img7.jpg



360 Feedback
About Organized Change Contact Us





Table of Contents

Articles by David Chaudron, PhD


360 Degree Feedback, Leadership, Management Style, and Performance Improvement

David Chaudron, PhD

360 degree feedback, undoubtedly, became the buzzword of the Eighties. The effort to find new strengths and productivity measurements through the lens of employee empowerment spawned the idea of performance appraisals. Performance appraisals were usually a top-down approach, but now it has shifted to vertical and horizontal appraisals of performance, in either direction. 360 degree feedback has produced some real successes; but when not done artfully, including internal preparation, it can rebound.

To learn about the three common ways of receiving 360 degree feedback and how we can help you avoid the pitfalls so many organization engender please read the rest of this article by clicking here 360 Feedback.

If you are looking for 360 feedback consultants, surveys or training, please contact us.



Additional Information on 360 Feedback


Shipper, Frank, Richard C. Hoffman and Denise M. Rotondo. (2007). Does the 360 Feedback Process Create Actionable Knowledge Equally Across Cultures? Academy of Management Learning & Education. 6 (1), 33-50.
What is the cultural relevance of 360 feedback process? This paper re-evaluates the assumption that 360 degree feedback is equally as effective everywhere by examining the process across five countries in this study based on Hofstede’s four work-related values. Culture is defined by the authors as “the patter of values and beliefs that may affect the behaviors of the people in a given region”, in order to assess cultural differences, the authors have based their cultural analysis on Hofstede’s empirically tested values that seem to distinguish cultures:
  • Uncertainty avoidance: a society’s fear of the unknown or of ambiguous situations.
  • Power distance: social stratification within a society such that higher status individuals or groups are accorded more power and authority by those of lower status.
  • Individualism: identity of self as based either solely on the individual or on the individual as part of a group.
  • Masculinity: preference for competition and outcomes (masculine values) as opposed to cooperation and process (feminine values).
The results showed that the process is more effective in cultures with low power distance and individualistic values. On the other hand, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance may be an influence for the learning process, especially for self-awareness. While some cultures take feedback as a call for improvement (Anglo “doing”-oriented cultures), others perceive it solely as criticism (Asian “being”-oriented cultures).

Sameer Deshpande, Anurudra Bhanot, and Sudhir Maknikar. (2015). Assessing Influence of a 360-degree Marketing Communications Campaign with a 360-degree Feedback. Social Marketing Quarterly. 21 (3), 142-151.
This paper provides a study on how 360 degree feedback can be used by social marketing organizations to measure the effectiveness of their persuasion efforts. For this, the paper presents the influence of Project Rashka, a 360-degree campaign that intends to support the Indian government’s efforts at reducing maternal mortality and morbidity by promoting institutionalized delivery, in the rural areas of four Indian states. This measurement was provided by postintervention-only evaluations through self-report surveys and interviews.
The objective of Project Rashka was to “promote institutionalized delivery through public health services”. There are four types of delays in response to obstetric complications that are addressed: in recognition, in decision making, in reaching the location and in receiving medical care in the facility. All of these four delays contribute to maternal deaths in rural areas. Taking that into account, Project Rashka applied a 360-degree innovative model for designing interventions at household, community, local government, and clinical levels. In order to determine Project Rashka’s effectiveness, the Pathfinder project team commissioned the assessment, using a 360-degree feedback approach, of various activities undertaken. The authors determine that “utilization of a 360-degree communication and feedback mechanism confirmed project success in a social marketing setting”. They also mention two limitations of 360-degree feedback which are that there were only postintervention evaluations and there was no comparative study and that self-report sources are subject to social desirability. They conclude: “Future research should add other methods such as observation studies to evaluate the influence of this study”.
Mishra, Greeta. (2014). An Exploratory Study of the Process and Problems of 360-Degree Feedback in Select IT Companies.
Sage Journals. 46 (2), 116-122. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886368714542912

While this article can throw some light about the problems that diminish the effectiveness of 360 degree feedback or which limit / complicate its application, it does present some incongruences regarding the horizontal nature of such feedback and the usage of terms that pertain to hierarchical assessment. The idea of layers that this study mentions is taken from upward and downward feedback, which stem from a perspective where the subordinate and the manager evaluate each other from their respective positions of superiority and inferiority. Among the problems that the study of how 5 different organisations apply 360 degree feedback we can mention the following:
- Misunderstanding of the purpose of 360 feedback.
- Not selecting and training raters properly: first, according to the level of interaction they have with the person they are rating, and second, taking into account the type of feedback that the company requires, the focus of the assessment.
- Uncertainty of employees about the confidentiality of the assessment.
- Lack of counselling and training sessions to help employees accept negative feedback and improve communication and understanding.
- The exclusion of certain areas within an organisation.
The conclusion that arose from this study is that the application of 360 degree feedback is most often used “for developmental purposes” and “not linked to salary and/or promotion decisions”. In other words, the problems of 360 degree feedback have to do with misunderstanding of its purpose and application process and underestimation of its benefits within an organisation.

Monalisa Mohapatra. (2015), 360 Degree Feedback: A Review of Literature.
http://www.rsisinternational.org/Issue10/112-116.pdf
360 feedback is an evaluation process in which feedback is taken from superior, peers, subordinates, and costumers, and that is later shared with the worker for assessment and development. This paper presents the study of past literatures (30 articles) of job satisfaction between the years 1995 and 2013 with the purpose of revealing the contribution of 360 feedback to the organizations and its grow. From that review, this paper finds that 360 degree feedback is valued by the employers as it helps them grow and develop in their career as well as have a higher level of organizational performance.
The databases consulted for this paper were google, emerald data base and proquest data base. The Review of literature includes the following articles: Baker (2009), Curtis (1996), Huggett (1998), Halam (2004), Edwards (1996), Heisler (1996), Moxley (1996), Pollitt (2004), Gore (1996), Thomas (2004), Coates (1996), Newbold (2008), Garavan (1999), Testa (2002), Rowe (1995), Vloeberghs (1999), Alexander (2006), Cullianane (2005), Prideaux (2006), Stark, Kornstein & Karani (2008), Farner (2002), Drew (2009), Flynn (1997), Albrecht (2000), Morse (2007), Robertson (2010), Hurley (1998), Whiddett & Galpin (2002), Shipper (1998), and Samaduzzaman (2013).
The paper concludes that, in order to successfully apply 360 degree feedback, organizations require two main aspects: process and purpose. When it “is implemented with an integrated purpose of both appraisal and development the feedback obtained provides more clarity.”
Rai, H., & Singh, M. (2013). A study of mediating variables of the relationship between 360° feedback and employee performance. Human Resource Development International, 16(1), 56-73. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.740797
360-degree feedback is a process whereby multiple sources like immediate superiors, subordinates, peers and customers provide evaluation for an individual by providing a more balanced and comprehensive view of her/his performance. Through their research the authors found that there are mediating factors which enhance employee performance when 360-degree feedback is implemented and they also aim to find empirical support that a 360-degree feedback system provides enhanced interpersonal communication, better relationships between superiors and subordinates, enriched working life and more perceived organizational support which in turn leads to improvement in employee performance.
This study finds empirical support for the relationship between 3608 feedback and employee performance. Though earlier works suggested that 3608 feedback has a positive effect on employee performance, this relationship had not been previously examined empirically. The results of this study show that both interpersonal communication and quality of working life have a complete mediating effect in the relationship between 360-degree feedback and performance. Additionally, a strong positive relation between the presence of this system and improvement in employee performance suggests that 360-degree feedback system could be utilized in the reward system in addition to the development system.
This article concludes by saying that improvement in performance by 360-degree feedback is largely due to improved interpersonal communication, finer leader–member exchange quality, more perceived organizational support and better quality of working life. These four aspects need to be taken care of by organizations looking to maximize the effect of 360-degree feedback on employee performance.

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK IN THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN THE ADO
Rohan-Jones, Ruth and Rohan-Jones, Steve. 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK IN THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN THE ADO. December 2003.
Effective leadership development has been found in an individual’s ability to effectively develop cognitive models for managing behavioral decisions. In the simplest of terms: an effective leader must understand their own behavior and its effect on others.
The development of the will and feeling systems within the leader of an organization is crucial to reach complete organizational potential. The ADO devotes comparatively small amount of effort to develop these ‘human’ components, however, paired with the 360-degree feedback and Self-Assessment tools provided in the paper, leaders may utilize these tools to for a utilitarian measure of their self-awareness and behavior development.
The paper works to deconstruct the role of the 360-degree feedback in leadership development within the ADO. This feedback refers responses received from a circle of people within the organization. These responses work to develop a system of feedback for the leader. Mainly, these questionnaires examine the critical components of emotional competency and examine the critical factors of self-awareness and emotional intelligence within the leader. The connection between a leader’s personal competence; meaning their self-awareness or motivation, and the leaders social competence. This link has worked to demonstrate the leader’s competence as a precursor to reshape and build competencies of the organization.
The paper continues to delve into the transformational leadership development by implementing the feedback within the program. Not only does this paper examine the tools, it also considers the benefits, limitations, validity, and effectiveness of the feedback instruments.

A 360‐degree appraisal study


Potočnik, K., & Anderson, N. (2012). Assessing Innovation: A 360‐degree appraisal study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 497-509.


The authors discuss innovation in the workplace. Innovation is something that is difficult to quantify and this article quantifies innovation using a 360 degree feedback (Potocnic, K., and Anderson, N., 2012). The 360 degree framework basically involves obtaining feedback from multiple sources. For example, feedback about a particular employee can be obtained from themselves, their supervisors and their peers. This feedback is then aggregated to obtain an overall picture of the metric that is being examined. This article chose to examine innovation and creativity of employees.


This authors comprehensively examine innovation and its measurement. Also note that 360 degree framework is versatile in that it can be used to evaluate various concepts/criterion that is difficult to quantify. It is also particularly effective when analyzing data that is not quantitative in nature such as perception etc. Note, if self-reporting used solely to obtain such data, there is a tendency for participants to distort the data with biases. For example, if an employee is asked via a survey to rate their performance on a project they may have a tendency to rate themselves higher than their actual performance. This tendency/bias can be mitigated by obtaining feedback from multiple sources such as the employee’s supervisor and peers. This piece illustrates the proper use of the 360 degree feedback process.


