was negatively correlated with feedbackseeking. Together, these two variables accounted for one-quarter of the variancein feedback-seeking behavior.

The final research question centered on the effects of feedback seeking onparticipants’ reactions, in particular their overall satisfaction with the courses,the intention to transfer what had been learned, and their motivation to learn.To test how feedback seeking influences these variables, three stepwise multi-ple regression analyses were conducted with the following independent vari-ables: demographic information in step 1, individual variables in step 2,instructor variables in step 3, and feedback seeking from various sources instep 4. Although the focus was on the contribution of feedback seeking to reac-tion measures, the demographic, individual, and instructor-related variableswere included to control statistically for their contribution to variance in reac-tion measures. As Table 4 shows, overall course satisfaction was explained bytwo instructor variables—charisma and inspirational motivation—and feed-back provided by the instructors. Together, these three variables accounted forover one-third of the variance (R2

adj 5 .35) of course satisfaction. Interestingly,charisma and instructor feedback were negatively correlated with coursesatisfaction. Charisma and feedback from the participants’ own thoughts andfeelings also contributed to the variance of intention to transfer the learning

Table 4. Summary of Stepwise Regression Analyses forReaction Measures

Results for Motivation to Learn

Variable R2 R2ad DR2

ad B SE B b

Charisma .11 .09 2.27 .22 2.17*

Feedback from self

.27 .23 .14** 2.35 .13 2.42**

Results for Intention to Transfer

Variable R2 R2ad DR2

ad B SE B b

Charisma .21 .18 2.37 .17 2.33*

Feedback from self

.31 .27 .09** 2.22 .10 2.34*

Results for Satisfaction with Training

Variable R2 R2ad DR2

ad B SE B b

Charisma .17 .15 2.75 .31 2.64*

Inspirational motivation.32 .28 .13** .48 .25 .47*

Feedback from instructor.40 .35 .13*** 2.17 .08 2.33*

Note: **p , .01; ***p , .001, p-to-enter, .05; p-to-remove, .10. N 5 98

and here, too, the correlation was negative. Together, these two variablesaccounted for just over one-fourth (R2

adj 5 .27) of variance. Finally, motiva-tion to learn was explained, in part, by charisma and feedback from self andhere, too, the sign of the correlation was negative. These two variablesaccounted for just under one-quarter of the variance (R2

adj 5 .23).

Discussion

Research on feedback seeking is an emergent strand in the organizationalbehavior (OB) literature and extends traditional feedback research by propos-ing that employees actively pursue a number of strategies to obtain feedbackabout their performance. This study sought to extend this line of research intoa key area of HRD, management training. Studying feedback-seeking behav-ior in a series of MT courses, this study addressed four research questionsrelated to the relationships between feedback sources, individual antecedentsof feedback seeking, and the outcomes of feedback seeking.

The results related to the first research question indicate the feedback-seeking behavior does indeed occur in MT settings, where, in contrast to OBresearch designs, not work performance but learning is the goal. As in regularwork settings, MT participants engage in feedback-seeking behavior, seek sub-stantial amounts of information about their performance, do so frequently, andseek out a variety of sources. Thus, it appears legitimate to extend FBS researchto MT settings. In this study, instructors emerged as the primary sources offeedback in terms of amount and frequency of feedback sought and its per-ceived usefulness. Whether this was due to the design of the course or instruc-tor behavior or was characteristic of course participants was not determined bythis study. Nor was the study designed to answer the question whether thereliance on instructor feedback was desirable. When discussing the results ofthe study with instructors and HRD leadership, there was, indeed, surprise overthis finding because an implicit assumption had been that the training wouldresult in increased self-monitoring skills by the course participants. Further,course instructors saw themselves primarily as facilitators of participants’ learn-ing processes and not as management experts (few of the instructors had, infact, management experience). The implications of these findings appearimportant for MT design and delivery: MT theory frequently stresses that effec-tive training should foreshadow actual practice and allow for trial applicationof the new behavior (for example, de Bettignies, 1975; Parsons and Reid, 1995).Effective managers, however, are increasingly asked to work in ill-structuredsituations and draw on their own resources for solutions to situations where noknown solution exists. This will mean an increase in self-monitoring andincreased reliance on one’s own thoughts and feelings to determine what goalsto pursue and what progress is being made toward those goals. Where trainingprograms are set up in an instructor-centered way, the opportunity for devel-opment of self-monitoring skills by course participants might be lost.

