📄 social_science

How peers’ feedback-seeking behavior influences employee’s daily performance: The contingent role of job control

Drawing on an experience-sampling study of 78 employees, this paper reveals that peers' feedback-seeking behavior enhances focal employees' daily task performance by boosting perceived competence, particularly when job control is low.

Original authors: Wei Zhang, Yi Qu, Jing Qian

Published 2026-07-09

📖 4 min read☕ Coffee break read

CC BY 4.0

Original authors: Wei Zhang, Yi Qu, Jing Qian

Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ✨ This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer

The Big Picture: The "Feedback Coach" Effect

Imagine you are playing a team sport, like basketball. Usually, we think about how good it feels to ask your teammates for advice on how to shoot better. But this study flips the script. It asks: What happens to the person answering the question?

The researchers wanted to know: If a coworker asks you, "Hey, how am I doing on this project?" does that make you feel more capable and perform better at your own job?

The Main Characters

The Seeker: The coworker asking for feedback.
The Source (You): The coworker answering the question.
The "Steering Wheel" (Job Control): How much freedom you have to decide when and how you do your work.

The Story of the Study

The researchers followed 78 employees for 10 days. Every afternoon and evening, these employees filled out a quick survey about what happened that day. They tracked three things:

Did a coworker ask them for feedback today?
Did they feel more "capable" or "competent" that day?
How well did they do their actual tasks that day?

The Findings: Three Key Lessons

1. Being Asked is a Compliment (The "Spotlight" Effect)

The Finding: When a coworker asks you for feedback, it boosts your feeling of competence.
The Analogy: Think of being asked for feedback like someone asking you to be the referee in a game. When someone chooses you to judge their performance, it sends a silent message: "You know the rules. You are an expert. We trust your judgment."
This "spotlight" makes you feel more confident in your own skills. And when you feel confident, you tend to play your game (do your work) better.

2. Confidence Fuels Performance

The Finding: That boost in feeling "capable" directly leads to better daily task performance.
The Analogy: Imagine your brain is a car engine. Feeling competent is like filling the tank with premium fuel. When the tank is full, the car runs smoother, faster, and more efficiently. The study found that the "premium fuel" of feeling trusted by a peer helps you get more done that day.

3. The Surprising Twist: Too Much Freedom Can Be a Problem

The Finding: This is the most interesting part. The researchers expected that having a lot of control over your schedule (Job Control) would help you handle these feedback requests better. They were wrong.
They found that the "confidence boost" from being asked for feedback was actually stronger when you had less control over your job, and weaker when you had more control.

The Analogy: The "Emergency vs. Routine" Scenario

Low Job Control (The Tight Schedule): Imagine you are a chef in a busy kitchen with a strict schedule. If a sous-chef suddenly asks, "Chef, how is my soup?" you have to stop, think, and answer. Because you are busy and constrained, this interruption feels significant. It stands out. You think, "Wow, they really need my specific expertise right now." This makes you feel very capable.
High Job Control (The Open Schedule): Now imagine you are a freelancer who can work whenever you want. If a client asks, "How's my project going?" you can answer it anytime. Because you have so much freedom, the request feels routine. It's just another item on a long to-do list. It doesn't feel like a special recognition of your skills, so it doesn't boost your confidence as much.

In short: When you are busy and constrained, being asked for help feels like a special honor. When you have total freedom, it feels like just another task.

Summary

Being asked for feedback makes you feel like an expert.
Feeling like an expert makes you work better.
Having total control over your time might actually make these moments feel less special, reducing the confidence boost.

The paper suggests that while having control is generally good, it can sometimes "dilute" the special feeling of being needed by a peer. Organizations should realize that peer-to-peer feedback isn't just about the person asking; it's a powerful tool to make the person answering feel valued and effective.

