360° Feedback

Introduction
Employees want to know how well they perform on their jobs. A simple statement, almost axiomatic in any organisation, yet it has probably caused more controversy, applied research and practical advice than any other assertion in the history of management writing and thinking. The riddle is that both applied scientists and managers have simply been unable to provide complete feedback about job performance that satisfies an employee's need to know how well he/she has done and where to improve (Kavanagh, 1997, p. 147).
Journal of European Industrial Training 25/1 [2001] 532 # MCB University Press [ISSN 0309-0590]
Kavanagh's (1997) statement shapes the focus and structure of this monograph. He refers to the idea of employees wanting to know how they are performing; the issue of how best to provide effective feedback to employees; and the challenge of providing feedback to employees which facilitates both performance improvement and effective career development processes. A relatively recent development in this context is a concept that has been termed ``3608 feedback'' or ``multi-rater performance appraisal''. Coates (1998) claims that multi-source appraisal became popular on the corporate scene only in the 1980s and at the time was mostly used as an executive development tool. DeNisi and Kluger (2000) herald that, for scholars and practitioners in the field of human resource management in general, it is widely accepted that feedback is an essential component of an effective performance improvement strategy. Furthermore, commentators argue that performance feedback increases job satisfaction and motivation (see Hackman and Oldham, 1980) and many decision-making and career development models include a feedback loop emphasising that individuals learn on the basis of receiving feedback on their performance (DeNisi and Kluger, 2000). Thus, performance feedback plays an important
role in numerous organisational activities such as career development, motivation, job satisfaction, and performance management. It seems important then that such a globally employed phenomenon is fully understood. 3608 or multi-rater feedback is one of the vehicles that is used to facilitate performance feedback and therefore deserves attention at an academic and practitioner level. The monograph presents a review of the current research on the nature and value of 3608 feedback and considers issues central to the implementation of 3608 feedback in organisations. The first section defines the 3608 feedback process, traces its development within the literature and practice of HRM/ HRD, reports on the usage of 3608 feedback by organisations, focuses on how it differs from traditional top-down appraisal and details the key components of a 3608 feedback process. This section also gives some consideration to the alternative models that may be used by organisations to design a 3608 feedback system, discusses the benefits and limitations of 3608 feedback in performance management and career development contexts and concludes by focusing on the possible applications of a 3608 feedback process. The second section considers the central issue of raters in the 3608 feedback process. It focuses on three rating sources in particular: upward feedback provided by subordinates, peer feedback and self-appraisal. The contemporary debates in respect of each of these sources of feedback are discussed and specific attention is given to the limitations and potential biases of these rating sources. The final section considers the implications of the research findings for practice in the context of the performance management process and employee development practices in organisations.
[5]
Understanding 3608 feedback 8
Defining 3608 feedback 8

There are numerous authors who propose definitions of the 3608 feedback process. ``Feedback from multiple sources or `3608 feedback' is a performance appraisal approach that relies on the input of an employee's superiors, colleagues, subordinates, sometimes customers, suppliers and/or spouses'' (Yukl and Lepsinger, 1995, p. 45). In a special edition of Human Resource Management on 3608 feedback, Tornow (1993) observes that in 3608 feedback programmes, feedback about a target individual is solicited from significant others using a standardised instrument. Jones and Bearley (1996) refer to 3608 feedback as the practice of gathering and processing multi-rater assessments on individuals and feeding back the results to the recipients. Hoffman (1995, p. 82) explains that 3608 feedback is:
F F F an approach that gathers behavioural observations from many layers within the organisation and includes self-assessment.
observations of the ratee and Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) mention perceptions. 3608 appraisal extends feedback input from the traditional top-down approach to include subordinates, peers, customers and can be viewed as ``boundaryless appraisal''. In an era where the boundaryless organisation is gaining increasing currency (see, for example, Ashkenas et al., 1995), the concept of 3608 feedback seems to fit very well with the tenets of this approach to organisational theory. Common terms used to refer to 3608 feedback include: . stakeholder appraisal; . full-circle appraisal; . multi-rater feedback; . multi-source assessment; . subordinate and peer appraisal; . group performance appraisal; . multi-point assessment; and . multi-perspective ratings. For the purposes of this monograph, the term 3608 feedback is employed. This follows the suggestions of Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) who argue that the term 3608 feedback has become synonymous with feedback from multiple sources. Figure 1 presents a graphical representation of potential raters in a multi-source appraisal system. The most commonly employed rating sources are the boss, subordinates, self and peers. In some organisations there is a more limited use of feedback which does not include all the raters and these types of feedback systems can be termed: . upward appraisal; . subordinate appraisal; . reverse appraisal; . co-worker feedback or colleague assessment. There are varying forms of the 3608 feedback process such as 2708 feedback, where one source of feedback is omitted, such as customer ratings, or 1808 feedback where it is only peers that provide feedback (Peters,
He points out that the feedback recipient completes the same structured evaluation process that managers, direct reports, team members and sometimes external clients use to evaluate his/her performance. Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) indicate that the 3608 feedback process involves collecting perceptions about a person's behaviour and the impact of that behaviour from a number of rating sources. Therefore, a 3608 feedback programme seeks to relay feedback to the recipient regarding his/her behaviour in the workplace and how it affects other organisational members that work with that employee. Yukl and Lepsinger (1995) suggest that 3608 feedback is a performance appraisal method; Jones and Bearley (1996) refer to assessments in their definition; Tornow (1993) suggests that feedback is solicited from significant others using a standardised instrument. Hoffman (1995) mentions behavioural
[6]
Alma M. McCarthy and Thomas N. Garavan 360 8 feedback processes: performance improvement and employee career development Journal of European Industrial Training 25/1 [2001] 532
1996). Handy et al. (1996) suggest that some organisations use an extended version of the 3608 feedback process which is termed ``5408 feedback'', because suppliers and external customers are included with the other raters. However, it is acceptable to use the term 3608 feedback or multi-source feedback, even if the process does include suppliers and customers as raters.
2 The most effective executives are learners, in other words, effective executives encourage and welcome opportunities for learning and development. 3 Most employees operate in ``feedbackpoor'' environments. Multi-source appraisal, therefore, offers a solution to some of the problems highlighted by CCL's research and thus it can be argued that the growth and development of 3608 feedback was significantly enhanced by CCL's findings on feedback and learning in the workplace. A number of other factors acted as catalysts in the evolution of multi-source appraisal and these are discussed in turn below. The first of these factors is the employee attitude survey (Edwards and Ewen, 1996; Tornow and London, 1998). These surveys typically set out to explore employee satisfaction with the organisation on several different dimensions including policies, procedures, work environment, pay and benefits. Edwards and Ewen (1996) suggest that, in the 1970s and 1980s, surveys focused more on satisfaction with immediate leadership. In essence, the multi-source appraisal process is closely related to the tenets of the employee satisfaction survey. Edwards and Ewen suggest that the natural next step beyond departmental surveys was either upward feedback or multi-source feedback and hence the evolution and development of 3608 feedback systems by organisations. The total quality management (TQM) movement, with its emphasis on quality and customer satisfaction, acted as a driving force in the development of 3608 feedback (Grote, 1996; Edwards and Ewen, 1996). TQM places particular emphasis on quality/ customer service surveys. In striving for quality excellence, 3608 feedback acts as a very useful and powerful source of information because, with this method, customers and suppliers can provide feedback on various quality dimensions within the organisation. Grote (1996) maintains that the TQM movement has served as a strong force in promoting the notion that those closest to the work are in the best position to evaluate performance. Similarly, those closest to the job are in the best position to suggest ways for improvement. TQM, therefore, was instrumental to the development of 3608 feedback processes. Another contributing factor is performance appraisal itself. Tornow and London (1998) argue that the traditional supervisor rating
Historical development and evolution of 3608 feedback 8

Multi-source appraisal became popular in organisations in the 1980s and at that time was mostly used as an executive development tool (Coates, 1998). Upward appraisal and peer appraisal did receive some attention in the 1970s and early 1980s but it was not until the 1990s that 3608 feedback per se gained currency (see, for example, Hegarty, 1974; Mount, 1984; Cederblom and Lounsbury, 1980; Downey et al., 1976). Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) refer to two books published in the late 1980s which they argue got the idea of upward appraisal and multi-source assessment into the mainstream (McCall et al., 1988; Lindsey et al., 1997). These books were based on research carried out by the Centre for Creative Leadership (CCL) in Greensboro, North Carolina on management development. Three key findings emerged from this study: 1 Feedback is an important element of a person's professional and personal development.
Figure 1 Potential raters in multi-source appraisal systems
[7]
has been extended to include other raters such as subordinate and peers to develop a fairer and more accurate performance appraisal system in the organisation. They maintain that the need for managers to adjust to ever-changing business environments is a primary reason why 3608 feedback has become popular in the past decade. Rating sources from both inside and outside the organisation can provide key information which enables the organisation to be adaptive. Edwards and Ewen (1996) highlight that management by objectives (MBO) became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. As part of the MBO approach, employees were encouraged to participate in developing work objectives and in evaluating their own performance against these objectives. Therefore, the self-assessment component of the 3608 process is not a totally new concept but stemmed from the MBO culture of the 1960s and 1970s. Lepsinger and Lucia (1998) posit that increasing competition and a renewed focus on the customer were trends associated with the 1990s and these trends acted as a catalyst for the adoption and popularity of multisource appraisal. They indicate that the shift from the bureaucratic and hierarchical to flatter organisation structures similarly encouraged the growth of 3608 feedback. Flatter organisation structures required more interdependence in the form of teamwork and communications. Lepsinger and Lucia (1998) argue that one of the consequences of flatter organisational structures is that managers are increasingly required to work with people in other parts of the organisation and are expected to achieve results, even though they have no direct authority over them. With such work structures in place, the traditional approach to appraisal proves less useful as a source of information and demands a more comprehensive process whereby peers and customers and other stakeholders can provide feedback to the individual. Waldman et al. (1998) enumerate other possible reasons for the increased adoption of 3608 feedback processes. First, it is assumed that the provision of feedback to managers about how they are viewed by subordinates, peers, superiors and customers should prompt positive change in behaviour and performance. Second, it is assumed that the implementation of 3608 feedback processes will lead to increasing levels of trust and communication throughout the organisation, fewer grievances and greater customer satisfaction. Waldman et al. (1998) refer to institutional theory as playing an important role in the ever-increasing use of 3608 feedback.