What Does an Executive Coaching Intervention Add Beyond Facilitated Multisource Feedback? Effects on Leader Self-Ratings and Perceived Effectiveness
Levi R. G. Nieminen, Ryan Smerek, Lindsey Kotrba, and Daniel Denison

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Volume 24, Issue 2, pages 145–176, Summer 2013
Multisource ratings and feedback are now central components of many leader development programs. Research evaluating the outcomes of multisource feedback (MSF) underscores the importance of facilitation strategies that help leaders to interpret and use their feedback throughout the development process. Scholars and practitioners have recommended executive coaching as one such facilitation strategy. However, there is little empirical basis to substantiate the benefits of executive coaching beyond other less costly strategies, most notably feedback workshops with groups of leaders. This quasi-experiment followed 469 managers from a large government agency participating in a 15-month leader development program. Changes over time in MSF ratings of leadership behaviors and effectiveness were compared for two groups of leaders. The first group of uncoached managers participated in a feedback workshop shortly after the premeasure MSF, and the second group participated in the feedback workshop plus several sessions with an executive coach thereafter. Results indicated that managers in both groups improved similarly as rated by direct reports, peers, and supervisors, whereas only those managers who received the executive coaching improved according to self-ratings. Specifically, the executive coaching intervention had a unique positive effect on managers' self-rated involvement, consistency, and mission-focused leadership behaviors. These findings are discussed in light of “psychometric” and self-efficacy perspectives, and in relation to exploratory regression analyses linking managers' self-ratings to others' ratings of their effectiveness at the conclusion of the program.
360 degree feedback: how many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals?

Hensel,R., Meijers, F., van der Leeden, R., & Kessels, J. (2010). 360 degree feedback: how many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals?

360 degree feedback is a widely used technique in the area of strategic human resource management (SHRM) and strategic human resource development (SHRD). The reliability of 360 degree feedback on the capacity to develop personal qualities has been investigated. This study shows to what extent the number of raters is related to an increasing reliability and an enhancement of correlation between supervisor and peer ratings.
This study collected data from a SHRD training program. Participants are managers and professionals from a wide range of position and different organizations. The results have shown that ten raters are needed to reach a satisfying reliability level of 0.7 for the rating of the capacity to develop personal qualities, while six raters are needed for a reliability level of 0.7 with regard to the rating of motivation to develop these qualities. The use of two or three peer raters, as is common in the daily HRM/HRD practice, results in low reliability levels and in low agreement between supervisor and peer ratings. These results imply that 360 degree feedback is more useful in a personal growth system than in an administrative system, where the outcomes of the feedback are considered to be objective representations of work behavior.

A 360-degree performance appraisal model dealing with heterogeneous information and dependent criteria.

Espinilla, M., Andres, R., Martinez, F. J., & Martinez, L. (2013). A 360-degree performance appraisal model dealing with heterogeneous information and dependent criteria. Information Science, 222, 459-471.
Performance appraisals are a key tool to use specially in companies that provide information about employee’s performance in order to make important decisions regarding the client company. These decisions include salary adjustments for the employees, promotions, identification of training and development needs, assessing individuals for hiring and firing to name a few. A 360-degree performance appraisal is used as a tool to provide these evaluations about the issues that were mentioned.
It is important to note that 360-feedback is based on the opinion of different groups of reviewers who socialize with the employee that is being evaluated. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated model for 360 feedback performance appraisals that can manage heterogeneous information and computes a final linguistic for each employee.
The overall results of the study show that performance appraisals are relevant used for companies in order to make important decisions. However, this paper proposes an integrated approach to 360-feedback that provides a flexible evaluation framework in which reviewers can provide their assessment within different domains.

When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?

Bracken., D. W., & Rose., D. S. (2011). When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does? Springer Science and Business Media, LLC 2011.

The purpose of this article is to review the design structure of 360-degree feedback processes, which assist behavior change within the organization. Moreover, the article also provides information to identify the conditions needed to detect those changes when the behavior change occurs. Furthermore, the article also identifies the important elements and critical conditions, which related to the process of using 360 to create behavior change.

The article focuses on the best method to design a 360-degree feedback process that can be most affective across large number of participants within workplace or subsystem. The author had done great effort in evaluating individual level variables that can enhance behavior change. From the results of evaluating 360 process and behavior change within organization, authors have identified four critical design factors including relevant content, credible data, accountability, and census participation.

Those critical design factors will allow 360-degree processes to be sustainable and it can be used to best benefit. There are certain requirements for 360 processes that require special attention. First, we need to firm set of parameters we can use in order to examining process of effect change. Second, we also need to relate reliable measurements that allow us to detect change. Third, we need to know the type of response scale with the purpose of determining reliability and validity for behavior change.

By applying these critical factors along with the requirements, 360 processes is powerful tool to understand behavior change within organization with the intention of guiding organization in the best direction.

Rai, H., & Singh, M. (2013). A study of mediating variables of the relationship between 360° feedback and employee performance. Human Resource Development International, 16(1), 56-73. doi:10.1080/13678868.2012.740797
360-degree feedback is a process whereby multiple sources like immediate superiors, subordinates, peers and customers provide evaluation for an individual by providing a more balanced and comprehensive view of her/his performance. Through their research the authors found that there are mediating factors which enhance employee performance when 360-degree feedback is implemented and they also aim to find empirical support that a 360-degree feedback system provides enhanced interpersonal communication, better relationships between superiors and subordinates, enriched working life and more perceived organizational support which in turn leads to improvement in employee performance.
This study finds empirical support for the relationship between 3608 feedback and employee performance. Though earlier works suggested that 3608 feedback has a positive effect on employee performance, this relationship had not been previously examined empirically. The results of this study show that both interpersonal communication and quality of working life have a complete mediating effect in the relationship between 360-degree feedback and performance. Additionally, a strong positive relation between the presence of this system and improvement in employee performance suggests that 360-degree feedback system could be utilized in the reward system in addition to the development system.
This article concludes by saying that improvement in performance by 360-degree feedback is largely due to improved interpersonal communication, finer leader–member exchange quality, more perceived organizational support and better quality of working life. These four aspects need to be taken care of by organizations looking to maximize the effect of 360-degree feedback on employee performance.
Bracken, B. D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “ New ” Performance Management Paradigm : People & Strategy, 36(2), 34–40.

There is a general consensus that performance management (PM) process have failed to meet, let alone exceed, most organization’s expectations. This article discusses how the area of 360 feedback has received insufficient consideration and even outright rejection by some practitioners when it may be an integral part of performance management systems. The authors discuss that 360 feedback has evolved over the past 20 years from a targeted organizational development and I/O psychology intervention or tool focused on individual development to now as a more established and mainstream process accepted in most organizations.
This article discusses the various uses of 360 feedback such as in leadership development, staffing decisions, succession planning, high potential selection and development, and performance management. The authors specifically focus on the use of 360 feedback and its use in performance management, and they break down PM into the “what” and the “how” types of performance. The “what” is the results delivered on a regular basis and the “how” is the manner by which those results are achieved.
In regard to the specific areas of the performance management process that 360 feedback benefits the authors discuss alignment (a clear understanding of what the organization expects from them), agility (quick and efficient communication of any changed processes), validity (measuring the right things in a reliable way), accountability (one of the most important factors of any 360 feedback process, if the organization believes that the “how” side of performance is at least as important as the “what”, then there needs to be comparable accountability for each), consistency (inconsistent use of performance management practices is undoubtedly one of the reasons that they are not successful).
In the end, performance management is not an exact science and neither is 360 feedback, both of very subjective processes and yet the authors argue that it is time for organizations to fully utilize its potential for driving individual performance and broader culture change.

Multisource ratings of managerial competencies and their predictive value for managerial and organizational Effectiveness
Judith H. Semeijn, Beat R. I . J . M . Van Der Heijden, And Anne Van Der Lee
Human Resource Management, September–October 2014, Vol. 53, No. 5. Pp. 773–794

This study examined the predictive value of multisource ratings of managerial
competencies for managerial and organizational effectiveness. Data from 155 subordinates, 59 peers, and 28 supervisors were gathered in order to provide insight into their perceptions on managerial competencies for their managers. With regard to the outcome variable (i.e., effectiveness), both individual-level (subordinates’, peers’, and supervisors’ ratings of managers) and organizational-level (Balanced Scorecard) measures were used. As expected, subordinates, peers, and supervisors have distinct perspectives on the managerial competencies that are relevant for effectiveness. Moreover, the specific managerial competencies differ in terms of their predictive validity respectively for managerial and organizational effectiveness. The outcomes of our study suggest that a multisource and multimethod approach is valuable in assessing both managerial competencies and managerial and organizational effectiveness. Several implications for human resource management practices are discussed.
Perception is reality: role of 360 degree - feedback in creating leadership pipeline
Ajay Soni, Anand Radhakrishnan (2013) Korea Times, August 4, 2013

