Exploring the effects of negative supervisory feedback on creativity among research and development personnel: challenge or threat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supervisory feedback to stimulate research and development (R&D) employee creativity is a management issue that concerns scholars and practitioners. However, there are divergences and contradictions regarding whether negative feedback promotes or hinders employee creativity. Integrating the feedback intervention and cognitive appraisal theories, we developed a double-edged sword model for negative supervisory feedback's influence on creativity. We tested the proposed model using a field sample of 513 R&D employees from seven science and technology enterprises. The results indicated that R&D employee challenge and threat appraisal moderated negative supervisory feedback's effect on prevention focus and the distal consequences for creativity. Individuals with high (low) levels of challenge (threat) appraisal have decreased prevention focus, thereby increasing their creativity when receiving negative supervisory feedback. In contrast, individuals with low (high) challenge (threat) appraisal have increased prevention focus, thereby decreasing their creativity when receiving negative supervisory feedback. These findings offer interesting implications for research on negative feedback and stimulation of science and technology R&D employee creativity in organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".