Institutional theory advocates that organisations make attempts to imitate their competitors. In one of the organisations where Waldman and his colleagues conducted research on the implementation of a 3608 feedback process, he found that the reason that was cited for deciding to use 3608 feedback was that the competition were doing it and so this particular organisation should also utilise it. Waldman et al. (1998) also suggest that ``politics'' is another factor that influences the adoption of 3608 feedback. They state that a company may embrace 3608 feedback in an attempt to give an impression of openness and participation in the organisation but the reality may be somewhat different.
3608 feedback and traditional 8 top-down appraisal

Many academics and practitioners argue that the performance appraisal process has traditionally been viewed in a negative light in many organisations, even though it is a very important element of the overall performance process. Meyer (1991) maintains that most managers see performance appraisal as an `ònerous and distasteful'' chore that has to be carried out. Taylor et al. (1995) contend that performance appraisal is a practical challenge to all involved in the process and Lawler et al. (1984) argue that the performance appraisal interview is considered as an unpleasant activity for managers and supervisors which is either avoided or carried out in a hurried or perfunctory manner. They go on to suggest that managers dislike the performance appraisal process so much that, without administrative pressure to perform it, they will not carry out appraisals with subordinates at all. Folger and Cropanzano (1998) outline the difficulties associated with negative feedback in the context of the performance appraisal interview. They argue that most managers dislike giving negative feedback and are not skilled in providing it. As a result, evaluations are often positively inflated. If this is the manner in which the interview is conducted, the effectiveness of the performance management process is significantly undermined. Meyer (1991) argues that, because of inaccurate performance feedback, employees may have a distorted view of their actual performance which will then be inconsistent with administrative decisions on issues such as salaries and promotions.
[8]
Thus, as Napier and Latham (1986) suggest, employees often see no value in the performance appraisal interview and view it as another organisational intervention which does not, in reality, have a significant influence on their performance or development. Other research highlights that a boss's performance evaluation may depend more on unit performance than on observations of the individual employee's actual behaviour (Lepsinger and Lucia, 1997). Longenecker (1997) drew on a sample of 120 ``seasoned managers'' from five large US organisations to explore the factors that cause managerial performance appraisals to be ineffective. He operationalises ineffective appraisals as those that fail to focus on the issue of management development and performance improvement. Table I presents the top ten causes of ineffective managerial appraisals. It is clear from this list that a well designed multi-rater appraisal system has the potential to address many of the weaknesses inherent in the traditional approach. In the light of the drawbacks and inefficiencies of the traditional interviewbased performance appraisal and the negative perceptions that have been discussed so far, it seems appropriate to investigate another approach to performance appraisal than has heretofore been used. The 3608 feedback process does offer a potential solution to the problems outlined above (see, for example, Longenecker, 1997; Wexley and Klimoski, 1984). For example, ratings need not be inflated because raters are providing information anonymously and the confrontational aspect of the review is lessened because the manager does not have to carry out the review in an interview setting. It is not, however, without limitations and these will be considered later. The second most frequently cited cause of ineffective appraisals according to
Longenecker's (1997) work is poor working relationships with the boss. If this is the case, having a number of other sources rate performance, such as peers and subordinates, should help alleviate to some degree the problem with a single source rating of performance if that source is not perceived in a positive light. The lack of information on actual performance is another problem cited by Longenecker (1997) as a barrier for effective managerial appraisals. It is argued that managers typically do not have the opportunity to observe some behaviours in the workplace, such as leadership, for example, and thus they are not in a position accurately to rate such behaviour. The issue of rater opportunity to observe ratee behaviour points to the beneficial use of multiple raters but also perhaps to one of its limitations. Multi-source appraisal and top-down supervisory appraisal are similar in that both can be used to assess training and development needs. While the supervisor was the only rating source in top-down appraisals, he/she is still a significant rater in a multi-rater system representing a ``908'' view of the individual's performance. In addition, both performance appraisal strategies involve reports of behaviour as well as judgements of performance based on work unit results. Both contain the potential to use rating scales and therefore are subject to traditional problems of data validity and bias, such as leniency, halo and stereotyping (London and Beatty, 1993).
There are a number of important differences between 3608 feedback and the more traditional appraisal process. London and Beatty (1993, p. 359) argue that performance appraisal is conducted primarily for performance evaluation purposes and has
Differences between 3608 and traditional 8 performance appraisal
Table I Top ten reasons for ineffective managerial appraisals Reason for ineffective managerial appraisals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Unclear performance criteria/ineffective rating instruments Poor working relationship with the boss Superior lacks information on actual performance Lack of ongoing performance feedback Overly negative/second guessing review Perceived political reviews Lack of focus on management development/improvement An ineffective link to reward systems Superior lacks rating skills/motivation Review process lacks structure/consistency Percentage 83.0 79.0 75.0 67.0 63.0 54.0 42.0 50.0 33.0 29.0
Source: Longenecker (1997) [9]
organisational consequences such as pay and job assignments, transfer and promotion decisions and that it is not `òrdinarily geared to improving work unit performance or manager behaviour''. They go on to suggest that, while training and development decisions may be an espoused outcome of traditional performance appraisal, this purpose usually suffers because the focus of the performance appraisal itself is to evaluate the past performance of the individual concerned. On the other hand, 3608 degree feedback is usually used primarily in organisations as a development tool for the learner. The most salient difference between these two processes is that there is only one rating source in the traditional approach and the 3608 feedback approach utilises a number of ratings sources. Becker and Klimoski (1989) point out that, unlike traditional supervisor appraisal, 3608 feedback recognises the complexity of management and the value of input from these different sources. Table II summarises the key differences between these two approaches to performance appraisal.
Extent of use of 3608 feedback 8

A number of UK and US studies have explored either trends in human resource management, trends in training and development practices or, more specifically, the extent to which 3608 feedback is being adopted by organisations.
The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) provides a benchmarking service which collects information from all types of organisations in the USA on the nature of employerprovided training expenditures, practices and outcomes (Bassi and Van Buren, 1999). The report for 1998 highlights the current trends and advances in training and development in various respondent organisations. The typical organisation spent $2 million on training in 1997, a substantial increase from $1.4 million in 1996, and the average ``leading edge'' firm spent $4.1 million, whereas the 1996 figure was $3.4 million. The report claims that 73 per cent of the leading edge organisations included in the sample indicated that they used 3608 feedback in their performance management. Further evidence of the level of adoption of 3608 feedback is provided by Atwater and Waldman (1998) who propose that about 90 per cent of Fortune 1000 firms are using multi-source assessment in the USA. Ghorpade (2000) goes as far as stating that 3608 feedback has nearly become universal among Fortune 500 companies. In addition, the findings of the 1997 International Study of Executive Development Trends profiles eight major trends in executive education and leadership development (Vicere, 1998). This is a longitudinal study which has been carried out every five years since 1982. Vicere highlights that performance feedback made an `ìmpressive return to
Table II Traditional performance appraisal versus 3608 feedback Criterion Purpose Sources of information Anonymity Traditional performance appraisal To provide feedback to subordinates on past performance and future potential from one perspective only One rater the supervisor or manager Feedback is not anonymous 3608 feedback processes 8 To provide feedback on performance, behaviour and developmental needs from a variety of perspectives Multiple raters: peers, subordinates, self, customers, suppliers, skip-level reports Feedback is collated by rater group individual ratings are unknown to the recipient Reports on behaviour and judgements on performance based on work unit performance and development dimensions Ratings scales: primarily Likert scales. Most 3608 processes only collect quantitative data Typically only used for the identification of training and development needs and the exploration of career issues Recipient ownership; focus on employee's development, rather than evaluation; self-appraisal component; safe-awareness tool; multi-perspective feedback; more egalitarian in focus Continuous process not necessarily confined to one time a year Typically employees in managerial positions
Content of feedback Reports on behaviour and judgements on performance based on work unit results are the typical situation Rating methods Linkages with other HR decisions Philosophy underpinning process Context of process Ratings scales: Likert and behaviourally anchored scales combined with qualitative comments Performance appraisal often linked to pay, merit bonuses, promotions, task assignment, transfers, training and development, etc. Limited ownership of process; focus on evaluation of employee; acceptance of manager's decision; authoritarian top-down in orientation Yearly event linked to pay decisions in many cases
Targeted employees All employees in the organisation [ 10 ]
prominence'' in the 1997 survey. Of respondents, 30 per cent indicated that feedback was a core development technique in their organisations. He deduces that the increased level of importance attached to performance feedback in the development process can be related to the increased adoption of 3608 feedback processes/ systems by organisations generally. In the UK, some one third of 119 companies surveyed by the Ashridge Management Research Group indicated that they have introduced a 3608 feedback programme (Handy et al., 1996). Towers Perrin conducted a study in early 1998 to explore how organisations plan, implement and use 3608 feedback as a means of collecting and presenting performance feedback from a variety of sources. They found that a large number of the respondents were either using or planning to use 3608 feedback in the near future. Only 19 per cent of respondents stated that they were not planning on using a 3608 feedback tool (Towers Perrin, 1998). At a European level, at a conference held in Lausanne in May 1999 by the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), entitled ``3608 feedback: what works and what does not'', a number of organisations discussed the benefits of 3608 feedback. There were generally very positive reports about the effectiveness of multi-rater appraisal. For example, organisations such as Banverket (The Swedish National Rails Service), Eircom (in Ireland) and Bvlgari reported that the 3608 feedback experience in these organisations was quite positive. However, attention also focused on the pitfalls that are commonly encountered with 3608 feedback such as poor communication of the intentions of the system and the rating process itself. The typical organisational members who are targeted as feedback recipients are upper and middle management levels. A survey of the members of the Society of HR Managers in the USA found that 35 per cent of organisations used 3608 feedback primarily for executives and 37 per cent for upper middle managers. Middle and first-level managers also received 3608 feedback but to a lesser extent (Ghorpade, 2000). The increasing amount of money being spent on training and development and 3608 feedback systems specifically, coupled with the prediction that it will in fact become a normal part of appraisal systems, points to the importance of studying the concept further.