Technical Summary: Peers' Feedback-Seeking Behavior and Employee Daily Performance

Problem Statement
Existing literature on feedback-seeking behavior (FSB) has predominantly adopted a "seeker-centered" perspective, focusing on how individuals benefit from actively seeking information. While recent scholarship has begun to explore the impact of FSB on the feedback source (the responder), this research has largely remained within the traditional leader-follower paradigm. Consequently, there is a significant gap in understanding how peers' FSB influences the daily work experiences and performance of the focal employee acting as the feedback source. Furthermore, the mechanisms through which these lateral interactions affect performance, and the contextual boundaries (such as job control) that moderate these effects, remain underexplored.

Methodology
To address these gaps, the authors employed an experience-sampling method (ESM) to capture daily fluctuations in employee experiences.

Participants: The study utilized a snowball sampling method via university alumni networks in China, resulting in a final sample of 78 full-time employees.
Data Collection: Over a ten-workday period, participants completed two daily surveys: an afternoon survey (measuring peers' FSB and perceived competence) and an evening survey (measuring task performance). This yielded 706 matched daily observations.
Measures:
- Peers' FSB: Measured by the frequency of responding to colleagues' requests for feedback (3 items).
- Perceived Competence: Assessed using an 8-item scale adapted from general self-efficacy measures.
- Task Performance: Evaluated via 4 items regarding the fulfillment of job responsibilities.
- Job Control: A between-person measure using a 10-item scale to assess autonomy over work scheduling and methods.
Analysis: The authors utilized multilevel path analysis (Mplus 8.3) to account for the nested nature of the data (days within individuals). They tested within-person indirect effects and cross-level moderating effects, controlling for demographic variables and the day of the study.

Key Results
The analysis supported a theoretical framework linking peers' FSB to daily task performance via perceived competence, moderated by job control.

Direct and Mediated Effects: Peers' FSB was positively related to the focal employee's perceived competence ( $B = .12, p < .001$ ). In turn, perceived competence was positively related to daily task performance ( $B = .32, p < .001$ ). The indirect effect of peers' FSB on task performance through perceived competence was significant (95% CI [.016, .066]), supporting the mediation hypothesis.
Moderating Role of Job Control: Contrary to the hypothesis that high job control would strengthen the benefits of challenge demands, the study found a negative cross-level interaction ( $B = -.07, p < .05$ $B = - .07, p < .05$ ).
- Low Job Control: The positive relationship between peers' FSB and perceived competence was significant and stronger when job control was low.
- High Job Control: The relationship between peers' FSB and perceived competence was not significant when job control was high.
- This suggests that high levels of autonomy may render the challenge of responding to peers' feedback less distinctive or less "costly," thereby diminishing its potential to enhance perceived competence.

Key Contributions
The paper claims three primary theoretical contributions:

Extension of FSB Literature: By shifting from a seeker-centered to a source-centered perspective in lateral relationships, the study demonstrates that being sought for feedback acts as a signal of recognition, enhancing the source's perceived competence and subsequent performance. This extends the feedback paradigm beyond leader-follower dynamics.
Advancement of the Job-Demand-Control (JDC) Model: The research clarifies the paradoxical role of job control. While JDC posits control as a buffer against demands, this study reveals that in the context of challenge demands (peers' FSB), high job control can weaken the positive link between the demand and competence perception. This challenges the assumption that high control is invariably beneficial for all types of job demands.
Insight into Daily Task Performance: The study identifies peers' FSB as a critical, yet understudied, interpersonal factor that drives daily task performance, adding to the literature on how daily interactions shape work outcomes.

Significance and Implications
The authors argue that their findings offer a more complete understanding of the feedback ecosystem, highlighting that responding to peers is not merely a burden but a source of competence and performance enhancement. Practically, the study suggests that organizations should foster environments encouraging peer feedback exchanges. However, it also cautions that job control is not a universal "good"; excessive autonomy may dilute the motivational benefits of handling challenging interpersonal demands. Managers are advised to align the level of autonomy with the nature of job demands to maximize employee engagement and competence development.

Limitations
The authors modestly note limitations, including the focus on general feedback frequency rather than content (positive vs. negative), which may differentially impact competence. Additionally, the study examined only job control as a moderator, leaving open the possibility of three-way interactions involving other individual differences (e.g., locus of control) for future investigation.