Effectiveness or efficiency: the impact of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior

Abstract

Background

In today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) environment, organizations expect employees to change from passively accepting task requests to actively pursuing improvement. Feedback-seeking behavior has gained widespread attention. The study aims to adopt Conservation of Resources Theory to examine the influence mechanism and boundary condition of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior.

Methods

To investigate the mediating role of work rumination and the moderating role of competitive climate on the relationship between performance pressure, time pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior, data were collected from 410 Chinese employees through a two-wave survey distributed via WJX.cn. Statistical analyses were performed with Spss 26, Amos 26 and Process 4.0.

Results

The findings indicate that work rumination mediates the relationship between performance pressure, time pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior. The impact of performance pressure is stronger than that of time pressure. Competitive climate positively moderates the indirect influence of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination.

Conclusion

The study deepens the understanding of how diverse workplace stressors shape employees’ feedback-seeking behavior. Particularly in competitive work environments, organizations can foster a culture of healthy competition by implementing well-designed performance requirements and reasonable time expectations, thereby motivating employees to transform work pressures into proactive feedback-seeking for professional growth.

Introduction

In the information age, technological advances and innovations continue to reshape the social and economic landscape. Organizations are gaining new growth opportunities while also facing increasing internal and external competition [1, 2]. Consequently, companies’ expectations of their employees have evolved from passively following instructions to proactively seeking improvements [3]. The traditional top-down feedback model is no longer sufficient to meet employees’ need for self-reinforcement, as it often leads to information asymmetry and reduced work ethic. Employees can play an active role in acquiring and seeking valuable information within the organization [4]. As a proactive behavior aimed at addressing personal and organizational development needs, feedback-seeking behavior has garnered considerable attention [5].

Existing research has indicated that seeking feedback can help employees identify their shortcomings and learn from the experience and knowledge of others. It contributes to personal learning and growth, which also improves their ability to adapt to change [4]. Seeking feedback can facilitate communication and cooperation between employees, their superiors and coworkers. Employees can use feedback to create a shared understanding with colleagues, which is the foundation of effective collaboration and superior performance [6, 7]. By engaging in effective communication with supervisors, employees can identify development needs and pursue growth opportunities, leading to targeted performance improvement and increased productivity [8, 9]. However, further research is necessary to clarify how to effectively stimulate employees’ feedback-seeking behavior within the context of rapidly evolving information technology. As employees are required to continuously learn and enhance their skills to adapt to new work demands, it becomes crucial to explore the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions that influence employee feedback-seeking behavior.

In the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous(VUCA)environment, both organizations and employees face significant challenges. To maximize organizational effectiveness, companies often place higher demands on their employees to adapt to rapidly changing job requirements and technological advancements [2]. Managers expect their subordinates to perform faster and better to achieve work goals. Performance pressure and time pressure become the main pressures faced by employees [10, 11]. To survive in the competition, employees continue to pay attention to and reflect on their work during non-working hours [12]. Work rumination promotes deeper thinking about work tasks and exploration of solutions, but it can also exacerbate employees’ perceived stress, leading to mental internalization and anxiety [13]. According to Conservation of Resources Theory, the loss or potential loss of resources threatens an individual’s well-being and mental health. People will adopt strategies to prevent further loss of resources and strive to acquire new resources [14]. Especially in stressful situations, individuals will use existing resources to acquire new resources to minimize the net loss of resources. Performance and time pressures can make employees can’t stop thinking about work tasks, even after they’ve left the office [15]. Depleted cognitive and affective resources need to be replenished urgently. Individuals can proactively confirm the correctness and appropriateness of their current behavior by obtaining valuable information about performance and development. Feedback seeking reflects employees’ efforts to proactively change the status quo and obtain resource replenishment after continuous reflection on their work [16]. Performance pressure and time pressure can promote employee feedback-seeking behaviors by increasing their work rumination. This impact is more pronounced in highly competitive environments. The competitive climate within an organization often stems from comparisons within employees [17]. To perform better and be recognized by their leaders, employees need to strive to prove their strengths and surpass others [18]. As a challenging opportunity, employees may regard perceived competition as a threat to their personal image and goal achievement [19]. It will intensify their perceived resource consumption when completing work tasks according to performance and time requirements. They mayspend more time and energy reflecting on their work and will be more proactive in obtaining feedback from superiors and colleagues to ensure task completion.