The 3608 feedback process 8

A typical 3608 feedback system involves numerous stages from the very outset, where the purpose of the system is determined, to the presentation of the feedback report to the feedback recipient. The steps outlined here represent a synthesis of the many models identified in the literature. These steps are as follows: 1 Decide on the purpose of 3608 feedback. There are two main applications for 3608 feedback: employee development and performance evaluation. The purpose that the information gained from the 3608 feedback process is used for will determine the design and implementation of the whole process. The purpose has to be determined at the outset and communicated clearly to all the stakeholders involved. 2 Choose the instrument for collecting the data. The rating instruments consist mainly of questionnaires that are filled out by the various raters. However, some organisations use interviews, but these constitute the minority. The instrument can be developed in-house based on competencies that are deemed important to the organisation. Alternatively, the instrument can be purchased off-the-shelf from consultants. Instruments that are developed in-house have proven to be more effective than off-the-shelf products as they are organisation specific. 3 Decide on behaviours/items to be included in the rating instrument. It is recommended to focus on actual employee behaviour in the workplace rather than general traits. Many commentators have proposed that the rating items should be based in some particular context so that there will be a reduction in rater error. The behaviours that are being rated should be drawn from the organisation's vision and values. 4 Decide who the feedback recipients are. The group of employees to be targeted for receiving the feedback need to be determined. In the literature, it is espoused that the employees should volunteer to participate in the programme. Mandatory participation can be threatening and the effectiveness of the system is in jeopardy if the organisation forces employees to participate. 3608 feedback is a particularly useful tool in leadership development programmes because of the richness of the feedback that is provided by subordinates. 5 Train the raters and the ratees (recipients). It is necessary to
[ 11 ]
communicate with all the stakeholders involved in the 3608 feedback process from the design stage through to implementation and part of this communication process is training. It is imperative to train the ratees in the area of accepting negative feedback. The raters need to be trained about the various rating errors that can occur such as central tendency, halo and leniency errors. It is extremely important that all stakeholders in the process are regularly updated on the process to gain their ``buyin'' and commitment to the new feedback system. 6 Recipients choose raters. Typically the feedback recipient chooses about ten raters. These raters include the boss, self, subordinates and, less often, internal and external customers (see Figure 1). This is one of the contentious areas in the literature because some writers feel that the recipients may choose raters who will be more ``lenient'' in their ratings. 7 Questionnaire distribution. Questionnaires can take two formats. There is a paper and pencil format whereby the raters use hard copy questionnaires to rate the recipient on various behaviours. A more efficient method is to send a floppy diskette to each of the raters and they can fill out the questionnaire electronically. This system is more efficient as the data can be aggregated easily using customised software and various reports generated from the data. It is important that the raters have the option to send their completed questionnaire to an external location to ensure confidentiality and it has been found that confidentiality is one of the fundamental success factors in multi-source feedback systems. 8 Analysis of feedback data. This is usually done by outside consultants. At this stage, the feedback data are collated using advanced software and there are a number of reports generated from the data. There are a number of ways in which the data can be reported. The ratings on each behaviour can be presented in column format whereby the various raters are placed into categories and recipients can easily compare how they have rated themselves and how the boss, subordinates, and peers have rated them. The data can also be presented in graphical format and recipients can see graphically where the various ratings fall in relation to one another. In some reports, there is also a section appended where comments that are made by any of the raters are reported.
9 Feeding back the feedback. Once the reports are generated and the final report compiled, the feedback is provided to each of the feedback recipients. This is usually done in a workshop setting where the recipients can discuss their feedback and its significance with a facilitator. It is useful for the participants to discuss their feedback in groups if they so wish. 10 Follow-through. It is at this stage that many organisations fall short in the overall effectiveness of the system. It is essential that the feedback data are used to their full potential in the organisation because these systems are very expensive to design and maintain and it would be a pity to ``fall at the last jump''. Feedback recipients should be able to establish improvement areas and skill gaps that require training and development from the feedback data that they have received. It is pertinent that they design action plans around their deficiencies. The organisation should allocate a coach/ mentor to each of the recipients and this coach/mentor should assist them in their action plan for development. 11 Repeat the process. In organisations where 3608 feedback programmes are running effectively, the process is repeated for the recipients some time after receiving their initial feedback report, i.e. one or two years later. The employees can gain insight into how they are progressing if the process is repeated. However, this process is quite new in many organisations and the goal for those organisations adopting 3608 feedback is to provide a large section of employees with the opportunity to participate in the process the first time rather than giving individuals a second chance. If this feedback system is widely adopted in Ireland, then organisations need to recognise that reiterations of the process are important.
Designing and developing 3608 8 assessment instruments: alternative models

A number of theoretical and conceptual models are outlined in the literature which may be used to develop 3608 feedback instruments. Nowack (1993) highlights five different models which can be used to design 3608 feedback processes: 1 The first is job analysis. This type of 3608 assessment measures knowledge, skills and ability (KSAs) based on traditional job-analysis procedures. For example, the
[ 12 ]
knowledge, skills and ability required for a particular job are determined by interviewing the incumbents, focus groups and collecting data from ``job-task information questionnaires''. The rating instrument is then designed based on the skills and knowledge that an employee needs to possess to be effective in that role. This model is competency based. Rather than simply measuring KSAs, this approach is more concerned with measuring the competencies associated with a particular job. Wexley and Klimoski (1984, p. 79) define managerial competence as ``characteristics of an individual that lead to behaviours that meet the job demands within the parameters of the organisational environment and that, in turn, brings about desired results''. For this purpose, competencies are identified by comparing behaviours of high performing individuals with those of the low performers. Thus, the differences form a set of ``best'' competencies and these competencies form the basis for developing the rating items in the questionnaire. This model focuses on strategic planning. This type of 3608 assessment measures KSAs based on an organisation's strategic plans. It is espoused that these behaviours will facilitate the organisation in the achievement of its strategic goals and plans. Nowack (1993) terms these KSAs as ``strategic'' and they are identified through interviews and focus groups with key senior executives. This model is derived from developmental theory. This is based on theoretical and conceptual models of employee growth and development. It is closely correlated with career development and management development. The basic is that 3608 feedback leads to enhanced selfawareness, which in turn leads to more effective career development processes (McCarthy and Garavan, 1999). A fifth model is based on personality theory (Nowack, 1993). This model measures KSAs that are associated with personality such as qualities, traits, temperaments, communication styles, interpersonal relations and cognition. The emphasis of the rating instrument is on personality traits and the recipient receives feedback on his/her personality. This is one of the least common models used for designing and developing 3608 assessments.
The particular model utilised is determined to a large extent by the purpose that the feedback system serves. For example, if the multi-source feedback is used solely for training and development, then it follows that the system will be developed with greater awareness of developmental theory. Currently, it is the tenets of developmental theory that form the foundation on which the majority of 3608 feedback processes are based.
Potential benefits of 3608 8 feedback

Commentators propose that the use of 3608 feedback brings many advantages to the adopting organisation. Some commentators merely propose advantages but others have conducted empirical studies to support their propositions and hypotheses. It is widely accepted that multi-source appraisal enhances two-way communication in the host organisation (London and Beatty, 1993; Garavan et al., 1997; Bernardin and Beatty, 1987). London and Beatty (1993) argue that 3608 feedback can call attention to important performance dimensions heretofore neglected by the organisation and at the same time convey organisational values to employees. They argue that 3608 feedback can build more effective work relationships; increase opportunities for employee involvement; uncover and resolve conflict and demonstrate respect for employee opinions on the part of top management. Garavan et al. (1997) highlight some other organisational and individual benefits of the 3608 feedback process. Organisational benefits include employee involvement and better working relationships within the organisation. Essentially, the organisational benefits revolve around an improvement in employee relations. Where the individual recipient of the feedback is concerned, it is espoused that the feedback data will be more valid, fair and reliable because they come from a number of sources. As a result of the 3608 feedback, the individual may have a better guide for his/her career development because the feedback that the recipient receives increases his/her self-awareness and this enhanced self-awareness is an initial step in the career development process (McCarthy and Garavan, 1999). Hazucha et al. (1993) highlight some of the advantages of feedback from an individual perspective. They suggest that recipients receive valuable information which they may use to identify and address their
[ 13 ]
weaknesses. Feedback helps the recipient to identify strengths which he/she can build upon. The use of 3608 feedback instruments provides peers/co-workers with the opportunity to praise or criticise their colleagues anonymously. A number of studies have been undertaken to assess whether productivity and performance actually improve as a result of adopting a multi-source assessment system. Edwards and Ewen (1996) report that there were productivity improvements among university faculty and improved customer satisfaction ratings following the implementation of 3608 feedback. Bernardin et al. (1993) suggest that a multi-rater system that incorporates a number of raters such as one's boss, subordinates and peers is more useful for the feedback recipients than only one source of feedback. The aim of this research was to explore the attitudes of supervisors to subordinate appraisal and they found that several of the managers who participated in the study argued that subordinate appraisal can only be clearly interpreted in the context of other information such as appraisals from other sources. Therefore, it follows that, if an organisation has subordinate appraisal or peer appraisal in operation, a more useful and more effective system of feedback is a 3608 process involving a number of raters rather than relying on one source. The Handy et al. (1996) study found that users of the 3608 feedback process were positive about the tool's value reporting that 75 per cent of respondent organisations judge it to be successful. Of managers who had experienced the 3608 feedback process, 92 per cent found it helpful because it is a more effective form of performance appraisal than the traditional top-down model. They conclude that 3608 feedback can address some of the deficiencies which impede the effectiveness of the top-down approach to performance appraisal. Hoffman (1995) enumerates several reasons why companies should adopt 3608 feedback. These include: . an increased focus on customer service; . the promotion of team-building and teamwork; . the creation of a high-involvement workforce; . the detection of barriers to success; assessment of developmental needs; . the identification of performance thresholds; and . the definition of corporate competencies,
thereby highlighting what the organisation values and rewards. However, these espoused advantages of 3608 feedback have not been empirically tested. Hazucha et al. (1993) found that participants in their study report that particular developmental activities are most effective for the enhancement of skill development. Particular dimensions include: reviewing plans and progress, obtaining input into development plans from co-workers and receiving feedback and coaching. Therefore, 3608 feedback, brings with it a number of advantages which range from more open communication channels at an organisational level to an excellent career development strategy at an individual level. However, there are problems and limitations associated with the process. These problems and limitations are discussed below.
