Whose Job Is It, Anyway? The Effect of the Review Process on Employee Performance

Companies have widely adopted a system of work‐product reviews whereby the work of one individual is subsequently reviewed by another to ensure its quality. We examine how managers can effectively implement a review of employee work to improve performance. Organizations review employees' work to identify mistakes and improve work quality. However, reviews may also reduce employees' effort and initiative if they expect reviewers to identify and correct their errors for them. We use an experiment to examine how employee performance depends on who conducts the review and how feedback is provided. Specifically, participants' work was reviewed by either a superior or a peer, and the reviewer provided either general, high‐level guidance (autonomy‐oriented) or specific corrective information about errors (dependency‐oriented). Employees performed best when superiors provided high‐level guidance or when peers provided specific corrective feedback, with these benefits emerging over time. Guidance from a superior increased employees' sense of responsibility, whereas corrective help from a peer strengthened feelings of teamwork and cohesion. Review approaches that did not fit these combinations offered no clear performance benefit relative to having no review. The findings show that review effectiveness depends on matching the feedback approach to the reviewer's organizational rank. These results have important implications for managers, accountants responsible for internal controls, and audit professionals involved in designing and implementing the review process.