In line with Conservation of Resources Theory, the study aims to investigate the influence mechanism and boundary condition of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior. The mediating role of work rumination and the moderating role of competitive climate were verified through a two-wave survey of 410 employees in Chinese companies. Meanwhile, this study also compared the impact intensity of performance pressure and time pressure, with the expectation that it can help corporate managers to promote employee feedback-seeking behavior more effectively. The study makes several possible contributions. Drawing on Conservation of Resources Theory, it proposes work rumination as a mediating mechanism through which performance pressure and time pressure influence employee feedback-seeking behavior. It aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the formation process of employee feedback-seeking behavior. By comparing the impacts of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior, it clarifieds the distinct roles of different stressors, which is an empirical supplement to existing stress studies. The study also validates the moderating effect of competitive climate. The finding can provide valuable insights into the influence of work environments on employees’ behaviors and offer guidance for organizations to foster a positive competitive climate that promotes employee feedback seeking.

Theory and hypotheses

Conservation of Resources Theory indicate that individuals experience stress when they lose resources, perceive the potential loss of resources, or invest resources without receiving the anticipated returns [20]. Once stress is activated, if an individual cannot effectively prevent resource depletion or lacks timely opportunities for replenishment, resources will accelerate their loss, ultimately falling into a spiral of loss [20, 21]. Conversely, abundant resources provide individuals with more opportunities to acquire new resources through strategic investment. This process builds up their resource stock and promotes continued growth, which forms a gain spiral [22]. Advances in organizational behavior research have led to COR theory being applied to a wider range of topics. It has offered valuable insights in empirical studies on organization-member relationships [23, 24], member-member relationships [25], work engagement [26], employee well-being [27], and leadership effectiveness [28].

In highly competitive environments, employees frequently experience anxiety due to the challenges of performance improvement and time pressure [29]. Even during non-work hours, they often ruminate on work-related issues [30, 31]. Work rumination consumes substantial resources, driving employees to urgently seek ways to replenish their depleted resources [32]. From the perspective of Conservation of Resources Theory, employees can mitigate the risk of further psychological resource depletion caused by work rumination through seeking information or social support from supervisors or colleagues, thereby promoting the replenishment of both work and psychological resources [33]. Consequently, feedback-seeking behavior reflects employees’ proactive efforts to alter their current situation and secure resource replenishment after reflecting on their work [34]. The study aims to examine the mediating role of work rumination within the framework of Conservation of Resources Theory and provide empirical support for the existing understanding of the mechanisms underlying employees’ feedback-seeking behavior.

Performance pressure and time pressure

With increased competition, employees often face growing pressure to perform. Employees who meet performance requirements usually obtain or maintain salary and position, while those who do not meet the requirements are often in a disadvantageous situation (such as salary reduction, demotion) [35]. Performance pressure arises from the threat to potential benefits due to the “linkage” of performance to results [11]. Moderate performance pressure can stimulate employees’ potential, enable them to work harder to complete tasks, achieve the best interests of both individuals and the organization [36]. When employees are sure that their work performance will be evaluated and rewarded, they are more willing to put in more effort with high enthusiasm and commitment [37]. However, when performance pressure is too high, especially when it exceeds the tolerance of employees, employees will become anxious, experience self-depletion, and even threaten their mental health [38].

Time pressure is generated when an employee is asked to complete a job or task assigned by a supervisor within a specified time period [10]. It reflects an individual’s subjective perception of not being able to complete work tasks within the available time. With the rapid development of technology and the increasing market competition, employees need to cope with various tasks at a fast pace. Completing related tasks under limited time requirements is a normal job acquirement [11]. Time pressure has also become one of the most common work pressures faced by employees. Current research indicates that time pressure has a double-edged sword effect [39, 40]. Time pressure will continue to consume employees’ cognitive and emotional resources, such as sacrificing leisure time to work overtime. When these depleted resources are not replenished in a timely manner, employees will experience exhaustion [41]. Employees may develop a negative view on the organization and work consequently, which reduces their job satisfaction and creativity. Time pressure can even trigger lower employee engagement and more frequent resignations [42]. However, appropriate time pressure can also can also motivate individuals. By suppressing procrastination and improving themselves, employees can complete their work tasks more proactively and effectively [43, 44].

The mediating role of work rumination

Changes in the organizational environment are bringing greater work intensity and a faster pace. Employees perceive higher pressure. They are often preoccupied with work and continue to think about work after work [12]. This state of repeatedly thinking about work-related issues outside of work is known as work rumination [45]. Most studies focus on emphasizing the negative impact of work rumination, especially its hindering effect on the recovery of individual work resources. Work rumination can negatively impact employees’ work resumption, well-being, and sleep [46, 47]. Reducing the allocation of cognitive resources to work during non-work time has been identified as a key aspect of psychological detachment [45]. Nevertheless, engaging in work-related thoughts outside working hours can also facilitate employees’ integration of knowledge and experience [45], potentially leading to solutions for work-related challenges [48, 49]. Furthermore, positive reflection on problem-solving serves as a psychological recovery mechanism that helps rebuild personal resources [30]. Consequently, work rumination has a dual nature, with both positive and negative effects often coexisting [50].