Difficulties associated with 3608 8 feedback

One of the major challenges facing the introduction of multi-source feedback is that employees may feel threatened by the assessment (London et al., 1990). This is especially true if the organisational culture has traditionally been bureaucratic and hierarchical. A move away from traditional methods and processes that employees are used to can lead to fear and rejection of the new initiative. Murphy and Cleveland (1991) claim that hierarchical organisations present difficult contexts for 3608 feedback programmes and consequently subordinate and peer appraisals in these organisations are generally not well received. An inevitable issue with multi-source appraisal is that the feedback ratings may not always be positive and may even be quite negative (London et al., 1990). Some managers when presented with negative feedback about their performance become defensive and the feedback demotivates them, which in turn has negative consequences for the organisation (Kaplan, 1993). London and Beatty (1993) highlight that multi-source feedback raises the stakes for a manager and that the process places pressure on the employee's self-concept. Survey fatigue is another problem that arises with the adoption of 3608 feedback (Bracken, 1996; Kaplan, 1993; London and Beatty, 1993). It is common for organisations to utilise numerous surveys and questionnaires to evaluate, for example, customer and/or employee satisfaction. A fundamental element of the 3608 feedback process is that the feedback recipient is rated
[ 14 ]
by an average of eight to ten raters. Widespread adoption of multi-source assessment within an organisation may result in employees having to fill out numerous questionnaires for their boss, their peers and their subordinates. This survey fatigue may result in less than accurate and valid ratings. Some studies report that 3608 feedback does not change feedback recipients' behaviour and performance at all. For example, Bernardin et al. (1993) found that managers' ratings from supervisors and customers did not change after the managers received feedback. They also found that store sales volume was unaffected by the use of 3608 feedback, which suggests that 3608 feedback may have no appreciable effect on an organisation-wide basis. If these findings can be generalised, then it is questionable whether or not the investment in 3608 feedback is merited. One of the more prominent critiques of 3608 feedback is presented by Moses et al. (1993) who argue that there are fundamental flaws in the design of many of the 3608 feedback inventories which result in the feedback that the system produces being severely limited. According to Moses et al. (1993) a number of factors impact the effectiveness of the feedback process. An appraiser may rate the learner in relation to ``generalised trait-based outcomes'' rather than concrete situations. Second, a limited or non-existent frame of reference may exist for making rater/ observer judgements. Third, the rater is making observations on past performance based on memory. Fourth, the rater may not be sufficiently equipped to effectively interpret the learner's behaviour. Finally, too much reliance may be placed on the instrument designer's scoring system, factor analysis and data collection to interpret the information for the participant. Schneier et al. (1992) claim that many of the 3608 programmes are carried out in the absence of a strategic context and not focused on contributions to an organisation's competitive advantage. Kanouse (1998) suggests that the success of many 3608 programmes is constrained in that raters are often inadequately instructed in the task of providing feedback. Kaplan (1993) indicates that some people may become upset by the feedback they receive, especially if it is harsh and reports negative characteristics. London and Beatty (1993) argue that multi-source feedback adds significantly to the time and money that are spent on employee appraisal and adds complexity to the appraisal administration process. They similarly argue that 3608 feedback raises the stakes for a
manager, placing increased pressure on selfconcept and goals because it uses more significant others than traditional supervisory ratings. Hautaluoma et al. (1992) point out the potential risks to the raters involved, for example, that the process may generate tension between the manager and those who provide ratings.
Applications for multi-source feedback

Organisations embrace multi-source appraisal systems for different reasons. Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) suggest that a key factor that contributes to the successful implementation of 3608 feedback is that organisations have a clear sense of what they want to accomplish through the use of feedback. The five most common uses of 3608 feedback are: 1 Career development. Towers Perrin (1998) report that 94 per cent of the organisations they surveyed used the results of the 3608 feedback for training and development purposes. The most common use of multi-source feedback is for career development including selfdevelopment, leadership development, management/executive development and identifying employee training needs (Lepsinger and Lucia, 1997; Megginson and Casserley, 1996; Towers Perrin, 1998; Edwards and Ewen, 1996; Romano, 1994; Atwater et al., 1995). The feedback provided aims to highlight the strengths, weaknesses and development needs of the learner and the learner benefits from enhanced self-perception accuracy. 2 Culture change. Church and Bracken (1997), Tornow (1993) and London and Beatty (1993) propose that 3608 feedback can be used to facilitate organisational change. They argue that the multi-source assessment raises awareness of the importance of aligning leadership behaviours, work unit results and customer expectations with the organisation's core strategy and core values. O'Reilly (1994) advocates that many organisations use 3608 feedback for cultural change, to accelerate the shift to teamwork and to promote employee empowerment. When an organisation aims to change the organisational culture, 3608 feedback can prove to be an effective vehicle for communicating to the employees the competencies and behaviours that the organisation values and rewards. London
[ 15 ]
and Smither (1995) indicate that the content of multi-source rating scales communicates dimensions of performance that are important to the organisation. These important behaviours are contained in the rating instrument and individuals who are exposed to the multisource assessment process can develop schemata of desired performance and expected behaviour. 3 Performance evaluation (linking 3608 feedback to pay). The use of multi-source feedback as a method of determining employee remuneration is a contentious area. Many commentators point to the detrimental effect that such a use of 3608 feedback can have on rating accuracy, employee motivation and the relationship between the raters and the feedback recipient. This area is considered in more detail later in this monograph. The Towers Perrin (1998) survey reports that only 9 per cent of respondents base employees' pay on the results of the 3608 feedback. 4 Evaluating potential. Tornow (1993) suggests that multi-source feedback can be used in assignment selection. Other areas that fall into this category include promotion and succession planning. Towers Perrin (1998) found that 31 per cent, 27 per cent and 13 per cent of respondents use multi-source feedback for evaluating potential, succession planning and promotion respectively. Of the respondents to the survey, 11 per cent indicated that they based bonus payments on the information they received from the feedback.
5 Enhancing team effectiveness. Lepsinger and Lucia (1997) propose that organisations are using feedback to enhance team effectiveness. Many companies are developing 3608 feedback systems that focus on skills required for effective teamwork. The data that these processes gather can both clarify which behaviours are most essential and also help people understand what they have to do to help improve team effectiveness. The very nature of the 3608 process is very conducive for improving team working skills. The recipients can learn how their team members perceive their behaviour and this in turn should lead to improved communication in the team. Thus, the most common applications for 3608 feedback focus on career and other forms of employee development. Research highlights that the proposed purpose of the 3608 feedback programme will influence how the raters rate the recipient. For example, London et al. (1990) report that 34 per cent of subordinates who had rated their superiors would have rated them differently if the feedback was being used for manager's performance appraisal as opposed to his/her training and development. Waldman and Bowen (1998) report that respondents would have changed ratings in their research site had the 3608 feedback process been used for evaluative purposes rather than developmental purposes. These findings suggest that, where multi-source feedback is used for evaluative purposes, the ratings are less than accurate and therefore it calls into question the validity of conducting 3608 feedback for this purpose.
[ 16 ]
Potential raters in 3608 feedback processes 8
According to Ilgen et al. (1979), three distinct sources of feedback can be used to evaluate an individual's performance. The first category includes those who have observed the recipient's behaviour and are therefore in a position to evaluate it. This category includes the boss, peers, subordinates, internal/external customers. The second source of feedback is the task environment. Feedback may be inherent in working on the task itself; for example, in tracking tasks, it is usually apparent when the individual is not on target. The third category are the individuals themselves who may be able to judge their own performance. This section of the monograph explores the issues that are central when employing rating sources other than the traditional supervisory approach. It is interesting to note that, even in the 1960s and early 1970s, a number of papers explored various aspects of ratings from a number of sources other than one's supervisor. Thus, while the concept of 3608 feedback per se did not gain currency until the late 1980s and 1990s, the concept of ratings from numerous sources had received attention in the literature for some time. The fundamental concept underpinning multi-source appraisal or 3608 feedback is the involvement of a number of rating sources in the performance appraisal process. The first rating source that receives attention here is the subordinate group and the second is peer ratings. It is these two rating sources which have been more rigorously explored in the literature. The four most common rating sources are: 1 the supervisor; 2 peers; 3 subordinates; and 4 self. Other less popular sources such as external customers, suppliers, etc., are not considered here.