The importance of understanding how others perceive us has not been lost on mankind. History is witness to numerous instances of emperors gathering information discreetly about their ministers and even themselves.
They collected this information through spies or by disguising themselves as ordinary citizens. The foundation of such efforts was that the perceptions of an individual by those around him or her sheds light on the true nature of the individual.
In today's organizations, both top and emerging leaders need to understand how they are viewed by all their stakeholders managers, peers, subordinates and clients.
For a manager, understanding these perceptions is critical, as employees tend to model their goals and actions on their leaders. Academic research suggests that leaders and managers care about how others evaluate their skills and that they adjust their self-evaluation to reduce the differences, and at the same time they work to improve their skills.
Feedback through 360 degree assessment is one of the most powerful tools available today to measure how one is being perceived by others.
Myths and realities about 360 degree feedback
Using the 360 degree approach, consulting firms help many organizations develop their employees and create a robust leadership pipeline. However, in our experience, four myths can obstruct the delivery of value from this process.
The first myth is that 360 degree is meant for top leaders only. Most organizations appreciate that the 360 degree process is imperative for their top leaders. But, many do not extend the process to their young leaders and high potentials.
This may stem from the erroneous belief that assessment of potential and the provision of feedback is relevant only for top leaders, and not for the emerging ones.
Today, the route to top management has been short-circuited, and no longer is the number of years of experience the sole factor for leadership consideration.
This shift necessitates that emerging young leaders start demonstrating the organization's competencies and values early on. By so doing, they will be well prepared and aligned to the organization's needs as they progress into more senior leadership roles.
However, the reality is that organizations should start an individual's 360 degree journey early on.
A case in point is a large financial organization with an employee population of over 50,000 that has a robust four-step talent assessment and identification process which focuses on potential leaders.
Each employee undergoes a 360 degree review that focuses on the individual's leadership skills. HR prepares a one-page descriptive assessment profile for each individual.
A talent panel reviews and discusses the profile created for each individual. The talent panel compiles a talent list, which is also referred to as High Talent.
This organization continues to grow and develop valuable talent with no leadership vacuum, and has never had a senior position left vacant for more than 24 hours.
The second myth is that achieving a high number of responses guarantees success in the 360 degree process. Oftentimes in a 360 degree process, organizations focus on gathering responses from as many stakeholders as possible. This is based on the assumption that the number of responses obtained is the most important factor for success with their assessment process.
In fact, our research and experience show that seven to eight responses for a participant are adequate to provide an all-around view. Much more critical factors impacting the 360 degree process are the buy-in from the CEO and ownership by the participant for whom the feedback is being sought.
The CEO should be the foremost champion of this process and ideally should take part to truly 'walk the talk.' Such visible commitment lends further credibility to the assessment process. Since employees tend to model themselves on their leader, this serves to encourage other participants to own their 360 degree processes.
A strong sense of ownership ensures that the participants take an active part in identifying their raters, are more receptive to the feedback, and are committed to changing their behavior based on the findings.
The reality is that buy-in from the CEO and ownership by the participant will guarantee success in the 360 degree process.
A case that illustrates this is a large Indian steel and energy organization that retained a consulting firm for a comprehensive leadership development exercise that included 360 degree assessments. The managing director committed to both champion and participate in the process. While the managing director made this commitment at the onset of the program, the actual time he devoted to the program was limited, and his own 360 degree assessment remained incomplete. This caused some leaders to lose focus in the process, and even raised questions as to the importance of the program.
As the program concluded, we observed that some leaders had significantly benefitted. However, the impact was inconsistent, and so overall effectiveness was not as high as expected.
It was evident that had the managing director followed through on his commitment to the process, the leadership development process could have been more effective.
The third myth is that an organization may not be sufficiently prepared or mature for the 360 degree process. We have often heard our clients say that they are not ready for the 360 degree process.
The need to achieve a certain scale and maturity has been cited as a strong reason not to conduct 360 degree feedback for their leaders. This may be due to the erroneous belief that perception of leaders does not become an important factor until an organization is large and ready enough to measure perceptions.
Successful leaders need to have the desire to win and the willingness to lead. To achieve this, the leader needs to possess exceptional learning agility. Such agility is a function of a leader's willingness to receive inputs from stakeholders and an openness to continuously learn.
It is these factors that form the foundation of a 360 degree process, rather than the maturity of the organization. Management legend Peter Drucker says that self-assessment is the first requirement of leadership and that leaders need to constantly re-sharpen and re-focus.
The reality is that when leaders are open to receiving feedback and to learning, an organization becomes ready for the 360 degree process.
A few years ago, an established law firm expanded its operations in multiple cities. Within a decade, this firm introduced a comprehensive leadership framework in its new operations. It assessed its senior and mid-level lawyers using multiple tools, such as assessment centers and 360 degree feedback. The inputs of these are now used in their talent review forum wherein successors are finalized.
Today, this firm is among the pioneers in its industry because of its focus on talent development across the entire firm. This was possible only because leaders in the new operations resolved to lead the transformation and wholeheartedly took it upon themselves to be assessed and developed.
The leaders measured the organization's maturity in terms of their willingness to learn, and not according to the age of the organization.
The fourth myth is that360 degree feedback concludes the assessment of an individual. The perceptions gathered through the 360 degree process are used to identify both the strengths and areas of improvement for a leader.
Sometimes, organizations abandon the process at the feedback stage and don't work on action planning, or simply leave this step to the leaders themselves. Furthermore, many organizations fail to reassess the individuals periodically to measure the impact of the development interventions.
In reality, 360 degree is a discovery process; the action planning following it is of vital importance. The HR systems in organizations need to provide a supporting environment so that 360 degree findings are followed by planned developmental activities, such as enriched roles, action projects, development cycles, mentoring, and coaching.
The manager of the participant is the other stakeholder who plays an extremely crucial role in translating the assessment findings into action and development.
Once the development journey of the participant commences, reassessments through 360 degree and other assessment tools need to be conducted at periodic intervals. This way the development is tracked, and the next action steps and interventions called for can be
planned. Otherwise, there is no way to assess the impact of the steps taken on either the development of the participant or the perceptions of the participant's stakeholders.
The reality is that the 360 degree outcome is just an input and the start of the leadership journey.
The board receives a report and tracks succession readiness as well as leadership development activities each quarter. Additionally, the board interacts with the leaders and high potentials, providing feedback and inputs.
This attention by the board ensures continuous focus on the succession planning and leadership development process and is highly effective for both the leaders and the organization.
Conclusion
When considering a 360 degree process for their leaders, organizations need to be cognizant of the following. Equally important, organizations need to ensure that participants receive the necessary support from their managers and HR systems.
Effective feedback from the manager is the most powerful trigger for change in an individual. Our research suggests that there is a high positive correlation between manager and employee performance.
Thus, better managers ensure that 'the employees are more motivated to contribute more than is normally required to complete the work.' Therefore strong managerial capability is the key to not only a highly engaged workforce, but also to the development of that workforce for effective strategy execution, business results and leadership.
Once the development areas have been identified through 360 degree and other assessment methods, participants need planned interventions for their development.
Organizations need systems through which leaders can be developed in a structured manner. The HR team must ensure that the right resources and support are made available for this process.
Better HR systems ensure that the assessments will indeed reveal the critical gaps, and that the developmental process ensuing will serve to achieve the desired results.
In today's competitive environment, the importance of self-awareness, especially among leaders, can never be overstated. For top and future leaders, perception is the key to reality and 360 feedback is the most effective starting point for measuring it.

The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness

Thach, E.C. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 23/4, 205-214. doi:10.1108/01437730210429070

Thach explores the impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership effectiveness and organizational benefits. The author wants to fill the gap of empirical research by exploring the quantitative by tracking the progress of 281 executives that agreed to participate in a 6-months coaching and 360 feedback process.
The results were positive and confirmed that executive coaching and 360 feedback has increases leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, the study confirmed the accomplishment of the corporation’s identified goals. The drawback of the study is the difficulty to separate the impact of the 360 feedback from the executive coaching wondering the impact of the 360 feedback without coaching and vise-versa. Furthermore, this study was conducted in only one organization. Nevertheless, the overall response of the 360 feedback and the executive coaching was an increase of leadership effectiveness by 55 to 60%. Additionally, the author discovered that more frequent follow-ups and interactions with 360 raters during the process resulted in even higher leadership effectiveness rates; claiming that the combination of the 360 feedback, the executive coaching, and the follow-up with stakeholders as a winning combination.


360° Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, and Perceptions of Usefulness

Brett, J. F. & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, and Perceptions of Usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology. (86)5, 930-942

This study examined how 360° feedback ratings and self-other rating discrepancies related to reactions to feedback, perceptions of feedback accuracy, perceived usefulness of the feedback, and recipients' receptivity to development. The results indicated that less favorable ratings were related to beliefs that feedback was less accurate and to negative reactions. Negative reactions and perceptions that feedback was less accurate were related to beliefs that the feedback was less useful. Those who found feedback less useful were perceived by a facilitator as less development-focused. Goal orientation did not moderate the relationship between ratings and perceptions of accuracy or reactions to feedback. Goal orientation was related to perceptions of usefulness of the process several weeks after receipt of feedback. The results question widely held assumptions about 360° feedback that negative and discrepant feedback motivates positive change.


360 degree feedback: how many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals?

Hensel,R., Meijers, F., van der Leeden, R., & Kessels, J. (2010). 360 degree feedback: how many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals?

360 degree feedback is a widely used technique in the area of strategic human resource management (SHRM) and strategic human resource development (SHRD). The reliability of 360 degree feedback on the capacity to develop personal qualities has been investigated. This study shows to what extent the number of raters is related to an increasing reliability and an enhancement of correlation between supervisor and peer ratings.
This study collected data from a SHRD training program. Participants are managers and professionals from a wide range of position and different organizations. The results have shown that ten raters are needed to reach a satisfying reliability level of 0.7 for the rating of the capacity to develop personal qualities, while six raters are needed for a reliability level of 0.7 with regard to the rating of motivation to develop these qualities. The use of two or three peer raters, as is common in the daily HRM/HRD practice, results in low reliability levels and in low agreement between supervisor and peer ratings. These results imply that 360 degree feedback is more useful in a personal growth system than in an administrative system, where the outcomes of the feedback are considered to be objective representations of work behavior.


A 360-degree performance appraisal model dealing with heterogeneous information and dependent criteria.

Espinilla, M., Andres, R., Martinez, F. J., & Martinez, L. (2013). A 360-degree performance appraisal model dealing with heterogeneous information and dependent criteria. Information Science, 222, 459-471.
Performance appraisals are a key tool to use specially in companies that provide information about employee’s performance in order to make important decisions regarding the client company. These decisions include salary adjustments for the employees, promotions, identification of training and development needs, assessing individuals for hiring and firing to name a few. A 360-degree performance appraisal is used as a tool to provide these evaluations about the issues that were mentioned.
It is important to note that 360-feedback is based on the opinion of different groups of reviewers who socialize with the employee that is being evaluated. The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated model for 360 feedback performance appraisals that can manage heterogeneous information and computes a final linguistic for each employee.
The overall results of the study show that performance appraisals are relevant used for companies in order to make important decisions. However, this paper proposes an integrated approach to 360-feedback that provides a flexible evaluation framework in which reviewers can provide their assessment within different domains.


360 Degree Feedback: Ready, Fire, Aim-Issues With Improper Implementation.

Vukotich, G. ( 2014). 360-Degree Feedback: Ready, Fire, Aim-Issues With Improper Implementation. International Society for Performance Improvement. 53(1), 30-35.

360-degree feedback is a widely accepted and effective performance management tool that is being used by a growing number of organizations. 360 feedback can be effective in helping organizations develop or improve their existing organizational culture. The intent of this article is to provide some of the challenges and misconceptions that are associated with this tool.

According to the article the two main challenges associated with 360 feedback is implementation and misinterpretation. The implementation of this feedback process is becoming more challenging due to the fact that job descriptions have become all encompassing, and it has become harder to define individual roles. The second problem is that often time organizations do not use trained professionals or train their members appropriately on how to utilize 360 feedbacks.

Most often organizations fail to realize the purpose behind using this tool. There are two general frameworks in which 360 feedback is conducted. The first is for developmental purposes and the second for evaluation. Failing to address why the organization is using this system can lead to misinterpretation of the gathered data. The article tries to warn against using 360-degree feedback without being fully trained in implementation and interpretation of the information.


Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance?

Pfau, B., Kay, I., Nowack, K. M., & Ghorpade, J. (2002). Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance?. Hr magazine, 47(6), 54-59.

360-degree feedback is widely accepted as an effective performance management tool by a growing number of organizations. The author defines 360-degree feedback as a performance appraisal approach that uses input from an employee’s supervisors, colleagues, subordinates, and sometimes suppliers and customers. Most of the 360-degree feedback programs focus on the manager level and above. The 360-degree feedback process helps employees to understand their own performance and it help companies to create values by making sure that the job performance is aligned with the business strategy of the organization.