According to the Conservation of Resources Theory, the loss or potential threat of resource depletion poses a significant risk to individuals’ happiness and mental health. To mitigate such risks, people tend to adopt strategies aimed at preventing further resource loss while striving to acquire new resources [51]. Performance pressure and time pressure constrain employees to engage with work-related information during non-working hours [52], thereby imposing psychological burdens, depleting their cognitive and emotional resources, and negatively impacting their work-related emotional well-being [53]. Such rumination consumes substantial resources. Employees who experience anxiety from recurring work thoughts may turn to supervisors or colleagues for information and support. It can help replenishes their depleted cognitive and psychological resources, mitigating the risk of exhaustion caused by rumination [34]. Consequently, feedback-seeking behavior reflects employees’ proactive efforts to adapt to and improve their current situation by obtaining necessary resources after engaging in continuous reflection on their work [34].

In line with Conservation of Resources Theory, the acquisition of resources is associated with positive psychological experiences, whereas the loss or potential threat of resource depletion is linked to negative psychological experiences [20]. Performance pressure threatens the well-being of employees [11]. They may be concerned that failing to meet performance targets could result in criticism, disciplinary action, or job loss [18]. To fulfill performance expectations, employees may need to allocate additional cognitive, psychological, and physical resources [54]. They are more likely to extend their reflection on work to non-working hours, and even complete some work tasks at home. Performance pressure not only induces work rumination in employees but also elevates their psychophysiological arousal [15, 55]. Work rumination consumes cognitive and psychological resources. When employees perceive a threat to their resources, they focus more on the challenges of improving performance. To mitigate this risk, they may invest additional time and effort in seeking information or social support from supervisors or colleagues, thereby replenishing work-related and psychological resources [56]. It helps reduce the likelihood of further psychological resource depletion caused by prolonged work rumination. Performance pressure will promote employee feedback-seeking behavior by increasing their work rumination. Hypothesis 1 is proposed:

• Hypothesis 1 Work rumination mediates the relationship between performance pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior.

When employees do not have enough time to complete multiple work tasks, they will have strong time pressure [57]. Time pressure imposes a significant burden on work behavior, as it diverts attention and depletes critical cognitive resources within the work context [58]. When facing time pressure, employees may need to invest energy to meet specific deadlines, and also bear the worry of not completing tasks on time [59]. It will result in them blurring the boundaries between work and home [60]. Employees may worry and reflect on their work even during non-working hours. Their work rumination will greatly increase [13]. Conservation of Resources Theory indicates that under stressful situations, individuals tend to acquire, build, and maintain their own resources (such as knowledge, time) to avoid losses [20]. Time is a resource that employees must use in their work. Reflective thinking during non-working hours, as a high work demand, contributes to the depletion of individuals’ time, energy, and emotional resources [41, 61]. In the face of limited work resources, individuals strive to fulfill their basic psychological needs and mitigate environmental uncertainty by seeking feedback from their supervisors regarding their current work performance, thereby minimizing the risk of miscommunication. Additionally, they are more likely to engage in interactions with colleagues and gather new information to enhance their ability to meet task-related time constraints effectively [33].Time pressure will promote employee feedback-seeking behavior by increasing their work rumination. Hypothesis 2 is proposed:

• Hypothesis 2 Work rumination mediates the relationship between time pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior.

The moderation role of competitive climate

Competitive climate is a shared perception among employees about the intensity of competition within an organization or team in terms of rewards, status, and power [62]. When employees’ promotion, retention, and compensation rely heavily on comparisons with others, they will perceive a fierce competitive climate [62]. Accordingly, competitive climate reflects the stressful organizational or team climate that employees perceive when comparing themselves with others [17]. A competitive climate signals the urgency of change in turbulent times, driving employees to take proactive and creative action to outperform peers and adapt to uncertainty [63]. According to Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, a competitive climate motivates employees to allocate their resources more effectively in pursuit of personal goals and competitive advantages. This strategic resource optimization, in turn, contributes to improved organizational performance [64]. However, teams and organizations inevitably operate under constraints of limited time, energy, and financial resources. As competition escalates, the availability of these resources becomes increasingly scarce, which may induce psychological insecurity among employees and prompt them to actively monitor their standing within highly competitive organizational contexts [65].