Upward feedback
One of the major innovations of the 3608 feedback process is that it affords subordinates an opportunity to provide feedback to superiors. Upward or subordinate appraisal/feedback occurs where subordinates rate the performance of their immediate supervisor on several performance dimensions and the results are formally fed back to the focal individual (Atwater et al., 2000). Graddick and Lane (1998) suggest that upward feedback is increasingly a component of executive appraisals. Upward feedback is recognised as one component of the wider 3608 feedback process (Waldman and Atwater, 1998) and is also perceived as an important process that contributes to individual and organisational development (Bernardin and Beatty, 1987; London et al., 1990). While there is growing interest in upward appraisal both in the academic literature and in practice, with companies such as IBM, RCA and Syntex using it in their performance appraisal systems, these companies represent the minority rather than the majority. Bernardin and Beatty (1987) highlight some possible reasons why upward appraisals are not widely adopted in organisations. First, they suggest that the traditional topdown supervisory appraisal is the most common approach and is more compatible with an autocratic style of management than upward appraisal would be. Second, relatively little has been written on the area of upward appraisal to persuade practitioners to change to this appraisal system. While there have been quite a number of publications focusing on upward/subordinate appraisal since Bernardin and Beatty's article in 1987, it still remains an under-studied area in the HRD literature.
[ 17 ]
Benefits and drawbacks of upward appraisal
Numerous arguments appear in the literature concerning the advantages and disadvantages of upward appraisal. One of the primary benefits of including subordinates in the appraisal process is that it results in higher quality feedback (Wexley and Klimoski, 1984; Kane and Lawler, 1978). It is argued that subordinates are in the best position to evaluate a manager's performance for certain competencies, for example, leadership competencies. Cardy and Dobbins (1994, p. 159) suggest that ``no one is in a better position than subordinates to evaluate such dimensions as clarity of directions, performance feedback and sensitivity to the needs of the subordinates''. Bettenhausen and Fedor (1997) suggest that upward appraisal can increase employee participation and enhance their sense of importance in the company. There is evidence that upward appraisal can encourage the focal individual to change his/ her workplace behaviour (Smither et al., 1995b; Hegarty, 1974). The use of subordinate appraisals can provide: more reliable ratings for certain performance dimensions such as leadership competence, improved employee performance as a result of receiving upward feedback and a more participatory organisational culture. However, despite such arguments supporting the adoption of upward appraisal, a number of problems exist. By its very nature, upward appraisal represents a significant change which individuals have to cope with, compared with the traditional method of appraisal. Bettenhausen and Fedor (1997) enumerate some of the problems encountered when introducing upward appraisal. Employees might perceive that upward assessment oversteps the boundary of what subordinates should do in the workplace and therefore upward appraisal can be perceived to undermine supervisor authority. Another possible concern is the view that it can create ``popularity contests'' whereby individuals attempt to score points with raters by being ``nice'' to them (McEvoy and Buller, 1987; Fedor and Bettenhausen, 1989; Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). Some managers perceive that subordinates lack the expertise to rate their performance accurately (Bernardin and Beatty, 1987). While there are many espoused advantages associated with the use of upward appraisal, fundamental drawbacks which negate any benefits may exist. One of the main concerns for organisations using, or contemplating the adoption of, upward appraisal is the effect
that it may have on employee attitudes and morale. Furthermore, the issue of survey fatigue is problematic in many organisations.
In the area of upward appraisal specifically, most attention in the literature focuses on the relationship between upward feedback and subsequent managerial performance. Two schools of thought exist regarding the effect of upward feedback on subsequent employee performance. Some researchers report that subordinate feedback can facilitate performance improvement, whereas others suggest that providing an employee with upward feedback does not necessarily result in performance improvement. One of the earliest studies assessing the effect of upward appraisal on supervisor's subsequent performance was conducted by Hegarty (1974). He set out to explore whether upward feedback leads to subordinates perceiving positive changes in their supervisor's subsequent behaviour. His findings lend support to the view that the provision of subordinate feedback to supervisors can lead to an improvement in supervisors' performance in the eyes of the subordinates. Thus, Hegarty's (1974) research offered evidence that positive change could occur when supervisors received feedback from their subordinates. Further support for Hegarty's (1974) findings is provided by Atwater et al. (1995), who also report an overall improvement in leader behaviour as rated by followers after leaders received feedback. They report that there was no improvement when the leaders were not given feedback on their follower ratings. They argue that such findings indicate that feedback is a factor that facilitates behaviour change. They categorised ratees into over-estimators (recipients whose self-ratings were higher than others), accurate estimators (recipients whose self-ratings were similar to others) and under-estimators (recipients whose selfratings were lower than others' ratings). They found that it was over-estimators who improved their subsequent performance the most. Atwater et al.'s (1995) findings lend support to the view that upward appraisal can facilitate performance improvement, especially among individuals who are unaware of how their performance is perceived by others and believe themselves to be performing effectively. Reilly et al. (1996) also provide evidence that upward feedback can result in improved performance ratings. They focused on
Upward feedback and subsequent employee performance
[ 18 ]
whether initial performance improvements of the feedback recipients were sustained or increased over time, whether performance improvement was related to the frequency of feedback and if the discrepancy between self and subordinate ratings was reduced over time. Reilly et al. (1996) found that the managers who were rated low by their subordinates at the initial feedback administration were consistently rated higher at each subsequent administration but managers who were rated high initially received lower ratings in subsequent reports. The researchers emphasise that the improvement experienced by the lower rated managers is much greater than the decline experienced by managers who were rated higher initially, which demonstrates that there was an overall real improvement in performance over time. Therefore, they found support for their first question. On the question of whether or not performance improvements were related to frequency of feedback, the study findings reveal that the incremental R2 resulting from entering the number of times the manager had received upward feedback was not significant, thereby indicating that improvement from time 1 to time 4 was not related to the number of times managers had received feedback. The findings for the third question showed a trend toward a smaller discrepancy between self and subordinate ratings with successive administrations of feedback. Therefore, the Hegarty (1974), Atwater et al. (1995) and Reilly et al. (1996) findings support the view that providing individuals with upward feedback can lead to a perceived positive change in performance from the subordinates' perspective. However, Smither et al.'s (1995b) and Atwater et al.'s (2000) findings contradict those reported in these earlier studies. Smither et al. (1995b) conducted a longitudinal study to explore the effect of upward appraisal on performance. They report that there was an increase in the ratings in time 2 compared with time 1 overall but this improvement was small (d = 0.16). This improvement was found regardless of whether the manager received an individual report or not. Therefore, Smither et al.'s finding that managers improved irrespective of whether the individual received a feedback report or not suggests that providing individuals with written individual upward feedback does not predict that subsequent performance levels will improve.
Walker and Smither's (1999) study is significant for two reasons. First, the study was longitudinal (five years), which is twice as long as that examined in previous studies. Second, theirs is the first study to examine whether managers' responses to upward feedback are related to subsequent performance improvements. Their findings indicate that managers did improve their performance over the five-year period. Managers who responded more positively to the feedback by conducting feedback sessions with their raters improved their performance more than managers who did not engage in this activity. This is a very important finding since it highlights that what managers do with their upward feedback significantly influences the nature of the outcomes. Atwater et al. (2000) set out to examine the outcomes associated with an upward feedback programme in a policing agency in the USA. Like Smither et al. (1995b), they too used a longitudinal study in their research design. They found that leadership scores at time 2 for participants in the feedback group (subjects who received written feedback at time 1 and time 2) were not significantly higher than the scores for participants in either the control group (subjects who were surveyed at time 2 and received feedback at time 2) or the survey only group (subjects who were surveyed at time 1 and time 2 but only received written feedback at time 2). These findings highlight that individualised feedback reports may not be the significant factor leading to enhanced performance following the implementation of an upward feedback system. Rather, as Atwater et al. (2000) suggest, it may be the ``hype'' that goes on in the organisation about the introduction of an upward feedback programme that results in a ``Hawthorne effect''. This ``Hawthorne effect'' results in everyone in the organisation paying more attention to their leadership because of the emphasis that is being placed on such skills by top management. Therefore, the issue of better communication between management and employees of the skills and competencies that are rewarded by the organisation might be as effective as introducing an upward appraisal system.
``Research on performance appraisal has found that attitudes toward the appraisal system and its characteristics can have a substantial effect on the ultimate effectiveness of that system'' (Bernardin et al., 1993, p. 316). Considering that
Supervisor attitudes towards upward appraisal
[ 19 ]
upward appraisal is a central component in 3608 feedback processes and that rater optimism/pessimism can have a major impact on the effectiveness of the appraisal system, employee attitudes towards and perceptions of upward appraisal are important. The upward component of the 3608 feedback model represents a significant departure from the traditional top-down performance appraisal that exists in the majority of organisations. Therefore, it is not uncommon that supervisors who are faced with the introduction of such a programme may have reservations about it. Bernardin et al. (1993) cite some of the concerns that are most often raised by managers and supervisors regarding subordinate appraisal. For example, supervisors may focus on pleasing their subordinates in an effort to get higher or more positive appraisals. The manager's authority may also be undermined because of the upward appraisal system and the impact of possible low appraisals on the manager's status within the organisation. Subordinates may lack ability, aptitude, training or necessary job information to provide valid ratings. Some subordinates may be afraid of the consequences if they rate their superiors low or they may tend to rate them higher to score points with them. According to Bernardin et al., employees who are pushed the hardest by their supervisors may rate those supervisors more harshly as a result. Bernardin et al. (1993) advocate that, contrary to many practitioner-oriented articles which project a very positive image of subordinate appraisal, their experience working with organisations indicates that many supervisors and managers are sceptical of the process and its impact on managerial decision making. They explored the attitudes of first-line supervisors towards sub-ordinate appraisal in a large federal agency in the USA. The respondents were divided into three groups. Group 1 received feedback from both their managers and their subordinates. Group 2 received feedback from their managers only. Group 3 received feedback from their subordinates only. They found that, irrespective of what group the recipients were part of, they were generally supportive of subordinate appraisal but there were some significant differences between the groups. For example, Group 1 (managers and subordinates) disagreed more often than Group 2 (managers only) with the statement that subordinates were insufficiently equipped to rate their superiors. Another difference between the groups was that Group 1 respondents disagreed that
subordinate appraisal undermined supervisor authority, while Group 3 (subordinates only) were largely undecided about the issue. Smither et al. (1995b) found that employees were favourable towards upward appraisal. Their study indicates that 95 per cent of managers who received upward appraisal responded that they found the information in the feedback report to be ``moderately or extremely useful''; 89 per cent of respondents found the information helped them target their developmental areas; 90 per cent stated that the feedback process helped them improve their managerial skills to a ``moderate or large extent''. The study findings in general indicate that subordinates found upward appraisal useful and effective as a tool for helping them identify developmental needs. Smither et al. (1995a) set out to examine the reactions of employees to normative (the average of the team leaders' ratings) versus individualised upward feedback. They found that managers who receive individualised feedback were more satisfied with the process, perceive the feedback to be more useful and were more likely to discuss the feedback with their teams than managers who received only normative feedback. Cumulatively, the Bernardin et al. (1993), Smither et al. (1995a and 1995b) studies point to the finding that employees, in general, react favourably towards upward appraisal. Bernardin et al. go on to suggest that upward feedback should be used in conjunction with other sources indicating that multi-source feedback systems would be more beneficial to the career development process than upward feedback alone. Smither et al. (1995a) came to similar conclusions. Not unlike other commentators, they go on to suggest that a 3608 feedback process rather than a system where only the recipient's subordinates rate his/her performance is more appropriate. Upward appraisal has the potential to offer invaluable feedback to the focal individual. However, it should be remembered that subordinate appraisal is only appropriate for assessing certain areas of a manager's performance. It is necessary to use upward appraisal in conjunction with as many other rating sources as possible.