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 393

394 Kuchinke

The implication for MT practice is that it appears important to reachagreement over the actual goals of the course and implement appropriateinstructional design and delivery. As this study shows, an instructor-centeredcourse appears to favor feedback seeking from the instructor, and where thisis not desired or desirable, alternative instructional strategies, such as actionlearning, role-play, and simulations might be more appropriate. Wherean instructor-focused strategy is desired, the selection of the instructorbecomes important. A possible alternative course design might involve seniormanagers in the training course and targeted expert feedback from himor her, coupled with activities that favor the development of self-regulatoryskills.

On the theoretical side, this study calls for further research into the rea-sons behind feedback seeking from different sources and the behavioral out-comes associated with this. Pertinent questions include the following: Does theselection of feedback-seeking sources depend on the instructional design of acourse? What instructional methods might encourage one source over another?What are the consequences for learning transfer of seeking feedback from onesource or another? Is there an optimum mix between source of feedback andlater performance?

The second research question addressed the issue of the differences in per-ception between course participants and instructors. The fact that instructorstended to overestimate the frequency of the feedback they provided to courseparticipants indicates a failure to see their own behaviors as their customersdid. Because active and frequent feedback was a design criterion of the course,and certainly a value that was espoused by the instructors, this finding provedvaluable to the instructors. More broadly, it confirms findings from previousFBS research (Greller, 1980) where supervisors are prone to overestimate theirfeedback to employees. Whether this discrepancy led to lower course out-comes was not determined by this study and should be explored in subsequentresearch.

The practical implications of this finding point to the need for instructortraining that fosters awareness of the tendency to overestimate the frequencywith which instructors provide feedback to course participants. It might alsoindicate the need for formative evaluation during the course to ascertainwhether the participants’ needs for feedback are being met.

The research implications of this finding are related to this misperceptionof feedback giving by instructors. Closer examination is required to determineduring what parts of the course feedback frequency is below what course par-ticipants perceive, what instructor and trainee characteristics contribute to themisperception, and what consequences in terms of student learning and trans-fer of training might be associated with it.

The third research question addressed individual-level and instructor-related antecedents of feedback seeking. In contrast to previous research thathad found several individual-level variables influencing FBS, none emerged

with this sample. However, two instructor-related variables—charisma andinspirational motivation—accounted for one-quarter of the variance infeedback seeking. Charismatic instructor behavior was strongly and positivelycorrelated with feedback seeking, suggesting that where course participantshave respect, trust, and confidence in their instructor they also seek feedbackabout learning goals and their progress toward them on a frequent basis.More research is needed to understand more clearly this relationship and themediating variables, but it can be speculated that instructors who convey asense of confidence and mission are able to engage course participants inthe learning process. The relationship between FBS and charisma is likelyto be a reciprocal one: the more feedback participants obtain, the clearerthey might become about the overall mission of the course and vice versa.This dynamic, however, was not tested in this study and requires furtherresearch.

The negative correlation between FBS and inspirational motivation was aninteresting finding and presents a challenge for discussion and interpretation.Inspirational motivation, in all leadership studies, is closely and strongly pos-itively related to charisma (Bass and Avolio, 1995). In a leader-follower rela-tionship, both leader behaviors tend to exert a positive influence on employeesand result in positive outcomes, such as willingness to exert extra effort andsatisfaction with the leader (Bass and Avolio, 1995). Clearly, in this context,where instructors communicated a positive vision of the organization and par-ticipants’ future role as managers, this was associated with a marked decreasein FBS. A possible explanation is that instructors perhaps “overshot the goal”—that is, they formulated so strong a view of the future that course participantswere not motivated to seek feedback about learning goals or their course per-formance. An alternative explanation is that participants disengaged from thecourse because they did not share the instructor’s vision or thought that it wasnot attainable. The agency in which this study was conducted was undergoinginternal restructuring at the time and had come under attack from the publicmedia for poor performance. This had resulted in a substantial amount of cyn-icism among employees that might have affected instructors’ ability to engagecourse participants with a compelling vision of the future and participants’ rolein it. Although this latter explanation was offered by the course instructors asa likely reason for the negative correlation between FBS and inspirational moti-vation, this is at the level of speculation.