The author explains that 360-degree feedback is a logical process: the people who work mostly with the person being evaluated are the ones that see his behavior in settings and circumstances that a supervisor may not. In addition, the more complete the insight into an employee’s performance, the more likely he will understand what needs to be improved and how.

The article does an excellent job by explaining the time and cost associated with 360-degree feedback. Many 360-degree feedback programs have become so complex that they need greater investment in time and money to be implemented in organizations. The feedback should provide employees with insight into the skills they must develop to help the organization meet its goals.


A 360‐degree appraisal study

Potočnik, K., & Anderson, N. (2012). Assessing Innovation: A 360‐degree appraisal study. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 497-509.

The authors discuss innovation in the workplace. Innovation is something that is difficult to quantify and this article quantifies innovation using a 360 degree feedback (Potocnic, K., and Anderson, N., 2012). The 360 degree framework basically involves obtaining feedback from multiple sources. For example, feedback about a particular employee can be obtained from themselves, their supervisors and their peers. This feedback is then aggregated to obtain an overall picture of the metric that is being examined. This article chose to examine innovation and creativity of employees.

This authors comprehensively examine innovation and its measurement. Also note that 360 degree framework is versatile in that it can be used to evaluate various concepts/criterion that is difficult to quantify. It is also particularly effective when analyzing data that is not quantitative in nature such as perception etc. Note, if self-reporting used solely to obtain such data, there is a tendency for participants to distort the data with biases. For example, if an employee is asked via a survey to rate their performance on a project they may have a tendency to rate themselves higher than their actual performance. This tendency/bias can be mitigated by obtaining feedback from multiple sources such as the employee’s supervisor and peers. This piece illustrates the proper use of the 360 degree feedback process.

أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠(360 Degree Feedback)يناقش الكاتب الأبداع والأبتكار في مكان العمل. الأبتكار والأبداع من الأمور التي يصعب تقيمها في الشركات، ويوضح الكاتب طرق تقييم الأبداع والأبتكار عن طريق استخدام أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠. تقوم أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠ في الحصول على النتائج من مصادر متعددة. على سبيل المثال، ردود الفعل حول موظف معين يمكن الحصول عليها عن طريق تقيمهم لأنفسهم وعن طريق تقيم رؤسائهم وزملائهم لهم. يتم جمع هذه الملاحظات للحصول على صوره عامه لنتائج التي يتم فحصها
يناقش الكاتب بشكل كامل الأبداع والأبتكار وطرق قياسها. نلاحظ أن أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠ متنوعة من حيث يمكن استخدامها لتقييم مختلف المفاهيم/ معاير التي يصعب قياسها كميا. كما أنها فعالة بشكل خاص عند تحليل بيانات غير كمية بطبيعتها مثل التصور..الخ. ملاحظة، إذا تم استخدام الإبلاغ الذاتي فقط للحصول على البيانات، هناك ميل للمشاركين لتشوية البيانات عن طريق التحيّز لأنفسهم. على سبيل المثال، إذا تم الطلب من موظف عبر دراسة استقصائية لتقييم أدائه على عمل معين قد يكون لديه لتقيم نفسه أعلى من أدائه الفعلي. هذا الميل/ التحيّز يمكن تخفيفة عن طريق الحصول على البيانات من مصادر متعددة مثل المشرف والأقران. توضح هذه المقالة الإستخدام السليم لأداة التقييم الإداري ٣٦٠

How Do 360 Degree Performance Reviews Affect Employee Attitudes, Effectiveness and Performance

Alexander, D.M. (2006). How Do 360 Degree Performance Reviews Affect Employee Attitudes, Effectiveness and Performance. University of Rhode Island.

A performance review tool that has increasingly gained popularity and is an increasingly being used in organizations is the 360-degree feedback review. The 360-degree performance review is a formal process where an individual receives constructive feedback from multiple individuals in an organization who regularly interact with the individual being reviewed. This instrument’s popularity is based on the underlying theme that the 360-degree feedback encourages continuous learning and provides a global feedback for an organization’s employees, which often leads to improvement in one’s performance.

The author explains that 360-degree feedback is a superior tool to the traditional forms of evaluation and feedback because it provides a complete and more accurate assessment of the employee’s competencies, behaviors, and performance outcome. A traditional performance review is no longer seen as an effective means of obtaining accurate feedback for employees. 360-degree feedback is viewed as more accurate because it observes behaviors of a single individual.

This literature piece effectively articulates how a 360 Degree Feedback performance review can provide many beneficial functions such as: effectively translating an organization’s mission into more specific goals, carefully manage one’s performance instead of merely reacting to it, and helping to protect an organization from charges of discrimination that may be unfounded. This article’s objective is to answer the research question of how do 360 degree performance reviews affect employee attitudes, effectiveness and performance?

The article does an excellent job of delving into the psychology of reactions to 360-degree feedback and what that psychology can tell both the reviewer and the reviewee. The article highlights that proper training when giving feedback is imperative to the review processes success and that lack of or inefficient training can be counterproductive to the goals of the performance review. Take a look and see how 360-degree feedback measures against the objectives of your organization’s goals today!

أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠(360 Degree Feedback)تأثير التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠ على فعالية وأداء الموظفينأداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠ هي أحدى الأدوات التي أكتسبت شعبية متزايدة وتستخدم على نحو متزايد في الشركات لمراجعة أداء الموظفين. تعد هذه الأداة من الأدوات الرسمية لتقييم الأفراد في الشركة. حصلت هذه الأداة على شعبية لفعالية الردود والتى تؤدي إلى تحسن في الأداء الوظيفي. تقوم هذه الدراسة بتوضيح أهمية الوظائف التى تقدمها أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠، من هذه الوظائف: ترجمة مهام الشركة إلى أهداف معينة، الإهتمام بأداء الشخص قبل التصرف ضده، وتساعد على حماية الشركة من اتهامات التمييز العنصرية التى ليس لها أي أساس. والهدف من هذه الدراسة هو الإجابة على السؤال المتعلق بتأثير هذه الأداة على فعالية الموظفين وتصرفاتهم. تقوم هذه الدراسة بتوضيح الأمور النفسية المتعلقة بردود حول أداة التقيم الإداري ٣٦٠. إعطاء النتائج من بعد هذا التقيم يتطلب تدريب معين ليحقق التقييم النجاح المرجو منه. إستخدم أداة التقيم٣٦٠ في مكان عملك اليوم لقياس النتائج ومدى فعاليته لتحقيق أهداف الشركة
What Does an Executive Coaching Intervention Add Beyond Facilitated Multisource Feedback? Effects on Leader Self-Ratings and Perceived Effectiveness
Levi R. G. Nieminen, Ryan Smerek, Lindsey Kotrba, and Daniel Denison

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Volume 24, Issue 2, pages 145–176, Summer 2013
Multisource ratings and feedback are now central components of many leader development programs. Research evaluating the outcomes of multisource feedback (MSF) underscores the importance of facilitation strategies that help leaders to interpret and use their feedback throughout the development process. Scholars and practitioners have recommended executive coaching as one such facilitation strategy. However, there is little empirical basis to substantiate the benefits of executive coaching beyond other less costly strategies, most notably feedback workshops with groups of leaders. This quasi-experiment followed 469 managers from a large government agency participating in a 15-month leader development program. Changes over time in MSF ratings of leadership behaviors and effectiveness were compared for two groups of leaders. The first group of uncoached managers participated in a feedback workshop shortly after the premeasure MSF, and the second group participated in the feedback workshop plus several sessions with an executive coach thereafter. Results indicated that managers in both groups improved similarly as rated by direct reports, peers, and supervisors, whereas only those managers who received the executive coaching improved according to self-ratings. Specifically, the executive coaching intervention had a unique positive effect on managers' self-rated involvement, consistency, and mission-focused leadership behaviors. These findings are discussed in light of “psychometric” and self-efficacy perspectives, and in relation to exploratory regression analyses linking managers' self-ratings to others' ratings of their effectiveness at the conclusion of the program.

The 7 Reasons Why 360 Degree Feedback Programs Fail

E. Jackson (2014). The 7 reasons why 360 degree feedback programs fail. Forbes.com.

The 360 degree process takes into account your direct peers, your direct report and your boss. They all provide feedback on you, specifically your strengths and weaknesses. The process allows everyone to improve in key areas that might limit their career path at the company or their progression to achieve business results. The article talks about the ways in which 360 feedback fail, specially the reasons for the failure.
Jackson states that the number one reason why the program fails is because the top management doesn't believe in the program. If top management doesn't find the intervention to be important then neither will all the members of the team or department. The second reason why the program fails is because the questions are not specific. Too often questions are so generic or vague that it doesn't capture the objectivity that it needs to become helpful for a development plan or action plan.

The third reason why the program fails is that people are not objective in their comments when it comes to performance. People must understand that the purpose is to give constructive feedback rather than personal feedback. The forth reason is that there is no actionable plan after the feedback process is completed. Behavior isn’t changed without an action to change it. While the fifth reason is that there is only one follow-up meeting and nothing else. Behavior takes time to change and initiating one instance isn't going to change behavior. The sixth reason why the program fails is because people don’t believe that the process is confidential and the seventh reason is only focusing on the weakness and not highlighting the strengths. Furthermore, 360 feedback can develop on a culture that values continuous improvement by making sure the process is completed correctly while mitigating all the reasons why it can fail.

Evidence Based Answers to 15 Questions about Leveraging 360 – Degree Feedback

Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidenced based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(3), 157-182.

360 degree feedback can lead to significant changes in behavior but when done poorly in can lead to a decrease in performance and disengagement. This article reviews the most common questions that are specific to 360 degree feedback interventions. The topics for the questions are purpose and goals, methodology and psychometric properties, and process and implementation. Two questions that are relevant to purpose and goals are: 1) Does 360-degree feedback do more harm than good? And 2) Under what conditions and for whom does 360 degree feedback become beneficial? Six questions that are relevant to methodology and psychometric properties are: 1) What type and how many raters should be used? 2) Do ratings between rater groups agree with each other? 3) Do ratings within rater groups agree with each other? 4) Which response scale is best for 360 feedback? 5) How many rating points should be on a 360 feedback scale? And 6) Should a 360 feedback report contain a mix of graphs, charts and responses to open ended questions to maximize understanding? Seven questions relevant to process and implementation are: 1) Can open ended questions be emotionally damaging to clients? 2) Does personality impact how people respond to 360 feedback? 3) How do you manage the feedback of underestimators and overestimators? 4) What kind of training or certification is required by coaches to help clients understand and interpret 360 degree feedback reports? 5) Are cultural differences to be considered in the use of 360 degree feedback? 6) Does 360 degree feedback require debriefing? And 7) How can you leverage the impact of 360 degree feedback to ensure successful behavior change?