Peer feedback
In a typical 3608 feedback model, the peer/ co-worker appraisal component typically represents a 1808 view of the focal individual's performance. Peer appraisal is defined by Kane and Lawler (1978, p. 555) as
[ 20 ]
the ``process of having the members of a group judge the extent to which each of their fellow group members has exhibited specified traits, behaviours or achievements''. Saavedra and Kwun (1993, p. 450) suggest that ``peer ratings are obtained by having each member of a work group rate each other's performance using a specific rating scale''. Kane and Lawler (1978) enumerate three methods of peer assessment: 1 peer nominations; 2 peer ratings; and 3 peer rankings. Peer nomination involves having each member of the group designate a specified number of group members as being the highest in the group on a particular characteristic or dimension of performance. Peer rating consists of having each group member rate each other group member on a given set of performance or personal characteristics using a rating scale. Peer ranking occurs where group members rank each other from best to worst on one or more factors. Kane and Lawler (1978) conclude that the peer appraisal research findings are generally encouraging with respect to reliability, validity and freedom from biases of each of the assessment methods. This section of the monograph considers peer feedback, focusing particularly on the impact of purpose of peer feedback, employee acceptance of peer ratings and the effect of peer feedback on subsequent ratee performance. The next section briefly reviews the factors that have led to the growth and development of peer appraisal systems. The various advantages and disadvantages of peer appraisals are also set out in this section.
Growth and development of peer appraisal
Recent trends in the increased use of teamworking arrangements has contributed significantly to a shift in performance appraisal practices in organisations (Fedor et al., 1999). Church (1998) suggests areas in which teamwork has been a central component in recent years. These include the identification of corporate values, the formation of strategic objectives, as a criterion for assessing senior leadership, as an initiative used in delayering and reengineering projects and as a dimension for multi-rater feedback. Fedor et al. (1999) argue that, with an increased emphasis on teamwork and flatter organisation structures, supervisors are no longer the best judges of performance. A significant development in the area of
teamworking is the adoption of self-managed work groups in organisations. Numerous authors highlight that these arrangements play an important part in the success and effectiveness of organisations (Dominick et al., 1997; Peters, 1996). Successful teams depend greatly on effective interaction among team members. The effective transition to a team-based organisation can be facilitated by interventions designed to promote behaviours that are necessary for effective teamwork (Dominick et al., 1997). Behaviourally-based peer feedback is an intervention that can be used to enhance behaviour in team settings. While self-managed teams promise many benefits to the organisation (for example, the elimination of a layer of supervisory management), they are also a cause of concern in other respects. Saavedra and Kwun (1993) maintain that organisations face difficult decisions about how to manage and monitor self-managing teams. Druskat and Wolff (1999) point out that an issue of major concern in this respect is how to appraise team member performance and facilitate employee development in work arrangements where there is no supervisor held responsible for the performance management process. The use of peer appraisal has stemmed from these issues and is now viewed as a logical and even necessary addition to the structure of team self-management (Druskat and Wolff, 1999; Rogers, 1995; Mohrman et al., 1989). Druskat and Wolff (1999, p. 58) go on to argue that ``peer appraisals can increase group members' ability to be a proactive source of their own feedback a necessity for self-managed work groups that monitor and manage their own performance''. Numerous commentators have expressed concern about top-down appraisal, arguing that supervisory ratings are a reflection of one view of performance from one perspective. It is also argued that supervisorbased appraisal systems do not capture many important employee behaviours such as helping and training co-workers and being good team players (Milliman et al., 1994; Wexley and Klimoski, 1984). Thus, the advent of self-managed teams, the increased focus on teamwork in organisations and concern about traditional top-down supervisory ratings have contributed to the rise in popularity of peer appraisal systems. According to Farh et al. (1991, p. 384), ``given the societal trend toward team-oriented, high-involvement work arrangements, peer appraisal is likely to play an increasingly important role in the future''.
[ 21 ]
One of the most frequently cited benefits of peer feedback arises from the discussion of the problems associated with traditional top-down appraisal in a teamwork environment. Numerous commentators argue that employees who work closely with and depend on their peers/co-workers can observe teamwork and task performance first hand and they are the best judges of performance (Fedor et al., 1999; Bettenhausen and Fedor, 1997; Murphy and Cleveland, 1991; Wexley and Klimoski, 1984; Kane and Lawler, 1978). Yammarino and Waldman (1993) report that peers are better than supervisors at evaluating skills that lead to improved performance. Cotton (1993) points out that peer appraisals can foster a more participative culture in an organisation, whereby the employees feel that they have input into the performance appraisal process and that their voice is being heard. Peers may also be more sensitive than supervisors to the contextual factors that impinge on performance and to the manner in which the focal individual responds to such factors (Cardy and Dobbins, 1994). Downey et al. (1976) advocate that peer ratings are a valid method of appraisal in terms of the prediction of future performance and Shore et al. (1992) found that peer ratings predicted future job advancement more accurately than assessment centres. This approach is, however, often criticised. The problem of popularity contests inherent in upward appraisal is also a problem for peer appraisals. Individuals vie for higher scores based on their friendship and personal relationship with the raters (Bettenhausen and Fedor, 1997; Love, 1981; Kane and Lawler, 1978). Numerous researchers report that peer ratings are subject to rater errors (see, for example, Saavedra and Kwun (1993)). Fedor et al. (1999, p. 93) refer to the problems that stem from the fact that peer feedback passes responsibilities on to employees that are not standard components of traditional performance appraisal systems. They posit that peer feedback ``goes beyond the psychological contract that legitimates the authority of one's boss to assign tasks and evaluate performance''. Another issue with peer feedback is that participants in the process may fear the repercussions of providing the focal individual with negative feedback (Bettenhausen and Fedor, 1997) and thus they may alter the ratings to avoid unpleasant consequences. The problem of self-serving bias is especially prevalent in the context of peer appraisal and, as Cardy and Dobbins
Benefits and drawbacks of peer feedback
(1994) point out, peer ratings provide individuals with an opportunity to alter their evaluations of others in order to enhance their own standing in the group/team. Peer feedback, therefore, is not without faults and failings. User acceptance of subordinate ratings is an essential prerequisite to effective upward appraisal. This also applies to the peer appraisal component of the 3608 feedback process. Several commentators have indicated that a key to successful implementation of a peer evaluation system is gaining the acceptance of targeted employees (Maurer and Tarulli, 1996; Fedor and Bettenhausen, 1989; McEvoy and Buller, 1987). Cederblom and Lounsbury (1980) argue that, while peer evaluations may provide valid and reliable measures of performance, an obstacle to their use in organisations is resistance by potential or actual users of this particular assessment approach. One of the earliest studies to investigate this issue is that of Cederblom and Lounsbury (1980). They specifically investigated employee reactions to the use of peer evaluations and factors associated with acceptance or rejection of the system. They conducted the research among the faculty of a university in the USA and found that respondents indicated a relatively low degree of acceptance of peer appraisals. An important finding to emerge from the study is that recipients' previous peer ratings are not positively related to acceptance of the peer feedback, which implies that, even if employees receive negative ratings, this does not necessarily lead to resistance to peer appraisal. Cederblom and Lounsbury's findings reinforce the idea that recipient resistance to peer appraisal is a serious obstacle to the successful utilisation of this assessment method. McEvoy and Buller (1987) extend and replicate Cederblom and Lounsbury's (1980) research. They explored the reactions of an industrial employee sample to an existing peer evaluation system. In contrast to Cederblom and Lounsbury's finding that employees were not content with peer appraisal, McEvoy and Buller report that respondents were generally favourable towards peer assessment. Of respondents, 84 per cent indicated that they would recommend that the peer feedback system be continued as it was or else continued with some changes. Such contrasting findings could possibly be explained by the fact that Cederblom and Lounsbury (1980) conducted their research in a university setting where
Employee acceptance of peer feedback
[ 22 ]
the nature of peer interactions is not perhaps conducive to peer feedback since peers do not necessarily have the opportunity to observe appraisee performance. Barclay and Harland (1995) use the literature on procedural justice and fairness as a framework for examining the acceptance problems associated with peer feedback. They outline some of the features that are associated with fair and just systems. These include: procedures that suppress bias, procedures that are correctable, procedures that are applied consistently across people and over time, procedures that are ethical, and procedures that use accurate information to make decisions (Barclay and Harland, 1995). They conducted their research among public health nurses in the USA. They concluded that a peer system using raters with higher levels of education and experience was viewed as fairer and more satisfying than a peer system using raters of lower education and experience. This finding suggests that a rating system where raters are perceived as competent by ratees leads to higher levels of acceptance because the system is viewed to be fair and just. They also report that respondents were more willing to accept a peer appraisal system which is ``correctable'' because it is perceived as being a fair system. By ``correctable'', Barclay and Harland (1995) mean a peer appraisal system where the ratee is offered an opportunity to correct appraisal errors. Fedor et al. (1999) suggest that an organisation should consider the following issues when implementing a peer appraisal system in order to increase employee acceptance. First, they point out that the developmental nature of the peer feedback should be stressed. Second, employees should feel that they are actively involved in the system and that they have a ``voice'' in the decision-making process. Third, they argue that raters should be able to see the value of their efforts in the peer assessment system and that the feedback should be seen as a valuable tool for performance improvement. If these conditions are met, they argue that stakeholders in the peer appraisal process will be more positive towards and more likely to accept this approach to performance appraisal. A significant area of research interest in the peer appraisal literature is that of determining the impact that the adoption of such an appraisal system can have on subsequent employee behaviour. Druskat and Wolff (1999) examine the immediate and