The practical implication of this finding is again for instructor training andinstructional delivery. Charismatic instructional behavior appears to be asso-ciated with increased information seeking about learning goals and inquiriesabout one’s performance during the course. Charismatic behavior can to somedegree be learned, and where increased engagement with the course, in theform of increased FBS, is desired, charismatic behavior might lead to it.The study revealed too little information about the relationship between inspi-rational motivation and FBS and possible moderating variables, such as level

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 395

396 Kuchinke

of cynicism in the organization. However, as this study has established, inspi-rational motivation can be associated with decreased information seeking aboutlearning goals and course performance, and instructors should be awareof this.

Research implications from these findings point to the need for moreclearly understanding the relationship between instructor behaviors and FBS.In an experimental design, the cause-and-effect relationships between thesetwo variables might fruitfully be explored. Further, it appears necessary tobroaden the range of individual-level variables that might contribute to FBSto understand better what influences this behavior. Finally, there is a need toexplore moderating variables that might affect the use of leadership behaviorsin the training room and their outcomes.

The final research question addressed the effects of feedback seeking onparticipants’ reaction to the course. Here, the main finding was consistent neg-ative correlations between FBS from the self and the instructor and overall sat-isfaction, intention to transfer, and motivation to learn. Whereas previousstudies (for example, Madzar, 1995) and conceptual work (for example,Vandewalle, 1995) had framed FBS as a positive resource available to employ-ees, this study suggests a compensatory function of FBS. Although the studywas not designed to measure cause-and-effect relationships, the negativecorrelations between reaction measures and FBS suggest that where partici-pants are already satisfied with the course overall, they seek less feedback.Where participants are already intent on transferring what was learned, theyseek less feedback and vice versa. And where participants are already moti-vated to learn more about the topic, they also seek less feedback. FBS thenappears to complement other behaviors, rather than reinforce it.

The practical implication of this finding for instructors is to pay attentionin particular to those participants who seek a lot of feedback because they tendto be less than satisfied with the course overall. Since feedback from the self isimpossible to monitor from the outside, instructors might periodically seekinformation from course participants to assess the level of motivation to settheir own goals and determine their own progress in order to detect those whoare less likely to transfer the learning to their work site.

The implications for research related to this finding include the need tounderstand more clearly the cause-and-effect relationships between FBS andcourse reactions, and this is best done in an experimental setting. Further,the negative correlations between charismatic instructor behavior andparticipant reaction measures require further clarification and carefulinterpretation.

This study is, to this author’s knowledge, the first to investigate the role offeedback seeking in MT settings. Replications and extensions of this lineof investigation are required to build a reliable knowledge base on this topic.Among the more imminent research needs are: (1) replication of this study

with other types of training and in different organizations; (2) replication withtraining that is more student-centered and perhaps might provide more oppor-tunity to seek feedback from sources other than the instructor; and (3) feed-back seeking in applied problem-solving situations, such as experientiallearning and action learning sets with complex task without clear answers andsolutions.

Finally, it is important to recognize the limitations of this study. Amongthem is the post hoc design with its inherent difficulty in identifying relevantvariables and attributing causal relationships. Second, there is the likelihoodof single-method bias associated with using only one method of collectinginformation. Last, the sample was comparatively small and the results mightreflect idiosyncrasies of the particular organization that do not generalize toother organizations.

Appendix: Survey Instrument Questions

In addition to eight standard demographic questions, the instrument containedthe following survey questions with answers on a five-point Likert scale.

Part I. The following questions relate to the training course you justfinished.