The answers to the above questions can be found in the article however, in general behavior change is not a linear path and at times it can be either progressive, regressive or static therefore multiple efforts at the same time to change behavior in a positive way tend to be more effective than a single goal transformation.

360° Feedback: Ready, Fire, Aim—Issues With Improper Implementation

Vukotich, G. (2014). Performance Improvement, 53,30-35. doi: 10.1002/pfi.21390

The growth of 360 feedback over the last 20 years began with its use as a device or intervention that focused on personal development. This article looks at 360 feedback, as well as mistakes that are often made while implementing and using this tool. Many organizations and individuals often see 360 feedback as a quick way to fix problems with individuals. This article explains why that is not the reason to implement this tool and the issues that result from people viewing 360 feedback in this way.

Other reasons why 360 feedback should not be used include: substitute for performance evaluation, an annual event, an event without a follow-up plan of action, without having a job description with competencies to evaluate against, as a comparison to other approaches, to judge an individual’s personal values, and by individuals not trained to give feedback and how to receive it.

In addition to incorrect viewpoints in why 360 feedback should be implemented, there are two general frameworks why 360 feedback is to be conducted, one for developmental purposes and two for evaluative purposes. This is critical because how the tool is used effects respondent answers.

Assessing Innovation: A 360‐degree appraisal study

Potočnik, Kristina ; Anderson, Neil
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2012, Vol.20(4), pp.497-509
This article examines the evaluation of innovation in a wider competency framework and within a 360‐degree rating procedure among managerial‐level job holders. The total sample of 2,979 individuals consisted of 296 target employees and their 318 bosses, 1208 peers, 828 direct reports, and 329 others who provided ratings on a competency framework. The results showed significant differences in innovation‐related competence ratings between different raters. Self‐ratings were significantly lower compared to the overall observer ratings and were correlated only with peer ratings. Different patterns of results were found for the lower and upper quartiles based on self‐ratings. For instance, no correlations were observed between self‐ratings and the ratings of any observers in the group of best self‐rated individuals. Implications for practice and future research in assessment and evaluation of innovation are discussed in the conclusion.

When does 360-degree feedback create behavior change? And how do we know when it does?

Bracken, David W; Rose, Dale S. **Journal of Business and Psychology**26.2 (Jun 2011): 183-192


Assessing leadership derailment factors in 360° feedback; Differences across position levels and self-other agreement

King Yii Tang ; Guangrong Dai ; Kenneth P. De Meuse
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2013, Vol.34(4), p.326-343


This paper aimed to examine the relationship between 360° assessment of leadership derailment factors and leadership effectiveness, differences across position levels, and impact of self-other agreement. The data were from an archive of 360° feedback Boss ratings of leadership effectiveness were regressed on leadership derailment factors as rated by other rater sources (e.g. peers and direct reports). Polynomial regressions were conducted to examine the impact of self-other agreement.

As hypothesized, derailment factors had statistically significant negative correlations with leadership effectiveness. Higher-level managers were rated higher on derailment factors than lower-level managers. In-agreement high ratings of derailment factors (i.e. rated high by both self and others) were associated with lower effectiveness than in-agreement low ratings (i.e. rated low by both self and others). Self under-ratings of derailment factors (i.e. self ratings lower than others’ ratings) were related to lower effectiveness than self over-ratings (i.e. self ratings higher than others’ ratings). It also was found that self ratings were less accurate than ratings from other rater sources. This study represents one of the few in the literature that empirically has examined the assessment of negative leadership characteristics in 360° feedback.

Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback

Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 64, 157-182. doi:10.1037/a0030011

Despite the popularity of 360-degree feedback, meta-analytic findings suggest that these interventions can lead to a significant change in behavior, but the effect sizes are typically modest and when done poorly, may lead to both disengagement and a decline in performance. The research evidence addressing practical issues for coaches to successfully implement 360-degree feedback interventions is updated since previous review studies (e.g., Craig & Hannum, 2006 ; Fleenor, Taylor, & Craig, 2008 ). This article reviews 15 specific questions that are common to most 360-degree feedback interventions (purpose and goals, methodology and psychometric properties, and process and implementation) designed to facilitate enhanced awareness and successful behavior change in individuals and teams.

The "new" performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on the unrealized potential of 360 degree feedback

Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). People & Strategy, 36(2), 34-40.

The development of 360 feedback over the last 20 years began with its use as a device or intervention that focused on personal development. Currently, 360 feedback has evolved to a mainstream, established and accepted HR practice. The uses span from development to decision making and include a variety of topics including information only, self-development, development planning, training decisions, succession planning, high potential employees and development, performance management and appraisal, performance assessment and measurement, and downsizing.

360 feedback is a valuable tool that uses feedback from multiple sources for leadership development and performance measurement. What is not known is how to utilize 360 feedback in an unconventional way and capitalize on it. Therefore, the ‘new’ performance management paradigm is using 360 feedback to improve performance management (unconventional) by instilling consistency and accountability.

If 360 feedback becomes the new performance management paradigm, this would entail using the methodology for creating a culture that encourages ongoing coaching, feedback and better data leverage to support the performance and talent management.


Assessing leadership derailment factors in 360° feedback: Differences across position levels and self-other agreement

Tang, K. Y. (2013). Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(4), 326–343. doi:10.1108/LODJ-07-2011-0070

Leadership derailment can cost large companies millions of dollars therefore the article examined the relationship between 360 assessment of leadership derailment factors (e.g., doesn't relate well to others, self-centered, doesn't inspire or build talent, too narrow, and doesn't deliver results) and leadership effectiveness, differences across position levels, and impact of self-other agreement.

Results- significant negative correlations were found between leadership derailment factors and leadership effectiveness. Looking more closely why such correlations were found we see that higher-level managers were rated higher on derailment factors than lower-level managers. In addition high ratings of derailment factors (i.e. rated high by both self and others) were associated with lower effectiveness than low ratings (i.e. rated low by both self and others). The self-under-ratings of derailment factors (i.e. self-ratings lower than others’ ratings) were related to lower effectiveness than self-over-ratings (i.e. self-ratings higher than others’ ratings). It also was found that self-ratings were less accurate than ratings from other rater sources.


A long-term study of the impact of a 360 feedback process on self-others’ agreement and performance

Shipper, F. (2010). Academy of Management Proceedings. 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54501026

Findings by Shipper, F. (2010) supports the use of the 360 feedback technique for developing managers. The 360 feedback process starts with collecting data from peers, superiors, direct reports, and self then reporting that information to participants via a report continued by training and supporting and recollection of the data from peers, superiors, direct reports, and self with lastly reporting that information to participants via a report. With that said, having expectations that a single 360 feedback technique will change performance or differences in assessments of self and that of others’ may be idealistic (e.g., Shipper, Hoffman, & Rotondo, 2007). Studies in neuropsychology (Law, 2004) suggest that changing patterns of behavior and reasoning involves intensive training.

To analyze the data Shipper, F. (2010) ran a Duncan’s multiple range tests to conduct multiple comparisons on (1) changes ineffectiveness, (2) the absolute values of self and others’ evaluations of interactive skills, and (3) the absolute values of self and others’ evaluations of controlling skills indicated with the exclusion of self and others’ assessments of interactive skills had no significant difference after a single intervention. These tests also showed that for the three criterion variables, significantly different changes did occur after two or three interventions.


Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feedback

Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64, 157-182.

Nowack and Mashihi (2012) provide a research-based analysis of 360-degree feedback to assist coaches and consultants in their efforts of delivering effective evaluation tools to their clients. The researchers exemplify how negative feedback is discouraging and emotionally harmful. For example, if the 360 feedback is poorly designed it may trigger emotional distress associated with pain and suffering. In contrast, when using ratio of 3:1 positive-to-negative feedback, individuals tend to be more engaged and motivated to change. It is important to involve several raters selected by the client to provide useful feedback. Previous research (as cited in Nowack and Mashihi, 2012) demonstrated that selected rates are more accurate than those non-selected by clients. Nowack and Mashihi also explore the issue of agreeableness between rater group and within rater group, the type of response scales, the number of rating points, the most effective ways of delivering individual feedback (e.g., graphs, charts), and the implementation process. The researchers invite coaches and consultants to become familiar with the content of the current article as it provides research-based practices to enable them to deliver successful behavioral change interventions.


Impact of power distance on multi-source feedback evaluations: A cross-cultural perspective

Mittal, R., & Saran, A. (2010). Journal of International Business and Economics, 10, 117-122.

The focus of this article is to provide a theoretical examination of the extent to which cultural values influence the usefulness of multi-source feedback (MSF). Mittal and Saran (2010) propose that the application of the MSF in High Power Distance (HPD) cultures differs from those applications in Low Power Distance (LPD) cultures.

Mittal and Saran (2010) suggest that in HPD cultures supervisors tend to be more distanced from their subordinates and keep them away from any decision making processes. Subordinates, on the other hand tend to fully accept and respect this HPD relationship. As a consequence, the researchers argue that the upward evaluation in MSF would be inflated to minimize conflict and maximize stability at the work place. Supervisors in HPD tend to take all credits for the work accomplished by their subordinates, diminish the subordinates’ importance, and give low performance evaluations. Therefore, the use of MSL in HPD culture may have little or no importance. In low power distance (LPD) cultures, according to Mittal and Saran, supervisors tend to respect their subordinates, offer credits for each contribution given by the team members, and are challenged by their subordinates for most decisions they make. Therefore, the usability of the MSW is useful in cultures with LPD. Mittal and Saran (2010) recommend that future studies could compare the results of MSF evaluations in cultures with low distance power with those results obtained from cultures with high distance power.


Employee feedback technologies in the human performance system

Baker, N. (2010). Human Resource Development International, 13, 477-485.

The purpose of this article was to provide summary of comprehensive literature review on current leading technologies in employee feedback. Baker (2010) examines not only the effectiveness of coaching, 360 degree feedback, and supervisor/associate assessment but also the most appropriate way to approach employees and the time of feedback delivery.

Rummler and Brancher (in Baker, 2010) define employee feedback as “information that tells performers what and how well they are doing.” Baker suggests that younger employees need an instant and frequent feedback via text messaging or email and more traditional employees may prefer face-to-face feedback. The researcher points out that effective feedback has (a) clear standards of what is evaluated, (b) clarity of reviewed elements, and (c) several benefits for an employee and organization.

Baker (2010) illustrates limitations and benefits of current employee feedback. Accordingly, the researcher suggests that a traditional feedback in a form of generic questionnaire filled out by the supervisor is limited in providing directions for career growth. Although time consuming and costly, a 360 degree feedback offers a multiple perspective of employee performance and is more effective in predicting their future performance. Coaching, as Baker suggests, is especially beneficial for employees with soft skills like leadership but it has one disadvantage of creating information overload.