Peer feedback effectiveness
longer-term impact of a structured, face-toface developmental peer appraisal on selfmanaged work groups. They found that structured, face-to-face peer appraisals can have an immediate positive impact on group member perceptions of open communications, group task focus, group viability and member relationships. These concepts are explained below. Task focus, in the context of Druskat and Wolff's (1999) research, refers to the extent to which individuals are motivated to achieve their tasks and goals and also the absence of ``social loafing''. They define group viability in terms of a group's ability to continue working together effectively. Open communications basically refers to the fact that members felt that communication flowed more effectively between members of the group after peer appraisal. Finally, member relationships essentially refers to the extent to which members are satisfied with the group and feel that the group is cohesive. These findings are encouraging for organisations using or planning to introduce peer feedback systems, or the broader concept of 3608 feedback, especially in organisations where there is a strong emphasis on teamwork. However, in Druskat and Wolff's research site, the respondents did not indicate that peer feedback was useful for individual development purposes. An important research finding on the timing of peer appraisal is reported by Druskat and Wolff (1999). They found that enduring team skill development as a result of the feedback depended on the timing of the feedback relative to a group's project deadline. Their findings suggest that there is an optimal period of time during a task group's life when the group and its members are most likely to develop, learn from and change as a result of peer feedback. This period of time is ``before the group is engaged in project execution but not so far in advance of this period that the project is not yet a priority''. It follows from Druskat and Wolff's findings that timing is an important consideration for organisations using peer feedback because it influences the effectiveness of the feedback as a developmental tool. Dominick et al. (1997) report one of the most comprehensive studies on the impact of the effectiveness of peer feedback on employee behaviour change. They set out to examine whether behaviour in team settings could be changed by the administration of a feedback intervention and whether feedback or exposure to behaviours that lead to effective team performance was the critical factor in producing behaviour change. Their
[ 23 ]
research design consisted of a feedback group who received individualised feedback based on performance during the first task and before the team began completing the second task. This feedback consisted of self-ratings and peer ratings. They also utilised an exposure group who completed ratings on themselves and the other team members following completion of the first task. However, this group did not receive the feedback reports before the second task but were told that they would receive feedback at some future point. The third group acted as a control group and they completed a ``placebo instrument'' on the task content but did not complete self or peer ratings. Dominick et al.'s (1997) findings point to the conclusion that it is not so much the feedback itself that drives behaviour change but rather it is the exposure that the participants get to the behaviours by completing the feedback instrument that results in change. This finding supports research in upward appraisal cited earlier which found that employees can change behaviour merely by becoming aware of the behaviours that are rewarded in the organisation and that they do not have to receive individualised feedback reports to enhance performance (Smither et al., 1995b; Reilly et al., 1996). In terms of assessing the impact of peer feedback on performance improvement and personal development, some important issues emerge. Dominick et al.'s (1997) findings question the effectiveness of peer feedback and thus multi-source feedback as a tool for facilitating employee behaviour change and performance improvement. Druskat and Wolff (1999) report that respondents indicated that peer feedback was not beneficial for their personal development. If it is found that mere exposure to valued behaviours within the organisation is enough of itself to instigate behaviour change, then it follows that effective communication of the valued behaviours by management to the employees would be sufficient to facilitate performance improvement. This finding calls into question why an organisation might invest extensively in 3608 feedback processes if it is not the feedback per se that predicts change but rather awareness of the desired behaviours on the job.
in self-appraisal. Self-appraisal refers to the practice whereby the ratee rates his/her own performance. It is the self as a rating source that is of interest in this section of the monograph. Relatively little is written on self-appraisal as a rating process in comparison with peer or subordinate appraisal. However, a number of issues need to be taken into consideration when utilising this rating source within the 3608 feedback process. Cardy and Dobbins (1994) argue that selfappraisal is a natural development in performance appraisal which has stemmed from the recent growth and popularity of teams and high level participation in organisations. However, Baruch (1996) postulates that the most ``neglected'' rating source in the literature on multi-rater systems is the employee himself/herself. McMahon and Gunnigle (1994) suggest that self-appraisal is quite popular in organisations. They highlighted that more than 50 per cent of UK employers; 40 per cent of US organisations; and more than 50 per cent of Irish employers use some form of selfappraisal. Albright and Levy (1995) point out that individuals tend to assess their own performance irrespective of whether they are formally required to do so by the organisation. Thus, it makes sense that selfassessment should be formally recognised in the performance appraisal process. There are a number of reasons why selfappraisal may be used by organisations. Thornton (1980) enumerates the following: . evaluation of current performance for administrative purposes; . identification of training and development needs; . criterion measurement in applied research, e.g. test validation, evaluation of training; . reporting past achievements at time of application for a new job; . measurement of constructs in basic research, e.g. measurement of selfperceived performance and effort in studies of motivation. It is the use of self-assessment/appraisal for evaluating performance and/or the identification of training needs that is of interest in this monograph.
Self-appraisal
Within a multi-source feedback model, the focal individual receives ratings from sources all around him/her and also partakes
Self-appraisal is advocated because of the potential advantages associated with its use. First, alternative raters, such as the self, are found to be more accurate in their ratings of certain performance dimensions than
Advantages and disadvantages of self-ratings
[ 24 ]
traditional top-down appraisal. Klimoski and London (1974) suggest that self-raters are more familiar with their own performance than are supervisors and, therefore, selfraters are in a position to make accurate evaluations. Second, Cardy and Dobbins (1994) point out that, since employees naturally make self-ratings even when they are not asked to do so by the organisation, it makes more sense to have a formal platform for selfevaluation. If this is the case, they argue that by formalising the self-rating process, it has the potential to provide a way of identifying major discrepancies between self and other ratings, thus increasing self-awareness. Third, Riggio and Cole (1992) suggest that self-appraisals increase ratee participation in the feedback process and that this in turn leads them to be more committed to performance goals and more accepting of criticism. McMahon and Gunnigle (1994) maintain that having a self-appraisal component in the performance appraisal process leads to a more constructive and productive discussion about the focal individual's performance than having the supervisor simply rate his/her performance. Fourth, a formalised self-appraisal component on the appraisal process can help to reduce subordinate ambiguity regarding performance standards/goals and managerial expectations (Farh et al., 1988; Keeping et al., 1999). Keeping et al. (1999) do, however, suggest that there are a number of
other potential benefits of including the ratee in the rating process such as greater perceptions of fairness, accuracy, acceptance and satisfaction with the system. While the advantages outlined are considerable and tend to support the adoption of self-rating in the performance management process, a number of disadvantages are associated with selfappraisal. Keeping et al. (1999) highlight that there are relatively few experimental investigations to support these arguments. Roberson et al. (1993) suggest that many of the potential benefits of self-appraisal are speculative rather than definitive. Rating error is particularly salient in the context of self-appraisal. Fox et al. (1994) argue that self-appraisal is particularly prone to leniency and halo errors. Leniency bias refers to the degree to which raters hand out undeservedly high scores to themselves. Studies suggest that self-ratings are much more inflated than are ratings from any other sources such as subordinates, peer and supervisors (Klimoski and London, 1974; Holzbach, 1978; Fox and Dinur, 1988). Farh and Werbel (1986) and Thornton (1980) report that self-appraisals that are conducted for administrative purposes are more lenient than those used for non-administrative purposes (e.g. research). Halo bias refers to ratings which do not demonstrate appropriate differentiation between rating dimensions (Holzbach, 1978).
[ 25 ]
Implications for performance management and development
Purpose: development versus evaluation

The use of 3608 feedback is increasing in organisations, primarily as a tool to enhance employee self-awareness in the context of employee career development. It can be used as input in decision making about performance; however, this is not popular in practice. There is a consensus that 3608 feedback is more appropriate in a developmental context. The literature highlights significant problems with the approach in the context of performance assessments that are related to pay and bonus issues. Maurer and Tarulli (1996), for example, draw an interesting analogy between the role that weighing scales play in a diet programme and the feedback element of the 3608 feedback process. ``The most important part of the diet is the actions taken once the dieter steps off of the weighing scales. The scale itself is only useful in the context of a larger programme. Within that context the scale is viewed as a useful tool'' (Maurer and Tarulli, 1996, p. 235). The 3608 feedback process represents an initial stage in the career development process whereby feedback recipients enhance their selfawareness and thus can more specifically address their developmental needs. The payback to individuals and organisations who utilise 3608 feedback processes for development purposes can be considerable. Specific benefits include a greater awareness and relevance of competencies, investing in training and development initiatives that reinforce the desired competencies of the organisation and the identification of key development issues for individuals, departments and for the organisation as a whole. Effective feedback processes may result in a more rounded concept of development that embraces organisational dimensions, self-development and the development of the individual's career.
