Over the years, theories (e.g., Social Cognitive Theory, Self-Determination Theory) have held that seeking feedback in the workplace can function as a form of self-directed learning for performance improvement. In a recent meta-analysis of the research to date, Anseel, Beatty, Shen, Lievens, & Sackett (in press) reported that the relationship between feedback seeking and performance is very small. This finding provides reason to consider some of the more nuanced underlying motivational processes that may occur between these constructs. Multiple-goal expectancy considers individuals' beliefs about the potential for accomplishing multiple concurrent goals. This concept has increasing relevance in a workplace where multitasking is becoming the norm. Dual-goal or multiple-goal expectancy predicts performance in the laboratory but there have been no published studies examining this relationship in real work settings (Schmidt & Dolis, 2009). The current study examined multiple-goal expectancy as a mediator of the feedback seeking - performance relationship. However, this relationship is not straight forward and may depend on moderators (e.g., feedback orientation, polychronicity, and core self-evaluations). In order to examine these processes, one goal of this study was to develop and validate a measure of multiple-goal expectancy. Social Cognitive Theory and Resource Allocation Theory were used to explain the complex relationship between feedback seeking behavior and multiple-goal expectancy, along with the discussion of moderators. Finally, in light of Anseel et al.'s (in press) findings, multiple-goal expectancy was hypothesized as a mediator between FSB and performance. The results of this study provide evidence for construct and criterion-related validity for the new MGE measure. The data did not support MGE as a mediator between FSB and performance; however, there was a negative direct effect of FSB on performance. Finally, within the supervisor-subordinate dyad data, there were neither moderators nor a relationship between FSB and MGE; however, in the larger subordinate-only data, FBO moderated the relationship between FSB and DGE such that FBO reduced the negative relationship between FSB and MGE. The results of this study are useful for research as well as practice. The new MGE measure contributes validity evidence to an underdeveloped construct as well as a new scale that may be considered for practical use. Additionally, the interplay of FSB and FBO has motivational implications such that individuals who adopt a favorable FBO may maintain higher expectancies after seeking feedback than those who have a lower FBO.