Baker (2010) found out that the most effective employee feedback is (a) relevant and correlates with employee and organizational goals, (b) accurate so that employees maintain trust and improve their performance, (c) timely as defined by cultural and societal factors, (d) specific when addressing each evaluated element, and (e) easy to understand.

The researcher proposed the use of a statement of responsibility indicating agreement that the employee understands the expected standards and responsibilities. The statement of responsibilities could be later converted into output metrics for the purpose of monitoring progress.

What’s fair? Public and private delivery of project feedback
Westerman,C. Y. K., & Westerman, D. K. (2013). Journal of Business Communication, 50(2), 190-207.

Delivering feedback to employees may seem to be an easy task. Is it? Westerman and Westerman (2013) examined the perception of procedural and interactional justice when a positive or a negative feedback was delivered either privately or publicly. They hypothesized that positive and private messages will lead to more procedural and more interactional perception of justice than do negative messages.

There were 214 participants including 124 students, with the range age of 19-32, and 90 full-time working adults, with the range age of 19-54. Participants received one out of four messages – positive or negative (crossing valence) delivered either publicly or privately.

The dependent variables consisted of perception of procedural and interactional justice. When measuring perception of procedural justice, the researchers asked what participants thought about the procedure of message delivery and indicate if it was fair. Similarly, when measuring perception of interactional justice, researchers asked participants to indicate if they thought their supervisor was fair when communicating the message. Westermore and Westermore (2013) measured scenario realism and message expectation to examine if participants perceived them as real. They also measured perception of valence (positive/negative) and privacy (public/private).

Weterman and Westerman’s (2013) findings revealed that positively valenced acceptance messages were perceived as more procedurally and interactionally just than the negatively valenced rejections; private channel was perceived as more procedurally and interactionally just than the public channel.

This research confirms that managers who choose private delivery are viewed as more procedurally and interactionally just than those managers who choose public delivery. It also points out that positive feedback is viewed as more procedurally and interactionally just than negative feedback.

The effect of employee feedback-seeking on job performance: An empirical study

Asumeng, M. (2013). International Journal Of Management, 30(2), 373-388.

Is active feedback important in seeking job performance? Is an employee or manager who seeks feedback about their job performance more effective than one who does not? In this study, the author used a multi-system-multi-rater with feedback on 142 managers and 426 manager-matched subordinate staff, to determine if there is a difference between feedback and job performance, with the concept of self-awareness being used to explain the feedback seeking. Based on organizations assumptions, feedback seeking is a conscious effort to get information about employees’ job performances. However, some employees are inclined to seek feedback if the benefits outweigh the perceived costs (self-esteem). The benefits include uncertain situations and skill learning development to enhance job performance.

The performance criteria in this study includes interpersonal skills, intrapersonal skills, leadership skills, and career skills
adopted from the ‘Domain Model of Competencies’ (Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003). They are defined as below:

Intrapersonal/ core self-evaluations: Internalized standards of performance are indicative of the “core self-evaluations’ construct, which is the bottom line evaluations employees hold themselves.
Interpersonal skills: Is how individuals initiating, building and maintaining relationships with others as subordinates, peers, managers and superiors.
Leadership skills: Is managerial skills that have implications on employees well-being, work attitudes, job satisfaction and performance.
Career skills: Is career success, comprising career satisfaction, and job satisfaction.

The domain model theorizes that there are two perspectives of a person’s job performance and their inner perspectives that are concerned in the self-assessments of their own skills and performance. The inner/outer perspective of performance is aligned with multi-source-multi-rater feedback system. In the managers self-reported questionnaire the feedback addressed self-efficacy, locus of control, self-esteem, emotional stability, and job and career satisfaction. Based on the data and results this showed a positive relationship between self-awareness and feedback behavior. As for the subordinate ratings on managerial trust, communication and transformational leadership this correlated with the managerial results, that feedback is the strongest overall impact.

Therefore, the findings in this study suggest there is a complexity to the feedback setting because feedback did not have a significant impact on performance and the feedback seeking. The feedback perception appears to be a fundamental construct in feedback seeking and could have implication for organizations and job performance, and the conceptualization of employee feedback seeking.


How to provide good 360-degree feedback

eHow.com

The below lists the good feedback process when using 360-degree feedback.

  1. Involve as many people as possible to maintain a sense of fair and legitimate evaluation. Involving only a few employees will reduce the impact of legitimate feedback.
  2. Create organization’s specific strategic goals for 360-degree feedback before implementing it.
  3. Hold the ratees accountable to the goals, and evaluate frequently.
  4. Regardless of positive or negative feedback, emphasize to the raters that they must deliver the feedback in a polite and constructive manner even though the feedback is given anonymously. Feedback delivered in ill (or mean) manner may not be well received, and therefore, may become useless.
  5. Follow up with the ratees after the feedback. Run individual sessions with yourself to put the feedback results into context, and make sure that the ratees do not focus only on negative feedback.


360 instruments are the most popular way to assess leadership

Brotherton, P. (2012). T+D, 66(8), 18.

The article reports that among the list of major assessments used in 610 companies, 360-degree instrument was found to be the most used instrument.


360 degree
DDI
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
DiSC
Hogan
Lominger
High-performing companies
50%
17%
17%
16%
16%
12%
Low-performing companies
28%
4%
20%
13%
9%
15%

However, there is no single silver bullet in the assessments. Assessments are often used in combination, and the right combination depends on organizational culture, and the objectives. When assessments are conducted, it is important to run follow-up studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the assessments combination.


Great Feedback

Richardson, A. (2013). Training Journal, 66-69.

In this article, Annie Richardson discusses the power of feedback. When feedback is used correctly in employee management as a two-way process and delivered in the moment is more effective. The author, states there are several forms of feedback in learning and development, and attention is often given to 360 feedback instruments. She believes 360 feedback is effective for gathering information from sources and delivering it in a documentation to be used for an ongoing development plan. However, she believes feedback should be consistent with rewards and discipline with a face to face conversation that aligns with an immediate reward/discipline to enforce certain employee behaviors instead of holding back feedback for several months to a year, during a performance review.

The author, points out humans are quick at immediately rewarding or disciplining their dogs to enforce certain behaviors. Therefore, we as humans should do the same in a succinct way soon after an employees’ behavior is observed. “Imagine the scenario of going and telling your dog off sometime after he had done something wrong, he is not going to connect it back to the specific instance. So, “why, then, do we except humans to be able to do exactly that when they get reprimanded sometime after an incident-we let the moment go and do not take the care to bring it to their attention at the time that it is happening?” (p. 67, para.1). This is why the author, believes received feedback is critical like how we train our dogs.

Furthermore, when a manger provides feedback to an employee in a positive matter, the employees’ instant reaction is a smile with a little discomfort. This is due to lack of positive enforcement. So, this is why organizations should implement great feedback to their employees’ in the moment in a direct and succinct, open, honest manner. Feedback should always be directed towards someone’s behavior and be open in receiving feedback as well. The author emphasizes on to be straightforward in providing your feedback and usually start with some positive statements, then focus on the one thing that you would like the person to change or do differently. This is making the person aware of their actions and they can provide their feedback regarding the behaviors. Remember this is a two-way conversation and creating a relationship should support both the giving and receiving of feedback.


Transparency Pays Off In 360-Degree Reviews

The Wall St. Journal, December 8, 2011

Sanjeev Nikore, a senior corporate vice president at HCL Technologies Ltd., went through 360-degree feedback along with 25 other top leaders, and SHARED THE RESULTS COMPANY-WIDE online. This led him to a promotion. Typically, executives who reveal their feedback results do so only with their close others. But if you handle the feedback well, openness about your feedback results with others may get rewarded with advancement. A growing number of executives share their faults to practice similar transparency approaches.

Those organizations that encourage the transparency approaches purport the positive influence of openness of communication. Specifically, they believe that the practice will lead to promotion of the executives who demonstrate acceptance of the feedback and capability to grow in response. Furthermore, they claim that the sharing the shortcomings in the feedback would encourage the peers and the subordinates’ more loyalty and their active supports with respect to the executives’ weakness. Therefore, the work may be more effectively performed by collectives. However, there may also be some downsides. Some suggest that being too transparent about one’s flaws may lose others’ confidence. Some peers or subordinates may even take advantage of the executives’ shared weaknesses to show them up.

This could lead to some very interesting research questions.


Building tomorrow’s leaders.

Smith, E. (2012 August), Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 11 (8), 38-39.

In today’s society there are several organizations trying to build tomorrow’s leaders within their organizations in order to be successful. In this case study of New York –Presbyterian Hospital (NYP), building tomorrow’s leaders they demonstrate building a team of strong leaders enhances an organization. “In 2011-2012, NewYork-Pesbyterian Hospital (NYP) made the U.S News & World Report Honor Roll or America’s Best Hospitals for the 11th time” (para. 1). With their success of addressing challenges, NYP’s senior leadership team has focused on their front-line managers to build resilience, which has resulted in more of their physicians being named on “America’s Top Doctors list than any other hospital in the nation” (para. 1). Developing a strong team of leaders improves an organization’s moral, productivity, patient satisfaction and it decreases employee turnover rates.

The method that NYP used was “an 18-month, nomination-based program to build front-line skills in complex problem solving, collaboration, communication, decision making and other management capabilities” (para. 3). This program helped NYP to build a strong team of leaders to face common health care industry challenges. This program is broken up into three phases.

The first phase consists of development planning and leadership workshops. This phase has “participants use the 360- degree feedback, performance data, input from managers and self-reflection to create individual development plans” (para. 6). During this phase the participants would have “12 semi-monthly classroom workshops” to learn all of the business strategies. With these workshops the participants would be given business situation challenges to analyze, decide and act individually and collaboratively to ensure they learned the first phase before they enter the second phase.

The second phase is action learning. In this phase the participants would “work in teams to apply their knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in the workshops to strategically important hospital projects” (para. 7). Once they completed their tasks they would move to the third stage.

The third stage is the management sessions. In this stage the participants would have to apply their knowledge, skills, and abilities they learned from the previous stages to address “enterprise-wide issues” (para. 8). In this final stage participants work with a mentor to receive a second 360- degree assessment on their performance. Following this the participants need to express the urgency and communicate the importance of their role in developing capabilities.
According to Smith (2012) NYP expects their leaders to:

  • Generate significant outcomes from the in-program projects and action-learning work and significantly enhance key frontline managers’ capabilities.
  • Build collaboration across hospitals, departments, functions and units.
  • Enable new streamlined and agile decision making and execution capabilities.
  • Build common awareness of the “NYP Way” of management practice and leadership.
  • Stimulate innovative and strategic solution development on NYP and industry issues, and broaden the overall organization’s agility, resilience and dynamism on the front line.

