Shame: Does It Fit in the Workplace? Examining Supervisor Negative Feedback Effect on Task Performance

Figures & data

Figure 1 Conceptual framework.

Table 1 Sample Characteristics

Demographic Variables	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	164	63.6
Female	94	36.4
Age
25–29	18	7
30–35	150	58.1
36–40	48	18.6
40 and above	42	16.3
Experience
1–5	127	49.22
6–10	62	24.03
11–15	42	16.27
15 and above	27	10.46
Qualification
HSSC	12	4.7
Bachelor’s	27	10.5
Master’s	203	78.7
PhD	16	6.2

Table 2 Mean, SD, Correlations, HTMT and Reliability (N= 258)

Variables	Mean	SD	HTMT			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.Gender	1.36	0.482				–
2.Age	2.44	0.845				0.062
3.Education	2.86	0.579				0.010	0.091
4.Experience	2.86	0.579				0.034	0.035	0.035
5.SNF	3.70	0.908	–			0.050	0.039	0.090	0.080	(0.78)
6.TP	3.89	0.725	0.76	–		0.069	0.037	−0.002	0.058	0.404**	(0.81)
7.SE	3.93	0.717	0.72	0.67	–	0.032	0.072	0.057	0.021	0.391**	0.324**	(0.77)
8.SHAME	3.84	0.678	0.69	0.71	0.75	0.069	0.007	−0.018	0.002	0.331**	0.446**	0.415**	(0.82)

Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The alphas value are in the parentheses. Bold values represents reliabilities of the variables.

Abbreviations: HTMT, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations; SNF, supervisor negative feedback; TP, task performance; SE, self-esteem.

Table 3 Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (N=258)

Model	X^2	df	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR
Hypothesized four-factor model	3274	1247	0.90	0.91	0.03	0.04
Three-factor model:	7490	4252	0.74	0.83	0.28	0.36
Two-factor model:	5356	3277	0.63	0.66	0.37	0.57
One-factor model: SNF, TP, SE and SHAME	4347	2275	0.42	0.52	0.56	0.69

Note: X² = normal-theory weighted least-squares Chi-square.

Abbreviations: df, degrees of freedom; TLI, Tucker–Lewis fit index; CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root-mean-square error of approximation; SRMR, standardized root-mean-square residual.

Table 4 Items Loadings

Items	CR	AVE	Loadings
Supervisor negative feedback	0.85	0.6
1			0.78
2			0.76
3			0.82
4			0.75
Shame	0.81	0.58
1			0.81
2			0.78
3			0.71
Self-esteem	0.8	0.63
1			0.86
2			0.81
3			0.84
4			0.8
5			0.74
6			0.81
7			0.79
8			0.83
9			0.76
10			0.78
11			0.84
Task performance	0.75	0.62
1			0.82
2			0.84
3			0.87
4			0.76
5			0.88

Table 5 Path Analysis (Direct Path’s)

Hypotheses	R^2	β	t-Test	p	Decision
HI	0.646	0.642	21.61	0.000	64% variation in TP due to SNF
H2	0.075	0.257	4.564	0.000	7.5% variation in Shame due to SNF
H3	0.337	0.494	11.39	0.000	34% variation in TP due to Shame

Note: Hypotheses tested at a confidence interval of 95%.

Abbreviations: R², coefficient of determination; β, the beta coefficient; p, significance value.

Table 6 Mediation Analysis

	β	SE	t	P	95% CI
					LL	UL
Step 1
Constant	0.5075	0.118	4.29	0	0.2751	0.74
SNF	0.5569	0.0241	23.12	0	0.5095	0.6043
Shame	0.3313	0.0257	12.9	0	0.2807	0.3819
	β	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI	Decision
Step 2
Mediation path	0.1067	0.0233	0.0614	0.1527	Partial mediation

Note: Hypotheses tested at a confidence interval of 95%.

Abbreviations: S.E, standard error; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; t, t-test; p, significance value; SE, standard error; β, the beta coefficient; CI, confidence interval.

Table 7 Moderation Analysis

Variables	NSF (X)		Self-Esteem (W)		TP (Y)
	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
					LL	UL
Constant	−0.9373	0.3881	−2.4151	0.0164	−1.7016	−0.173
SNFMEAN	0.8163	0.1137	7.1779	0	0.5924	1.0403
SEMEAN	0.766	0.0987	7.7628	0	0.5717	0.9604
SNF*SHAME	−0.0813	0.0279	−2.9105	0.0039	−0.1363	−0.0263
HP (−1 SD)	0.438	0.0279	15.6893	0	0.383	0.493
HP (+1 SD)	0.5546	0.0304	18.2564	0	0.4948	0.6144
R^2						0.84***
ΔR^2						0.0050*

Notes: ***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Abbreviations: S.E, standard error; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; t, t-test; p, significance value; SE, standard error; β, the beta coefficient; CI, confidence interval; NSF: negative supervisor feedback; TP: task performance; SE: self-esteem; (−1SD), −1 standard deviation; (+1SD), +1 standard deviation.

Figure 2 The moderating role of self-esteem between supervisor negative feedback and task performance.