Within a competitive organization facing limited resources, individuals often assess through social comparisons whether they are missing out on resources that others have gained [29]. They seek to reduce environmentally induced uncertainty, achieve outstanding performance and gain leader recognition [18]. Employees may experience anxiety about potentially missing out on valuable career opportunities when they are either away from work or disconnected from it. Job pressure keeps employees thinking about their work repeatedly even after work hours [30]. By reviewing and evaluating previous work, they are more likely to engage in frequent information exchange with team members and participate in knowledge sharing [66, 67]. As indicated in Conservation of Resources Theory, individuals tend to actively construct and sustain their existing resource pools as a strategy to mitigate potential future resource depletion [46]. Work rumination means that individuals will still think about and worry about work-related issues during non-work hours [12]. Rumination can take up significant resources. Employees may reduce socialization due to emotional burden, which can lead to social avoidance and interpersonal tension [46]. Especially in a highly competitive climate, employees need to obtain information resources and interpersonal support from both team members and organizations to gain comparative advantages [68]. They must actively work to change the status quo, rather than just passively adapting to their environment. The cognitive and affective resources depleted by rumination need to be urgently replenished to ensure the completion of subsequent tasks. Compared with a low competition climate, a highly competitive climate strengthens the impact of work rumination on employee feedback-seeking behavior. Hypothesis 3 is proposed:

• Hypothesis 3 Competitive climate positively moderates the relationship between work rumination and feedback-seeking behavior.

Increasingly unpredictable work environments have led to growing scarcity of valuable resources in organizations. The heightened competition subsequently creates more intense pressure for employees in their career advancement [69]. Their perceived stress from work assignments, goals, appraisals, and time constraints is intensified by the need to outperform others in both productivity and innovation [70]. Performance stress and time pressure are the most common sources of stress in the workplace, and their effects often extend from working hours to non-working hours [13]. When faced with a highly competitive environment, many employees are forced to sacrifice their leisure time to complete tasks, and even continue to think about work-related matters at home [31]. Such depletion of cognitive and emotional resources increases employees’ anxiety and motivates them to seek change [32]. As indicated in Conservation of Resources Theory, in stressful situations, individuals will use existing resources to acquire new resources to minimize the net loss of resources. Meanwhile, individuals will actively construct and maintain their current resource reserves to cope with possible resource loss in the future [46]. A highly competitive climate reinforces the effects of pressures on employees’ perceptions and behaviors. They will spend more time thinking about how to get the job done, even blurring the lines between work and family life. Their efforts to gain a competitive edge will extend beyond working hours [17]. When employees’ existing resources are depleted, or potential resources face loss, they will strive to protect and acquire new resources. Positive interactions, such as organizational support and informational support from colleagues, can function as energy resources to compensate for employee resource depletion caused by work rumination [71]. It enables employees to redirect their focus from negative emotions and cognition toward the positive aspects of work-related tasks and goals [72], thereby enhancing their ability to effectively address task performance and time management demands [33]. Compared with a low competition climate, a highly competitive climate reinforces the indirect effect of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination. Hypotheses 4 and 5 are proposed:

• Hypothesis 4 Competitive climate positively moderates the indirect impact of performance pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination.

• Hypothesis 5 Competitive climate positively moderates the indirect impact of time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination.

The research framework as shown in Fig. 1:

Fig. 1.

Theoretical model

Method

Procedures and participants

The study aims to investigate the influence mechanism of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior and to verify the moderating effect of competitive climate. All methods in the study were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The data were obtained from 410 Chinese employees. The questionnaires were distributed through the WJX.com, which is widely used online survey platform in China. Respondents were well aware of the purpose and process of the study. They participated in the survey voluntarily and could terminate it at any time. All data were used for academic research only. The study was approved by Research Ethics Committee of School of Business in Macau University of Science and Technology. To manipulate the effects of common method bias, data collection was completed in two phases. The time interval was about 30 days [73]. Time 1: Data were collected on employee performance pressure, time pressure, and work rumination through convenience sampling. Respondents were required to fill in the last four digits of their phone number. Time 2: Data were collected on employee perceived competitive climate, feedback-seeking behavior, and demographic information. Respondents were again required to fill in the last four digits of their phone numbers. In both surveys, questionnaires were excluded based on three criteria: unreasonable completion time, implausible response patterns, and mismatched phone numbers between the two stages. The remaining questionnaires were retained as valid samples.

A total of 580 questionnaires were distributed, with 410 valid responses collected, resulting in a response rate of 70.7%. According to the criteria proposed by Krejcie and Morgan [74], assuming a confidence level of 95% and an error margin of 5%, the minimum sample size required for the population is 384. The sample size in this study exceeds this threshold. Furthermore, the paper used G*Power 3.1 to perform a post-hoc statistical power analysis on the fixed-effects linear multiple regression model with increased R² values [75]. With a small effect size (f² = 0.05), the analysis yielded a statistical power of 0.977, significantly higher than the traditional benchmark of 0.80 [76, 77]. It confirms that the sample size was sufficient to detect meaningful effects and supports the robustness of subsequent statistical analysis.