Therefore, with this program and 360-feedback NYP has built a leadership baseline for their organization. In this case study of leadership and development initiatives at the NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital (NYP) is presented. Topics include employee morale, management decision making and communication, and leadership training through workshops, self-reflection, and 360-degree feedback. Collaborative learning is mentioned.


Does your performance management need a tune-up?

Chamberlain, L. (2011). Strategic Finance, 93(5), 18-61.

This article provides some strategies to help companies update their performance management systems. According to Chamberlain (2011), several organizations are using the top-down approach to assess their performance management, which needs to be updated. The way a company can refresh their performance management system is by aligning performance management with the companies goals by getting employees involved. The first step is important because you must assess your strategic organizational goals, by working with your senior leaders and your executive team. Once you’re senior leaders and executives have a clear understanding of your both short and long-term goals, this is when you can begin to tailor your performance management approach. This is when you actively involve your employees in the design and ongoing maintenance of the performance management program. The productive way of incorporating your employees into the planning is by creating groups based on tenures and experience to “help translate the organizational goals into day-to-day language” (p. 18). Then once you have a hard copy of the performance management tool, “make sure you are only including the metrics and evaluation categories that can help assess an employee’s contribution to the goals established in the alignment phase” (p. 19).

After the performance management tool is created, do a 360-degree review. The 360-degree review evaluates everyone, regardless of their seniority or position, to provide a self-assessment of the company. According to Chamberlain (2011), most Fortune 500 companies have used the 360-degree performance review process. Based on the results of the 360-degree review you can determine how it may help you to achieve your objectives in the alignment phase. When this is completed you will have a clear understanding of your expectations to achieve your goals. Therefore, with a clear understanding for your goal objections and your 360 feedback you can create any management performance you believe is necessary, such


Exploring conditions for openness in multisource feedback assessment

Taylor, S. N. & Bright, D. S. (2010). Academy Of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2010.54484808

360-degree feedback or multi-source feedback (MSF) is a very popular system to compare self versus others’ rating as the aid for self-exploration and leadership development. Aside from its purported and reported benefits, 360-degree feedback system also has its pitfalls. The effectiveness of the system is dependent on the feedback recipients’ psychological state. The authors particularly emphasize importance of the recipients’ openness and the threats of defensiveness. They propose that the feedback is more likely to achieve desired outcomes on the recipient with psychological state of openness than defensiveness. Self-Other Comparison (SOC) and Predicted-Other Comparison methods were compared to illustrate the proposed argument.

Classical theories of self-awareness suggest that self-awareness consists of an understanding of one’s self and an understanding of how one is seen by others. The SOC, the current mainstream approach, which compares between one’s self rating and others’ rating, relies on an understanding of one’s self. Whereas, The POC, which compares between one’s prediction of others’ rating and others’ actual rating, relies on an understanding of how one is seen by others. Some research suggests that defensiveness is associated with conflict with one’s understanding of self. Negative emotionality and self-focus are suggested to be the key antecedents to defensiveness. Openness, on the other hand, is suggested to be enhanced by positive emotionality and self-other focus.

The authors argue that the SOC encourages defensiveness when one’s view of self is incongruent with others’ view since it encourages the recipients to focus their own self-understanding while simultaneously exploring others potentially conflicting views. On the other hand, the POC encourages openness and discourages defensiveness since it encourages the recipients to focus on their understanding of how others see them, and confirm or disconfirm their understanding by exploring others’ actual views. The authors recommend the POC as an alternative to the popular SOC to foster intended outcome of 360-degree feedback.


Taking the burn out of the 360° hot seat

Levine, M. (2010). T+D, 64(8), 40-45.

The 360 feedback process provides organizations direct feedback from their employees and leaders. With the 360 feedback results, an organization can improve the behavior of their leader skills towards success. Levine describes the importance on how to convey the 360 feedback results to the leader. “A leader who reviews a report without the support of a coach may be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers in the report, try to determine "who said what" and compromise the anonymity of the feedback, focus only on the weaknesses brought out in the report, and not understand how to prioritize the issues when developing an action plan” (p.40). Organizations need to realize that coaches, organization development or training staff members may have the experience in debriefing the 360 process but several managers are not equipped with this type of training.

Levine states the feedback report may look simple and seem easy to understand, communicating the output of the report in a balanced and through method can be complex. The person who is tasked with distributing the results should approach the conversation with the leader to assure that he/she is open to discuss the scores and comments. Once, the scores and comments are discussed, she recommends that the individual should assist the leaders with recommended changes that will enhance the organizations success. For instance, a consultant can break down each competency or topic to emphasis on specific areas that need immediate attention.


360-Degree Feedback: Integrating Business Know-How with Social Work Values

Richardson, R. (2010). Administration of Social Work, 34, 259-274.

In this recent research, the author explores several facets of 360-degree feedback, the factors that contribute to and hinder its successful implementation, and its potential use by social work administrators and non-for profit organizations. The author then discusses advantages and disadvantages to using a 360-degree feedback in this type of setting including issues of staff size, process facilitation, and financial resources. However, the author argues that if used appropriately, 360-degree feedback can increase self-awareness, promote skill development, and foster a collaborative organizational culture—outcomes that reflect social work values and ethics.


When does 360-degree feedback create behavior change? And how would we know it when it does?

Bracken, D. W., & Rose, D. S. (2011). Journal Of Business And Psychology, 26(2), 183-192.

“360-degree feedback has great promise as a method for creating both behavior change and organization change, yet research demonstrating results to this effect has been mixed. The mixed results are, at least in part, because of the high degree of variation in design features across 360 processes. We identify four characteristics of a 360 process that are required to successfully create organization change, (1) relevant content, (2) credible data, (3) accountability, and (4) census participation, and cite the important research issues in each of those areas relative to design decisions. In addition, when behavior change is created, the data must be sufficiently reliable to detect it, and we highlight current and needed research in the measurement domain, using response scale research as a prime example.” (Abstract)

Multisource feedback: Lessons learned and implications for practice

Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., & Charles, A. C. (2007). Human Resources Management, 46, 285-307. doi:10.1002/hrm.20161

A three-year research was conducted to investigate the implementations of multisource feedback (MSF) in two organizations. The study indicated that human resources professionals must pay attention to how they implement MSF since trust between the raters, ratees, and the facilitators, the attitudes, personality traits, and organizational context considerably affect the reactions to the feedback. Moreover, reactions to negative feedback influence subsequent behavior, and thus, should not be ignored or treated lightly. The findings indicate that extra care must be given to how to facilitate MSF and subsequent developmental activities.


Using multisource feedback to develop leaders: Applying theory and research to improve practice

Hezlett, S. A. (2008). Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10, 703-720. doi:10.1177/1523422308322271

The problem and the solution. Empirical research suggests that, on average, the changes made by leaders after receiving multisource feedback (MSF) are positive, but fairly small. Four sets of explanations for these results are analyzed in this article: potential limitations in the design of previous studies on MSF, the psychometric characteristics of MSF instruments, flaws in implementing MSF systems, and theory-based explanations of development following receipt of feedback. Models of development, feedback, and MSF suggest that it is unrealistic to expect MSF to lead to development for all leaders. Implications for practice and research are discussed. MSF can help many leaders develop, but only when associated development programs are correctly designed and implemented.” (Abstract).


The 360° process: Planning for action

G. Vukotich (2010). OD Practitioner, 42(3), 24-29.

"While the debate over the correct use of 360° feedback may continue for years to come, this paper has identified some of the considerations to provide a perspective for implementing an effective process. If a 360° Feedback process is already in place, some points to consider have been discussed to enhance the overall usefulness of these programs for an organization. Communicating expectations throughout the organization helps individuals focus on their roles and related responsibilities. Linking the 360° Feedback process to the larger organizational strategies, such as succession planning and career development, ensures that the monies spent demonstrate a positive return on investment. Most important, the assessment process is just the starting point in a development process to help ensure the right people with the right skills are ready when needed" (p. 29).


The research of the 360-degree evaluation system in performance management of high-tech enterprise

J. Du & B. Zhu

This paper discusses the use of 360-degree feedback as a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of performance, and as a tool for performance management. The description regarding the structure of the performance management system with 360-degree feedback is provided. It is questionable whether the 360-degree feedback is an appropriate tool for performance evaluation and management as claimed by the researchers. However, the paper illustrates a nice example of the approach to quantify and standardize performance evaluation and management system.

Click here to read the full article


Incongruity in 360-degree feedback ratings and competing managerial values: Evidence from a public agency setting

S. Hassan & J. Rohrbaugh

Why is there incongruence in 360-degree feedback ratings? How exactly do they differ? What does the incongruence mean? Hassan and Rohrbaugh investigated those questions. The results showed the systematic incongruence across organizational roles with association with unique role perspectives. Implications are discussed in detail.

Click here to read the full article


360 Degree Feedback: How Many Raters are Needed for Reliable Ratings on the Capacity to Develop Competences, with Personal Qualities as Developmental Goals?

R. Hensela, F. Meijersa, R. van der Leedenb, & J. Kessels

Back to the same old question. How many raters do you need for 360 degree feedback? The results of this research suggest that ten raters are needed to achieve reliability level of just .7.Usually, implementation of 360 degree feedback in practice involves just a couple of raters. Ten raters is a lot. And are you comfortable with .7 for reliability? Whether or not .7 is acceptable depends on what you are using 360 degree feedback for. One of the most obvious recommendations is that it is better to use 360 degree feedback as a tool for personal growth than appraisal tool.

Click here to read the full article


What Your Employees Need to Know

S. Crabtree

Feedback is a much needed, often overlooked essential of the workplace. This article reports the results of a world-wide survey of employee engagement, and the findings about feedback are astounding. Are you providing the proper type and amount of feedback to really get your workforce engaged? This may get you thinking about a globally consistent deficit of employee feedback and how you could use it to your advantage.

Read the full article here for more on employee feedback:



Effects on organizational context (culture and climate) from implementing a 360-degree feedback system: The case of Arcelik

N. Mamatoglu

Impacts of 360-degree feedback on organizational context in a Turkey-based organization were examined in a repeated measure. Notable impacts were found on positive change in perception of social support and communication. The researcher argues that feedback results may facilitate supportive relationships. The change in the perception of communication is inferred to be the results of communication opportunities provided by implementation of 360-degree feedback. Negative change in the perception of performance appraisal is also found, indicating that the 360-degree feedback induced realization of deficiency in the performance appraisal system.

Click here to read the full article


When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?

D. W. Bracken & D. S. Rose

Though 360-degree feedback is a popular method of reviewing organizational performance, it’s difficult to measure just how much it contributes to positive outcomes in the company. By taking a systems view of measuring the impact of a 360, Bracken and Rose review the current literature and provide some useful information about how the benefits of the 360-degree feedback can be utilized in an organization.

