An investigation of performance feedback as a management practice: results from a synthesis of empirical evidence and a field experiment

This dissertation investigates performance feedback as a managerial practice by integrating insights from a systematic synthesis of empirical literature and evidence from a field experiment. Although performance feedback is a central component of managerial control systems and employee development, prior studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding its effects on individual and organizational performance. This research seeks to resolve these inconsistencies by examining how the amount, content, and format of feedback influence behavioral and psychological outcomes. The work unfolds across three main studies. The first paper conducts a systematic review of performance feedback research across the disciplines of accounting, management, and organizational behavior. It synthesizes findings from over two decades of empirical evidence to identify key theoretical frameworks, such as goal-setting theory, feedback intervention theory, and social comparison theory. The review categorizes feedback designs according to informational richness, comparison focus, and delivery mechanisms, revealing that overly detailed or ambiguous feedback can dilute its effectiveness. It concludes that future research should examine feedback’s cognitive and motivational pathways using field-based evidence to improve external validity. The second paper addresses this call by presenting a field experiment that tests how different feedback designs influence employee performance in a real-work environment. Conducted in a high-performance operational setting, the experiment manipulates feedback conditions along two dimensions: information quantity and comparative framing. The results demonstrate that simplified, comparative feedback—focusing on relative ranks rather than extensive performance metrics—leads to significantly higher task performance. These findings challenge the conventional assumption that more information necessarily enhances learning and highlight the motivational role of social comparison cues in shaping effort allocation. The third paper explores the psychological effects of feedback provision, focusing on stress and well-being. Using an experimental design, it investigates whether ranking-based feedback—often criticized for potential stress induction—can, under certain conditions, reduce stress by clarifying performance expectations and enhancing perceived control. The results suggest that when ranks are framed constructively and accompanied by clear improvement goals, feedback reduces ambiguity-induced anxiety and supports better self-regulation. However, individual differences in feedback orientation moderate these effects, underscoring the need for tailored feedback strategies. The concluding chapter integrates these findings to provide a holistic view of performance feedback as both an informational and motivational mechanism. The dissertation contributes to theory by reconciling disparate perspectives across disciplines and advancing a contingency framework that links feedback design elements with cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Practically, it offers managers actionable guidance: feedback systems should prioritize clarity, comparative relevance, and goal alignment over informational overload. Overall, the dissertation demonstrates that less information and more meaningful comparison can yield better performance outcomes while mitigating stress. By combining meta-level synthesis and field experimentation, this research bridges the gap between theory and practice, contributing a nuanced understanding of how performance feedback functions as a strategic management tool in complex organizational contexts.