Male respondents accounted for 62.7% and female respondents accounted for 37.3%. Respondents’ ages ranged from 18 to 65. 29% of the respondents were between 31 and 40 years old; 40.7% were between of 41 and 50 years old. Most respondents, 96.3%, had received higher education. Respondents were mainly from the education, finance, information technology, service and manufacturing industries.

Measurement and data analysis

The survey employed five-point Likert scales, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Spss 26, Amos26, and Process 4.0 were used for data analysis, which mainly involved reliability and validity tests, common method bias test, correlation analyses, mediation effects test, moderated effects test, and moderated mediation effects test.

Performance Pressure was measured with a 4- item scale adapted from the study of Mitchell et al. [11]. A sample item is as follows: “The pressures for performance in my workplace are high”. The internal consistency coefficient of performance pressure in the study is 0.823.

Time Pressure was measured with a 5- item scale adapted from the study of Gray and Durcikova [78]. A sample item is as follows: “I have too much work and too little time to do it “. The internal consistency coefficient of time pressure in the study is 0.832.

Work Rumination was measured with a 6- item scale adapted from the study of Cropley et al. [79]. A sample item is as follows: " I find solutions to work related problems in my free time “. The internal consistency coefficient of work rumination in the study is 0.950.

Feedback-Seeking Behavior was measured with a 11- item scale adapted from the study of Callister et al. [80]. A sample item is as follows: " I ask my supervisor if I am meeting all my job requirements”. The internal consistency coefficient of feedback-seeking behavior in the study is 0.940.

Competitive Climate was measured with a 4- item scale adapted from the study of Fletcher et al. [81]. A sample item is as follows: " My colleagues often compare their own performance to mine”. The internal consistency coefficient of competitive climate in the study is 0.864.

Control variables

Demographic characteristics are widely acknowledged as potential factors influencing employees’ feedback-seeking behavior. Specifically, individuals within certain demographic categories may exhibit varying frequencies of feedback-seeking behavior compared to those in other groups [82]. Consequently, this study controlled for gender, age, education level, and industry, aligning with existing literature that highlights the importance of these variables [83–85].

Results

Reliability, validity and common method bias test

The reliability and validity of the scales were assessed. As shown in Table 1, all variables demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s alpha and CR >0.7) and validity (AVE >0.5) [86]. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) also indicate that the overall model fit of five-factor model (performance pressure, time pressure, work rumination, feedback-seeking behavior and competitive climate) has reached an acceptable level and is better than that of other alternative models (χ²/df = 1.745, GFI = 0.882, TFI = 0.956, CFI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.043, RMR = 0.046).

Table 1.

Validity and reliability (n = 410)

Variables	Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE	CR
PP	0.694–0.794	0.823	0.555	0.830
TP	0.645–0.785	0.832	0.504	0.835
WR	0.693–0.913	0.950	0.633	0.945
FSB	0.659–0.792	0.940	0.558	0.933
CC	0.780–0.832	0.864	0.613	0.864

PP Performance Pressure, TP Time Pressure, WR Work Rumination, FSB Feedback-Seeking Behavior, CC Competitive Climate

To control the common method bias, we used a two-wave survey with one month interval to collect data [73]. Common method bias was also assessed using Harman’s single-factor test and the ULMC approach. The Harman’s test results indicate that the contribution of the first factor to the total variance before rotation is 21. 22%, which is much lower than the threshold value of 40% [73]. When adding a methodological factor in CFA, the model fit improved marginally (χ²/df = 1.484, GFI = 0.907, TFI = 0.972, CFI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.037). ΔCFI = 0.014 and Δ GFI = 0.025, which all less than 0.05 [87]. The common method bias in this study is not a significant issue.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis

The correlation analysis results are shown in Table 2. When controlling respondent gender, age, education and industry, all relevant variables in the study are significantly correlated. Performance pressure is positively correlated with work rumination (0.456, p < 0.01) and feedback-seeking behavior (0.420, p < 0.01). Time pressure is positively correlated with work rumination (0.373, p < 0.01) and feedback-seeking behavior (0.340, p < 0.01). Work rumination is positively correlated feedback-seeking behavior (0.469, p < 0.01).

Table 2.