Read the full article here for more on 360-degree feedback:


A long-term study of the impact of a 360 feedback process on self-others’ agreement and performance

F. Shipper

Shipper examined the assumption of the use of 360 feedback, that the comparison of self-evaluations of skills to evaluations by others will lead to gaining perspectives of themselves as others see them, and that this new self-awareness will motivate self-improvement. The Survey of Management Practices was selected for its face validity as the 360 feedback instrument to collect data. The respondents were sampled from a large multi-national technology-driven firm. The results indicated that managers reduce the discrepancies between the self and others’ evaluation, and improve in reaction to 360 feedback results. However, note that the follow-up support was given after the feedback processes to ensure a supportive environment. Such an adequate assistance is crucial to ensure the positive change after the feedback.

Click here to read the full article



Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right

M. A. Peiperl

At times, peer-to-peer feedback may be met with opposition, actually proving more detrimental than advantageous to one's performance. Understanding what to avoid when deciding to administer the 360 degree feedback process can help accomplish the positive outcomes desired for your organization. Learn some basic principles with these quick tips for success.
Find four common paradoxes to the 360 here


360‐degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination

F. Luthans & S. J. Peterson

The title explains it all. Luthans and Peterson conducted this study in the field setting. The analyses were performed in a repeated measure/within-group design without a control group, meaning that the researchers analyzed difference of the competence and attitudes scores between “before” and “after” the interventions on the same people without non-intervention group. The researchers implemented a combination of 360° feedback and systematic coaching, and observed significant attitudes improvement in both self-report and others’ ratings. The gap between self-ratings and others’ ratings on behavioral competence, individual competence, and personal responsibility show reduction. However, improvement of others’ ratings rather than lowering of self-ratings is accounted for the reduction. This could lead to a number of interpretations.

Click here to read the full article


Agreement in Self–Other Ratings of Leader Effectiveness: The Role of Demographics and Personality

R. P. Vecchio & R. J. Anderson

The authors explain how overestimation of manager personal effectiveness is problematic. This is for a number of reason. The main reason is the data itself is not accurate and thus the results and subsequent action plans do not target the specific areas for improvement. Additionally if a person overestimates their feedback results, they will more likely to resist the feedback given by their 360 counterparts and change behavior.

The focus of this study is to find out if demographic variables and individual differences (personality) influence individual behavior when the performance measurement system employs multi-rater feedback.

One thousand and twenty one focal managers participated in this study and completed the Leadership Circle Inventory. Results indicated that self-evaluations correlated with age. Once the researchers controlled for age eliminated the positive association with education and self-evolution. The study produces additional results supporting or not supporting the hypothesis. What exactly where the hypothesis stated in the article? What results, if any, help to explain leader effectiveness?

Please read the article to find out more

The Relation between Managers’ Emotional Intelligence and the Organizational Climate they Create

N. Momeni

360 feedback was the survey tool used in measuring the emotional intelligence of managers and the organizational climate they create. Thirty managers’ and 140 supervisors feedback measured by regression analysis indicated positive correlations between the two variables. The results also indicated two additional emotional intelligence factors that revealed correlations with organizational climate. What are those two additional factors?

Find out by reading the dimensions of emotional intelligence. A 2 x 2 matrix provides a quick understanding and can be found on page 36 of the article.

To read the full article by clicking here .

360-degree appraisal: a simple pragmatic solution

R. Manson, S. Power, J. Parker-Smith & E. Baker

554 doctors were appraised using 360-degree feedback. Appraisal of this many doctors by both peers and patients were gathered using a web-based process that yielded over 16,000 replies. Results indicate that 1 in 12 doctors have problems with teamwork, leadership and management. Also, 1in 12 doctors could improve in the areas of communication regarding treatment decisions, continuous feedback and information. The types of doctors are stated in the article along with the questions used in the appraisal.

Whether you are a patient or a doctor this six page article may provide you with some interesting take home information.

Click here to read the full article .

Leveraging Multirater Feedback to Facilitate Successful Behavioral Change

K. M. Nowack

Insight and awareness has been widely used to create behavioral change using multirater feedback. Yet, insight and awareness alone cannot create successful behavioral change. Successful individual change is the result of a theoretically derived model put into practice. The model described in this article is a feedback loop of enlightenment, encouragement and reinforcement (labeled as enable).

How does a consultant integrate evidence based findings so that change is sustained? Do the stages in the aforementioned model go beyond what the stage is titled and if so, what are the details of each stage?

Find out the answers to these questions by reading the full article here .


Does the 360 Feedback Process Create Actionable Knowledge and Equally Across Cultures?

F. Shipper, R.C. Hoffman, & D. M. Rotondo

The results indicated that the United States and Ireland were significantly different from Malaysia and Ireland showed stronger positive changes in actionable knowledge then that of the other countries. The study also took into account power distance, individualism, moral, commitment, self awareness, and tension. So far equality isn’t seen across all cultures but what if the 360 feedback process noticed actionable knowledge being created between some cultures but not others? To find out the answer to this question is by reading the full article.
To continue reading this article click here .

Impact of Multi-Source Feedback on Leadership Competency Development: A Longitudinal Field Study

G. Dai, K.P. De Meuse & C. Peterson

This results of this article are questionable. The authors state that specific competencies that are self-selected for development improved leadership effectiveness while non-selection of other competencies did not improve leadership effectiveness. Does this make sense? Is this information new? The authors state the non-selection of competences has to do with difficulty level and thus if we decrease the difficulty level of the competencies than leadership effectiveness would improve. There are further implications for measurement regarding multi-source feedback.

You can read more about it by clicking here .




The use of the 360-Degree Feedback Method

I. Liviu, C. Emil, S. Irina & B. Delia

360-degree feedback takes into account the various self perspectives of all individuals who interact with a single person in a work environment and that person's self report data. The authors state assertively that this tool should be used for development; not evaluation. It should not take the place of a supervisory review. Furthermore, evaluation of how the job is performed and the results deemed from the performance is assessed by the circle of people who work around the individual. The article not only reviews the literature on the subject but also evaluates 197 supervisors and subordinates to assess individuals competences and delineate high performers from low performers. However, are they contradicting themselves? Are they evaluating rather than developing? And do you even agree that performance should be assessed this way?

Read the full article and you decide .



‘‘I don’t see me like you see me, but is that a problem?’’Cultural influences on rating discrepancy in 360-degree

feedback instruments

Regina Eckert, Bjørn Z. Ekelund, William A. Gentry,Jeremy F. Dawson.


This article explores the cultural differences and challenges when providing 360 degree feedback. Through much research cultural aspects are identified as being extremely important when measuring your employees. One must be aware of the consequences and the effective ways to successfully rovide feedback to all employees.
Click here to read the article




A “360” degree view for individual leadership development.

By Glenys Drew


This article is a study that was done on participants of a leadership survey, the process and description of the survey and results on how ratees receive and respond to 360-degree feedback.


Coming Full Circle Using Research and Practice To Address 27 Questions about 360-Degree Feedback Programs

Frederic P. Morgeson, Troy V. Mumford, Michael A. Campion
Article addresses 27 specific questions that frequently arise in the development, implementation, administration and interpretation of multisource feedback programs. Studies have shown that the benefit of upward 360-degree feedback is that it can improve job performance especially for low-performing employees.

To read the article click here




Internationalizing 360-Degree Feedback: Are Subordinates Ratings Comparable?

Treena L. Gillespie

Use caution when transporting common US human resource practices across national cultures. Research has indicated that 360-degree feedback ratings made by subordinates are not equivalent when used in cultures of Great Britain, Hong Kong, and Japan. Find out why by reading this scholarly publication.

To read the full article please click here .

Does the 360 Feedback Process Create Actionable Knowledge Equally Equally Across Cultures?

Frank Shipper, Richard C. Hoffman, Denise M. Rotondo

Does 360 feedback offer more information than a traditional performance evaluation of developmental tool. Do the results of 360's transcend among cultural differences and paint equally actionable knowledge irregardless of cultural background? How are different value systems and beliefs addressed with this popular tool?

To read the full article please click here .

How Many Perspectives Provide a Compass? Differentiating 360-Degree and Multi-Source Feedback?

Craig A. Foster & Melanie R. F. Law

Have you ever wondered just how many perspectives just how many perspectives are in need in order to truly have 360-degree feedback? This articles explores that very question and offers insight on this popular developmental multi-level feedback tool.

To read the full article please click here .

Coming Full Circle: Using research and practice to address 27 questions about 360-degree feedback programs

F. P. Morgeson, T. V. Mumford & M. A. Campion

360 degree feedback programs have grown in popularity and utility among organizations. There seems to be an apparent need to integrate the scientific literature on this highly popular feedback program with practical knowledge faced by practitioner regarding design and implementation issues. Articles from academic and practitioners sources were reviewed and organized around 27 specific 360 degree feedback program questions. Questions span areas of benefits, downsides, how the program should be used and what performance dimensions should be included.

To continue reading this article click here .

How to Evaluate Your 360 Feedback Efforts

K. M. Nowack, J. Hartley & W. Bradley

What is the impact of using 360 degree feedback on your organization? Does 360 feedback make a difference in skill transfer or development? Before using 360 feedback, Nowack, Hartley, and Bradley recommend that you look at some critical issues.

Click here to read more about .

Improving the Payoff from 360 Degree Feedback

E. Rogers, C. W. Rogers, & W. Metlay

How can organizations get the most benefit from 360 degree feedback? What are some factors that they need to look at? These authors conducted a study on 360-feedback process and found 6 critical factors.

To read more about the findings from their study click here .

A Study of the Impact of Training in a Management Development Program Based on 360 Degree Feedback

R. T. Rosti & F. Shipper

In areas of training and 360 degree feedback, organizations know that these help to improve business but there is no quantitative analysis conducted to assess for effectiveness. Rosti and Shipper evaluated for effectiveness of management training before and after all 360 degree feedback assessments were conducted.

To read the results from their study click here .

360 Feedback: Accuracy, Reaction, and Perception of Usefulness

J. E. Brett & L. E. Atwater

It is often believed that negative feedback from 360 assessments will result in positive change. This article argues that negative feedback raises skepticism of the accuracy of the ratings. The study implies that attitudes toward the 360 assessment and self-development in general are just as important as the feedback itself.

Click here to read more .

Leveraging Multirater Feedback to Facilitate Successful Behavioral Change

K. M. Nowack

There are limitations and challenges with any system but it is important to be aware of what limitations and challenges are inherent in the system chosen in order to provide the best feedback system available. This article explains five important factors when interpreting multirater results.

To read the full article please click here .


imgxx.jpg


About Organized Change Contact Us