r Academy of Management Journal 2020, Vol. 63, No. 2, 584–612. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1196 DOES NEGATIVE FEEDBACK BENEFIT (OR HARM) RECIPIENT CREATIVITY? THE ROLE OF THE DIRECTION OF FEEDBACK FLOW YEUN JOON KIM University of Cambridge JUNHA KIM Ohio State University Negative feedback alerts recipients to a creativity–standard gap, and thus may offer an opportunity to improve creativity. However, existing theories and empirical evidence are contradictory, with the literature containing evidence of positive, negative, and null relationships between negative feedback and recipient creativity. The goal of our re- search is twofold: first, to organize the contradictory theories under a comprehensive theoretical framework, and, second, to resolve the inconsistency between negative feedback and recipient creativity. Across two studies—a quasi-field experiment and a laboratory experiment—we find that the direction of feedback flow determines the na- ture of the relationship between negative feedback and recipient creativity, via two distinct mechanisms: task processes and meta-processes. Negative feedback increases recipient creativity in the bottom-up feedback flow (from followers to supervisors), be- cause it heightens the recipients’ focus on task processes, whereby the recipients focus on the generation of better task strategies to close the creativity–standard gap. In con- trast, in the top-down (from supervisors to followers) or lateral (between peers) feedback flows, negative feedback heightens the recipients’ focus on meta-processes—a psycho- logical state in which recipients feel threatened by negative feedback—and thus hinders recipient creativity. Employee “creativity”—defined as the production provide other organizational members with negative of ideas that are both novel and useful (Amabile, feedback to create dissatisfaction with the status quo 1983; Oldham & Cummings, 1996)—is a foundation or the current levels of creativity (Ilgen, Fisher, & of organizational success (Anderson, Potocnik,ˇ & Taylor, 1979). Negative feedback highlights problems Zhou, 2014). It allows organizations to continually with current creativity, generating awareness of a gap produce innovative products and keep them com- between current creativity and the standards. Once petitive in the market. Accordingly, understanding the gap is recognized, employees may be motivated to how to improve employee creativity has been a close the gap by improving their current creativity. longstanding preoccupation of management scholars However, this argument has received limited em- (e.g., George, 2007; Perry-Smith, 2006). Since crea- pirical support. In fact, the evidence is completely tivity involves a departure from the current ways of equivocal. Some scholars suggest that negative feed- thinking and behaving, employees often attempt to back has no direct effect on recipient creativity (Fodor & Carver, 2000; George & Zhou, 2001), while We wish to thank our editor Jill Perry-Smith and three others suggest that negative feedback inhibits it anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive (Ilies & Judge, 2005; Van Dijk & Kluger, 2011; Zhou, feedback. We also thank Angelo DeNisi, Matthew Fein- 1998). We know of only three studies (Fang, Kim, & berg, Soo Min Toh, Jacob Hirsh, Geoffrey Leonardelli, Milliken, 2014; Ford & Gioia, 2000; Vuori & Huy, Andrew Hayes, and Sojin Park for their constructive 2015) that provide evidence to support that negative feedback. Yeun Joon Kim led the entire process of pub- feedback might be positively associated with recipi- lishing this article. Junha Kim mainly contributed to liter- ature review and Study 2. Correspondence concerning this ent creativity. Such perplexing empirical evidence article should be addressed to Yeun Joon Kim, Judge indicates that a basic question remains unanswered: Business School, University of Cambridge. e-mail: y.kim@ “How and why does negative feedback influence jbs.cam.ac.uk. creativity?” 584 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2020 Kim and Kim 585 To answer this question, the present research mindsets (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; draws upon feedback intervention theory (Kluger & Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Researchers have found that DeNisi, 1996) to derive a parsimonious and coherent power asymmetry leads the powerful (e.g., supervisors) theoretical account of the link between negative to be approach oriented (vs. inhibition oriented) toward feedback and creativity. Feedback intervention the- negative evaluations by the powerless (e.g., followers), ory argues that negative feedback makes feedback while the powerless become inhibited by negative recipients aware of the gap between their current level evaluations by the powerful (Keltner et al., 2003). In of creativity and the standards (the “creativity– addition, the powerful tend to maintain high levels of standard gap”) and that such awareness leads the re- task focus in the face of task-related criticisms and care cipients to engage in one of two functionally opposite less about their social relationships with feedback mechanisms in response to the negative feedback. senders, whereas the powerless behave in an op- The first mechanism concerns “task processes,” posite way (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, whereby recipients make constructive improvements & Liljenquist, 2008; Smith, Jostmann, Galinsky, & by engaging in the process of generating better task Van Dijk, 2008; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002). strategies. They identify problems with their current Based on these findings, we expect that negative behavior in creativity tasks, design more useful and feedback increases recipient creativity via task novel strategies for their creativity tasks, and im- processes in the bottom-up feedback flow and de- plement those strategies. The second mechanism creases recipient creativity via meta-processes in involves “meta-processes,” and refers to the psy- the top-down feedback flow. chological state in which recipients feel threatened The relationship between the feedback sender and by negative feedback. Feedback recipients who en- the recipient in the lateral feedback flow is qualita- gage in meta-processes feel that their ego, or self- tively different from that in the bottom-up and top- concept, is threatened by the negative feedback, down feedback flows. A peer relationship does not deterring them from experimentations and creative involve differential social power. Instead, this rela- attempts to improve their creativity. Despite its tionship is characterized by rivalry, or competition, usefulness in illustrating why negative feedback is given that organizational resources (e.g., promotions inconsistently related to recipient creativity, a no- and pay increases) are limited. Thus, employees table limitation of feedback intervention theory is strive to stand out among their peers and become that it does not elaborate on when negative feedback increasingly concerned about the possibility of lag- recipients attend to either of the two processes. ging behind them (Bandura, 1977; DeNisi, Randolph, The main objectives of this paper are to organize & Blencoe, 1983; Festinger, 1962). Peer competition the inconsistent theories and empirical findings sometimes produces positive organizational out- under the two mechanisms—task processes and comes (for a review, see Birkinshaw, 2001). How- meta-processes—and to resolve the inconsistency ever, regarding negative feedback between peers, between negative feedback and recipient creativity evidence has shown that the competitive and non- by introducing an important, but neglected, bound- hierarchical nature of a peer relationship leads em- ary condition: the direction of feedback flow. The ployees to interpret lateral negative feedback as an direction of these flows include bottom up (i.e., from attempt to downplay their ability and an attack on followers to supervisors), top down (i.e., from su- their self-esteem. For this reason, those who receive pervisors to followers), and lateral (i.e., from peers to lateral negative feedback have reported that they feel peers). We suggest that, in the bottom-up feedback threatened, distracted, and discouraged (Brett & flow, negative feedback increases recipient creativ- Atwater, 2001; DeNisi et al., 1983; Druskat & Wolff, ity through task processes, whereas, in the top-down 1999; Rogers & Feller, 2016). That is, negative feed- and lateral feedback flows, negative feedback de- back from peers distracts recipients from creativity creases recipient creativity through meta-processes. tasks—low task processes—and causes them to pay In organizations, supervisors have asymmetric con- greater attention to meta-processes, which reduces trol over valuable organizational resources, such as their creativity. monetary rewards, promotions, training opportuni- The current research tests these hypotheses in two ties, and budgets and materials for completing tasks. studies: Study 1 is a quasi-field experiment at a Ko- Followers do not have such control, and their super- rean company and Study 2 is a laboratory experi- visors determine their access to organizational re- ment at a large North American university. By sources. This power asymmetry often causes these two demonstrating consistent support for our hypotheses parties