Mean, standard deviation and correlation statistics (n = 410)

	Mean	SE	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1.Gender	1.47	0.500
2.Age	2.63	1.075	− 0.118*
3.Education	2.18	0.666	0.162**	0.065
4.Industry	5.06	2.153	0.218**	− 0.050	− 0.036
5.PP	3.830	0.690	0.030	0.012	0.093	0.043
6.TP	3.542	0.748	0.055	− 0.002	0.057	0.055	0.634**
7.WR	3.989	0.594	0.000	− 0.027	0.181**	0.096	0.456**	0.373**
8.FSB	3.619	0.751	− 0.020	0.105	0.051	0.050	0.420**	0.340**	0.469**
9.CC	3.387	0.792	0.014	− 0.038	0.044	− 0.004	0.490**	0.590**	0.408**	0.505**

Note: ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

PP Performance Pressure, TP Time Pressure, WR Work Rumination, FSB Feedback-Seeking Behavior, CC Competitive Climate

Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1 proposes that work rumination mediates the relationship between performance pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior. As shown in M1, M3 and M5 of Table 3, when the effect of work rumination is considered, the impact of performance pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior weakens (0.337, p < 0.001). Work rumination plays a mediating role between performance pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior. Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression (n = 410)

	WR		FSB
	M1	M2	M3	M4	M5	M6	M7	M8
Gender	− 0.065	− 0.075	− 0.033	− 0.043	− 0.037	− 0.010	− 0.012	− 0.005
Age	− 0.045	− 0.042	0.097*	0.101*	0.098*	0.114*	0.118*	0.134**
Education	0.157**	0.179**	0.013	0.034	0.014	− 0.044	− 0.039	− 0.031
Industry	0.095	0.097	0.045	0.047	0.043	0.011	0.008	0.022
PP	0.440***		0.416***		0.337***
TP		0.362***		0.338***		0.257***	0.191***
WR					0.125*	0.362***	0.407***	0.316***
CC								0.337***
CC*WR								0.135**
R2	0.239	0.166	0.189	0.130	0.198	0.288	0.267	0.372
F	21.393***	14.698***	15.802	10.198***	13.942***	22.866***	20.574***	28.595***

Note: *** p < 0.001 ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

PP Performance Pressure, TP Time Pressure, WR Work Rumination, FSB Feedback-Seeking Behavior, CC Competitive Climate

Hypothesis 2 proposes that work rumination mediates the relationship between time pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior. As shown in M2, M4 and M6 of Table 3, When the effect of work rumination is considered, the impact of time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior weakens (0.257, p < 0.001). Work rumination plays a mediating role between time pressure and employee feedback-seeking behavior. Hypothesis 2 is supported.

When comparing the influences of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior, the results of the parallel mediation test are shown in Table 4. The indirect effect of performance pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination (b = 0.126, SE = 0.028, 95%CI [0.075, 0.183]) is stronger than the indirect effect of time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination (b = 0.048, SE = 0.022, 95%CI [0.009, 0.096]). Furthermore, work rumination plays a partial mediating role between performance pressure and employees’ feedback-seeking behavior, and a full mediating role between time pressure and employees’ feedback-seeking behavior.

Table 4.

Parallel mediation test (n = 410)

	Effect	S.E.	LLCI	ULCI
Direct Effects (PP)	0.216	0.062	0.093	0.337
Indirect effect (PP)	0.126	0.028	0.075	0.183
Direct Effects (TP)	0.075	0.061	− 0.042	0.192
Indirect effect (TP)	0.048	0.022	0.009	0.096

PP Performance Pressure, TP Time Pressure, LLCI Low level of 95% confidence interval, ULCI Upper level of 95% confidence interval

Hypothesis 3 proposes that competitive climate positively moderates the relationship between work rumination and employee feedback-seeking behavior. As show in Table 3, the interaction between competitive climate and work rumination was significant (0.135, p < 0.01). Competitive climate reinforces the impact of work rumination on employee feedback-seeking behavior. Hypothesis 3 is supported.

Hypothesis 4 proposes that competitive climate positively moderates the indirect impact of performance pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination, such that the relationship is stronger in highly competitive climate (vs. low). Results in Table 5 indicate that the indirect effect of performance pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior is stronger in high competitive climate (Mean + 1SD) (b = 0.195, se = 0.039, 95%CI [0.121, 0.278]) than that in low competitive climate (Mean-1SD) (b = 0.069, se = 0.034, 95%CI [0.006, 0.140]). The interval at the 95% confidence level of the moderated mediating effect (0.080, 0.025) is [0.030, 0.131]. Hypothesis 4 is supported.

Table 5.