1. When looking for information about what you are required to learn in thiscourse, how much information did each of the following sources provide?[Your instructors, your peers, course activities and assignments, your ownthoughts and feelings.]

2. How often did you seek information from each of the following sourcesabout what you were required to learn in this course? [Your instructors,your peers, course activities and assignments, your own thoughts andfeelings.]

3. How useful did you find each of the following sources in obtaining infor-mation about what you were required to learn in this course? [Yourinstructors, your peers, course activities and assignments, your ownthoughts and feelings.]

4. How much information about your course performance did each of thefollowing sources provide? [Your instructors, your peers, course activitiesand assignments, your own thoughts and feelings.]

5. How often did you seek information from each of the following sourcesabout your course performance? [Your instructors, your peers, courseactivities and assignments, your own thoughts and feelings.]

6. How useful did you find each of the following sources in obtaininginformation about your course performance? [Your instructors, yourpeers, course activities and assignments, your own thoughts andfeelings.]

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 397

398 Kuchinke

Part II. The following questions refer to your instructor in this course.Please judge how frequently each statement fits him or her. If an item is irrel-evant, or if you are unsure or do not know the answer, leave it blank.

My instructor . . .

7. Talked about his/her most important values and beliefs.8. Talked optimistically about the future.9. Acted in ways that built my self-respect.

10. Examined critical assumptions to question whether they wereappropriate.

11. Spent time coaching.12. Talked enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.13. Treated me as an individual rather than just a member of the course.14. Sought differing perspectives when solving problems.15. Displayed a sense of confidence.16. Expressed confidence that goals will be achieved.17. Considered me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from

others.18. Got me to look at problems from many different angles.19. Considered the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.20. Helped me to develop my strengths.21. Acted with a sense of authority.

Part III. People have different opinions about their jobs. Please read eachstatement below and select the one that reflects your opinion most clearly.

22. I often read materials related to my work to improve my ability.23. I try to figure out what it takes to prove my ability to others at work.24. I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge.25. I prefer to avoid situations at work where I might perform poorly.26. For me, developing my work abilities is important enough to take risks.27. I would avoid taking on a new task if there were a chance that I would

appear incompetent to others.

Part IV. People react in different ways to ambiguous situations related totheir jobs. Please read each statement below and indicate how well you agreeor disagree with each statement.

28. I function poorly when there is a serious lack of communication in a jobsituation.

29. In a situation in which others monitor me, I feel a great need for clear andexplicit evaluation.

30. If I am uncertain about the responsibility of a particular task, I get veryanxious.

Part V. We’d like to know your reaction to the course you have justparticipated in. Please rate each of the following statements.

31. This course will increase my personal productivity.32. When I leave this course, I cannot wait to find a situation where I can try

what I learned.33. I believe this course will help me in my career.34. It is exciting to think about trying to use my new learning.35. Overall, I am satisfied with this course.36. My expectations for this course have been met.37. I would recommend this course to a friend or colleague.38. The course was relevant for me39. I usually was prepared for the course sessions.40. I worked hard to do well in this course, even in those sections I did not

particularly like.41. Even when the course was not so interesting, I managed to keep working

hard at it.42. I tried hard not to miss any sections of this course.

References

Ang, S., Cummings, L. L., Straub, D. W., & Early, P. C. (1993). The effects of information tech-nology and the perceived mood of the feedback giver on feedback seeking. Information SystemsResearch, 4 (3), 240–261.

Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organiza-tional Dynamics, 25 (2), 24–38.

Ashford, A. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 29 (3), 465–487.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strate-gies of creating information. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use ofthe information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 67–79.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form,rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Bassie, L. J., & Van Buren, M. E. (1998, January). The 1998 ASTD state of the industry report.Training and Development, 23–43.

Bennett, N., Herold, D. M., & Ashford, S. J. (1990). The effects of tolerance for ambiguity onfeedback-seeking behavior. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 343–348.

Bracken, D. W. (1994). Straight talk about multi-rate feedback. Training & Development, 28 (9),44–51.

Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective?Journal of Higher Education, 64 (5), 574—593.