Moderated mediating effect (n = 410)

Mediator		Mediating Effect				Moderated Mediating Effect
		Effect	SE	ULCI	LLCI	Index	SE	ULCI	LLCI
PP	L	0.069	0.034	0.006	0.140	0.080	0.025	0.030	0.131
	H	0.195	0.039	0.121	0.278
TP	L	0.072	0.026	0.026	0.126	0.057	0.021	0.018	0.100
	H	0.162	0.035	0.097	0.234

PP Performance Pressure, TP Time Pressure, WR Work Rumination, FSB Feedback-Seeking Behavior, CC Competitive Climate

Hypothesis 5 proposes that competitive climate positively moderates the indirect impact of time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination, such that the relationship is stronger in high competitive climate (vs. low). Results in Table 5 indicate that the indirect effect of time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior is stronger in high competitive climate (Mean + 1SD) (b = 0.162, se = 0.035, 95%CI [0.097, 0.234]) than that in low competitive climate (Mean-1SD) (b = 0.072, se = 0.026, 95%CI [0.026, 0.126]). The interval at the 95% confidence level of the moderated mediating effect (0.057, 0.021) is [0.018, 0.100]. Hypothesis 5 is supported.

Discussion

The study aims to investigate the influencing mechanism and boundary conditions of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior. Through a two-wave survey of employees in Chinese corporations, the findings indicate that work rumination plays a mediating role between performance pressure, time pressure, and employee feedback-seeking behavior. Perceived performance pressure and time pressure stimulate employee feedback-seeking behavior by intensifying their rumination about work-related issues. The impact of performance pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination is stronger compared to that of time pressure. Additionally, a competitive climate positively moderates the indirect influence of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination. The influence of performance pressure and time pressure on employee feedback-seeking behavior through work rumination are more pronounced in a highly competitive environment. All hypotheses are supported in the study.

Theoretical implications

The study examines the differential effects of performance pressure and time pressure on feedback-seeking behavior through the mediating mechanism of work rumination. Previous research has established that both performance and time pressure, as common workplace stressors, significantly shape employees’ cognitive and behavioral responses [10, 11, 88]. However, few studies have systematically compared how these two types of pressure operate through distinct psychological mechanisms. Our comparative analysis demonstrates that performance pressure shows a stronger indirect effect on feedback-seeking behavior via work rumination than time pressure. This finding extends prior work by highlighting the qualitative differences in how employees cognitively engage with different stressors. While performance pressure orients individuals toward achieving high quality outcomes and meeting evaluative standards, whereas time pressure primarily directs attention toward meeting deadlines [37]. When efficiency and effectiveness are incompatible, performance pressure is more likely to dominate employees’ feedback-seeking behavior. This distinction becomes particularly salient when considering the cognitive processes involved in work rumination. The demands for high performance encourage continuous reflection on one’s work, thereby creating a perceived need for external validation and guidance [31]. The need subsequently motivates employees to proactively seek relevant feedback from supervisors and colleagues to close potential performance gaps [71]. In contrast to previous studies that often focus on a single type of stressor [88], our study adopts an integrated approach by examining the concurrent effects of both performance and time demands. It allows for a more comprehensive and realistic investigation into the formation mechanisms of employee feedback-seeking behavior.

Secondly, grounded in the Conservation of Resources Theory, the study clarifies the specific pathway through which work stress and rumination influence feedback-seeking behavior. While prior research has largely emphasized the negative consequences of stress and rumination, our findings identify their potential to stimulate feedback-seeking behavior in the workplace. Employees are particularly sensitive to performance pressure and time pressure [11]. Stress and rumination can also sometimes lead to positive outcomes [89, 90]. In today’s volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment, employees face great challenges in meeting evolving organizational demands and performance expectations [2]. The increasingly blurred boundary between work and personal life prompts employees to engage in work-related reflections during non-working hours [13, 30]. From the perspective of Conservation of Resources Theory, this pattern of cognitive engagement can be understood as a strategic response to potential resource depletion [51]. When confronting sustained work-related cognitive intrusions, employees’ repeated deliberation on work matters serves as a mechanism to conserve existing resources and facilitate the acquisition of new ones [37, 91]. The cognitive process enhances employees’ capacity to comprehend task requirements and formulate effective solutions, which is an adaptive pathway for resource maintenance and development in demanding work environments [89]. By empirically verifying a resource-based motivational pathway from stress to feedback-seeking, the study not only substantiates the Conservation of Resources Theory but also enriches the literature on the motivational antecedents of feedback-seeking behavior.

Finally, this research specifically explores the moderating role of competitive climate in the links from performance and time pressures to feedback-seeking behavior, seeking to determine the extent and direction of its influence. Prior research has extensively demonstrated that a competitive work environment have both negative and positive effects on employees [70]. It can significantly intensify interpersonal conflicts and heighten perceived anxiety, while also helping to stimulate employees’ intrinsic motivation and pursuit of professional development [18, 92, 93]. The findings of this study provide further support for the beneficial effects of a competitive climate. Based on the Conservation of Resources Theory, intensified competition leads to greater scarcity of available resources, prompting employees to optimize their resource allocation strategies to gain a competitive edge [64, 65]. Driven by competition, employees may become more focused on their goals. It can motivate them to actively seek out advice and feedback, seeing it as a crucial tool for learning and staying ahead. Workplace stress and rumination may increase the depletion of employees’ cognitive and emotional resources [19]. The competitive climate can catalyze the transformation of stress into motivation, unlocking the positive effects of performance pressure and time pressure. Employees may secure additional resources and rewards by adopting proactive strategies to ensure they stand out in competitive environments [94]. The study demonstrates that a competitive environment can turn performance and time pressures into opportunities for growth through feedback-seeking. The findings contribute to a more in-depth understanding of how competitive environments can channel workplace pressures toward productive outcomes through feedback-seeking processes.

Management implications

In the Information Age, organizations in the changing and turbulent market environment have new demands on their employees [1]. Instead of just passively accepting requirements and acquiring feedback from superiors, employees should take a proactive approach to seeking relevant information to improve performance [3]. To promote feedback-seeking behaviors among employees, companies and managers should consider implementing the following strategies. Firstly, it is important to note that suitable levels of performance pressure and time pressure can serve as motivators for employees to engage in feedback seeking. Stress in the workplace does not always result in negative perceptions and behaviors. In fact, pressure can also stimulate intrinsic motivation among employees, prompting them to prioritize efficiency and quality [89]. By setting clearer goals and more specific deadlines, managers can encourage employees to feel a greater sense of urgency and to ask for feedback more proactively. Secondly, organizations can create a competitive atmosphere to strengthen the effect of pressure and rumination on employees’ feedback-seeking. Practical approaches include setting clear goals with a reward-penalty system, balancing teamwork with individual competition, using fair evaluation criteria, providing timely feedback and so on. In a competitive environment, when employees recognize the value of their work, it drives them to seek feedback and strive for continuous improvement [72]. Finally, managers should encourage their subordinates by responding positively to their feedback-seeking behavior. When employees seek appraisal and support from their supervisors, supervisors should not only give performance feedback where employees can understand the status of their work and the problems that exist. Supervisors should also provide developmental feedback so that employees can receive emotional encouragement and access to ways for improvement [95]. By responding actively, supervisors reinforce employees’ feedback-seeking behavior and set a positive example for the team, thereby fostering a climate of mutual support and knowledge sharing.

Limitations and future studies

Several limitations exist in this study. First, this study is based on the sample of Chinese employees. The cultural concept of “face” and the fear of power in Chinese society can both contribute to increased psychological pressure on employees [96, 97]. It may inhibit employees’ feedback-seeking behavior, thereby constraining the external validity of the study’s findings. In the future, data collection in different cultural groups and cross-cultural comparative studies can be considered to further validate the influence mechanisms of pressure and rumination on employee feedback-seeking behavior. Secondly, existing evidence suggests that the impacts of pressure and rumination are neither uniformly positive nor negative, but rather exhibit significant variation across individuals and situations [40, 97]. This study did not consider whether the impact on employee feedback-seeking behavior changes when pressure or work rumination is excessive. In future research, further clarity is needed regarding employees’ rumination and behavioral responses under different levels of performance and time pressure. Thirdly, employee feedback seeking as a proactive behavior has a high value for employees’ personal development as well as organizational sustainability, but its formation mechanism and boundary regulation are complex. The study explained it only from the perspective of performance pressure and time pressure in a competitive climate. Future research needs to deeply validate the effects of other situational factors on employee feedback-seeking behavior, such as emerging organizational practices, exemplary supervisor behaviors, reciprocal coworker relationships, flexible work requirements, and technological challenges. Finally, our sample comprises employees from diverse industries in China, with no restrictions on participants’ positions, years of service, gender, etc. Our focus is primarily on psychological processes rather than group comparisons. As work pressure (performance/time pressure) escalates, engaging in work-related reflection during leisure time has become a prevalent phenomenon in modern society [50, 98]. However, the model’s generalizability may be limited by unobserved factors from cross-industry heterogeneity (e.g., industry-specific pressure norms) and the underrepresentation of female employees. Future research should incorporate design improvements, including controlling for industry type and ensuring gender balance, to facilitate multi-group comparisons that can examine mechanisms specific to industry, gender, and other factors.

Authors’ contributions

Mengfen Lan, Ting Nie contributed to conception and design of the study. Ting Nie performed the statistical analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Mengfen Lan and Ting Nie contributed to manuscript revision. All authors contributed to the manuscript and approved the submitted version.

Funding

This research is supported by Macau University of Science and Technology Funding (FRG-24-078-MSB).

Data availability

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was reviewed and approved by Research Ethics Committee of School of Business in Macau University of Science and Technology (MSB-20230426). All methods in the study were performed following the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent were obtained from all participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.