Christoph, R. T., Schoenfeldt Jr., G. A., & Tansky, J. (1998). Overcoming barriers to trainingutilization technology: The influence of self-efficacy factors on multimedia-basedtraining receptiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 9 (1), 25–38.

Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high performing individuals in organizations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (2), 281–292.

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 399

400 Kuchinke

Church, A. H., & Bracken, D. W. (1997). Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback:Special issue editors’ comments on the research and practice of multirater assessment meth-ods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 27 (11), 983–1020.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioralsciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Conover, D. K. (1996). Leadership development. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training and devel-opment handbook (4th ed.; pp. 581–600). New York: McGraw-Hill.

de Bettignies, H. C. (1975). Management development: The international perspective. In B. Taylorand G. L. Lippitt (Eds.), Management development and training handbook (pp. 3–11). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Dunkin, M., & Precians, R. (1992). Award-winning university teachers’ concepts of teaching.Higher Education, 24, 483–502.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,1040–1048.

Goldstein, I. L. (1993). Training in organizations (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Greller, M. M. (1980). Evaluation of feedback sources as a function of role and organizational

level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 24–27.Greller, M. M., & Herold, D. M. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary investigation. Orga-

nizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 244–256.Hanser, L. M., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1978). Work as an information environment. Organization

Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 47–60.Holton, E. F. III, Bates, R., Seyler, D., & Carvalho, M. (1997). Toward a construct validation of a

transfer climate instrument. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 8 (2), 95–113.Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on

behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371.Institute of Personnel and Development. (1999, April). Training and development in Britain 1999

(IDP survey report no. 3). London: Institute of Personnel and Development.Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, J. C. (1985). The dynamics of successful feedback. Performance and

Instruction, 24 (8), 4–6.Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). Workforce education faculty as leaders: Do graduate-level university

instructors exhibit transformational leadership behaviors? Journal of Vocational EducationResearch, 24 (4), 209–238.

Kuchinke, K. P. (2000). Information and feedback seeking in U.S. and British human resourcedevelopment and training settings. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 46–59.

Kuchinke, K. P., Brown, J. M., Anderson, H., & Hobson, J. (1998). Assessing training needs ofmanufacturing employees in rural Minnesota: A model and results. Journal of Industrial TeacherEducation, 36 (1), 79–98.

Madzar, S. (1995). Feedback seeking behavior: A review of the literature and implications forHRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6 (4), 337–349.

Madzar, S. (1996). The effect of perceived leadership style on subordinates’ information seekingbehavior: A transformative and transactional leadership perspective. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Minnesota.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (1995). Training residential supervisors to provide feedback for

maintaining staff teaching skills with people who have several disabilities. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 28, 317–322.

Schoenfeldt, E. L. (1996). Goal setting and feedback as a posttraining strategy to increase thetransfer of training. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 176–178.

Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals’ reactions to performance feed-back in organizations: A control theory perspective. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 2; pp. 81–124). Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Van Dyne, L. (1992). Feedback sources and types in organizational settings: typology and processmodel. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Strategic Management and Organization,Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota-Minneapolis.

Vandewalle, D. (1995). A goal orientation model of feedback seeking and performance. Unpub-lished manuscript, Department of Strategic Management and Organization, Carlson School ofManagement, University of Minnesota-Minneapolis.

Viau, R., & Clark, R. (1987, April). Guidelines from research: Feedback during training. Perfor-mance and Instruction, 6–7.

Walter, G. M. (1996). Corporate practices in management development (Report no. 1158-96-RR).New York: The Conference Board.

Walumbwa, O. F., & Kuchinke, K. P. (1999, March). HRD faculty as leaders: The application ofthe full range leadership theory to graduate level HRD instruction. Paper presented at theAcademy of Human Resource Development conference, Fairfax, VA.

Weinstein, (1993). Design and development of an assessment of readiness for training: TheSTART [Strategic Assessment of Readiness for Training]. In R. A. Swanson (Ed.), Proceedingsof the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, St. Antonio, TX.

K. Peter Kuchinke is an assistant professor in the Department of Human ResourceEducation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

The Role of Feedback in Management Training Settings 401