Further research
This monograph considered the findings which emerge from the numerous contemporary studies investigating various aspects of 3608 feedback. While it is a priority research area in the literature of late, a number of questions currently remain unanswered. Smither et al. (1995b) report that there was no significant difference in subsequent employee behaviour between individuals who received individual feedback reports and those who did not. They argue that the exposure to the valued behaviours may be enough to facilitate behaviour change. This finding was replicated by Reilly et al. (1996) and Dominick et al. (1997). However, Atwater et al. (1995) report that there was no improvement in the focal individuals' performance until they were provided with feedback reports and Atwater et al. (2000) report that providing individuals with written feedback does not predict an improvement in subsequent performance. On the other hand, Hegarty (1974), Atwater et al. (1995), Smither et al. (1995b) and Reilly et al. (1996) report an overall improvement in managerial performance as a result of subordinate appraisal. These contradictory findings raise concerns about the actual impact that individual feedback reports can have on subsequent recipient behaviour. The degree to which the recipients change their behaviour positively as a result of receiving the feedback acts as a litmus test for evaluating the effectiveness of the whole system. Further scrutiny of the impact that feedback provision has on employee behaviour is vital to establish the relationship between 3608 feedback interventions and subsequent recipient performance improvement. Very few studies have sought to investigate the impact of 3608 feedback on issues such as ownership for self-development, involvement in career development, the extent of
[ 26 ]
proactive career behaviour and the degree to which the feedback report clarifies the actions that recipients need to take to address skill deficiencies. There is a dearth of empirical scrutiny of the extent to which the feedback is subsequently used by recipients to further their careers. The degree to which employees would accept the introduction of a 3608 feedback process and the antecedents to its success are areas which have been inadequately addressed in the literature.
data as the basis for individual development planning. The research evidence clearly highlights that no employee should feel threatened by the process and, at all times, the integrity of the system must be ensured. Kane and Lawler (1978, p. 584) state that ``rather than having any one level do the entire assessment of a person's performance, it is better to have each level contribute to the assessment of the portion that it is able to perform more effectively than any other level''. Indeed, this statement can be considered one of the earlier recommendations in the literature to use multiple raters in the performance appraisal process rather than any one source. The practice of 3608 feedback per se has taken some time to gain momentum but many authors argue that it will become a commonplace HRD activity as we enter the twenty-first century.
Albright, M. and Levy, P. (1995), ``The effects of source credibility and performance rating discrepancy on reactions to multiple raters'', Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 577-600. Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S. (1995), The Boundaryless Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Atwater, L. and Waldman, D. (1998), `Àccountability in 3608 feedback'', HR Magazine, Vol. 43 No. 6, May, pp. 96-102. Atwater, L., Roush, P. and Fischthal, A. (1995), ``The influence of upward feedback on selfand follower ratings of leadership'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, Spring, pp. 35-59. Atwater, L., Waldman, D., Atwater, D. and Cartier, P. (2000), `Àn upward feedback field experiment: supervisors' cynicism, follow-up and commitment to subordinates'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 2, Summer, pp. 275-97. Barclay, J. and Harland, L. (1995), ``Peer performance appraisals: the impact of rater competence, rater location and rating correctability on fairness perceptions'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, March, pp. 39-60. Baruch, Y. (1996), ``Self-performance appraisal versus direct-manager appraisal: a case of congruence'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 50-66. Bassi, L. and Van Buren, M. (1999), ``The ASTD state of the industry report'', Training and Development, Vol. 53 No. 1, January (supplement). Becker, T. and Klimoski, R. (1989), `À field study of the relationship between the organizational feedback environment and performance'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 343-58. Bernardin, H.J. and Beatty, R. (1987), ``Can subordinate appraisals enhance managerial
Recommendations
While the evidence is reassuring for organisations considering using 3608 feedback, there are a number of important issues that need to be considered to enable an organisation to adopt multi-rater feedback effectively, including: . The focus of the 3608 feedback process must be clear to all employees who are part of the feedback system the developmental nature of the programme must be clearly communicated and understood. . Clear guidance must be given to the recipients regarding what they should do with the feedback. This will usually require the organisation to put in place some form of development planning and career management processes to enable recipients to translate the feedback into appropriate development and career plans. . Raters must be afforded the opportunity to observe the various behaviours that are being rated; raters should be able to accurately perceive and interpret the salient aspects of the ratee's performance; and raters have to perceive the need to improve the effectiveness of the behaviour that is being assessed. . The credibility of the system once introduced must be maintained. This requires careful consideration of issues of confidentiality and access to the 3608 data. Typically, the recipient is the only individual to receive a copy of the feedback in the organisation. However, this can lead to a lack of motivation to use the feedback report. If the 3608 feedback process is used for managerial decision making, confidentiality and access become problematic. . The process must have the support of senior management who themselves should take part in giving and receiving feedback and encourage all other managers to do the same. There must be a real determination to use the feedback
References
[ 27 ]
productivity?'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4, Summer, pp. 63-73. Bernardin, H., Dahmus, S. and Redmon, G. (1993), `Àttitudes of first-line supervisors toward subordinate appraisals'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/ Fall, pp. 315-24. Bettenhausen, K. and Fedor, D. (1997), ``Peer and upward appraisals: a comparison of their benefits and problems'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, June, pp. 236-63. Bracken, D. (1996), ``Multisource (3608) feedback: surveys for individual and organizational development'', in Kraut, A. (Ed.), Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Cardy, R. and Dobbins, G. (1994), Performance Appraisal: Alternative Perspectives, SouthWestern Publishing, Cincinnati, OH. Cederblom, D. and Lounsbury, J. (1980), `Àn investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33, pp. 567-79. Church, A. (1998), ``From both sides now: the power of teamwork fact or fiction?'', Team Performance Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 42-52. Church, A. and Bracken D. (1997), `Àdvancing the state-of-the-art of 3608 feedback: guest editors' comments on the research and practice of multi-rater assessment methods'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, June, pp. 149-61. Coates, D. (1998), ``Don't tie 360 feedback to pay'', Training, Vol. 35 No. 9, September, pp. 68-75. Cotton, J. (1993), Employee Involvement, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. DeNisi, A. and Kluger, A. (2000), ``Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be improved?'', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 129-39. Dominick, P., Reilly, R. and McGourty, J. (1997), ``The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, December, pp. 508-20. Downey, R., Medland, F. and Yates, L. (1976), `Èvaluation of a peer rating system for predicting subsequent promotion of senior military officers'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 206-09. Druskat, V. and Wolff, S. (1999), `Èffects and timing of developmental peer appraisals in self-managing work groups'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, February, pp. 58-74. Edwards, M. and Ewen, A. (1996), 3608 Feedback: The Powerful New Model for Employee Assessment and Performance Improvement, AMACOM, New York, NY. Farh, J. and Werbel, J. (1986), `Èffects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation on self-appraisal leniency'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, June, pp. 527-9. Farh, J., Cannella, A. and Bedeian, A. (1991), ``Peer ratings: the impact of purpose on rating
quality and user acceptance'', Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 4, December, pp. 367-86. Farh, J., Werbel, J. and Bedeian, A. (1988), `Àn empirical investigation of self-appraisalbased evaluation'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 141-56. Fedor, D. and Bettenhausen, K. (1989), ``The impact of purpose, participant preconceptions and rating level on the acceptance of peer evaluations'', Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, June, pp. 182-97. Fedor, D., Bettenhausen, K. and Davis, W. (1999), ``Peer reviews: employees' dual roles as raters and recipients'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, March, pp. 92-120. Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), `Òrganizational justice and performance evaluation: test and trial measures'', in Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (Eds), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. Fox, S. and Dinur, Y. (1988), ``Validity of selfassessment: a field evaluation'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 581-92. Fox, S., Caspy, T. and Reisler, A. (1994), ``Variables affecting leniency, halo and validity of self-appraisal'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 45ff. Garavan, T., Morley, M. and Flynn, M. (1997), ``360-degree feedback: its role in employee development'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 13 No. 2 & 3, February/ March, pp. 134-48. Ghorpade, J. (2000), ``Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback'', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 140-50. Graddick, M. and Lane, P. (1998), `Èvaluating executive performance'', in Smither, J. (Ed.), Performance Appraisal: State-of-the-Art in Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Grote, D. (1996), The Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal, AMACOM, New York, NY. Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Handy, L., Devine, M. and Heath, L. (1996), 3608 Feedback: Unguided Missile or Powerful Weapon?, Ashridge Management Research Group, Berkhamsted. Hautaluoma, J., Jobe, L., Visser, S. and Donkersgoed, W. (1992), `Èmployee reactions to different upward feedback methods'', presented at the 7th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal. Hazucha, J., Hezlett, S. and Schneider, R. (1993), ``The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 & 3, Summer/Fall, pp. 325-51. Hegarty, W. (1974), `Ùsing subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisors'',
[ 28 ]
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 6, December, pp. 764-6. Hoffman, R. (1995), ``Ten reasons why you should be using 360-degree feedback'', HR Magazine, Vol. 40 No. 4, April, pp. 82-6. Holzbach, R. (1978), ``Rater bias in performance ratings: supervisor, self and peer ratings'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 5, October, pp. 579-88. Ilgen, D., Fisher, C. and Taylor, S. (1979), ``Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-71. Jones, J.E. and Bearley, W.L. (1996), 3608 Feedback: Strategies, Tactics and Techniques for Developing Leaders, HRD Press, Armhurst, MA. Kane, J. and Lawler, E. (1978), ``Methods of peer assessment'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85 No. 3, June, pp. 555-86. Kanouse, D. (1998), ``Why multi-rater feedback systems fail'', HR Focus, Vol. 75 No. 1, January, pp. 3-4. Kaplan, R. (1993), ``3608 feedback PLUS: boosting the power of co-worker ratings for executives'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/Fall, pp. 299-314. Kavanagh, M. (1997), `Ì simply want to know how well I am doing!'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, June, pp. 147-8. Keeping, L., Levy, P. and Brown, D. (1999), `Èxamining self-appraisal formality and expectations on appraisal reactions'', paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April. Klimoski, R. and London, M. (1974), ``Role of the rater in performance appraisal'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 445-51. Lawler, E., Mohrman, A. and Resnick, S. (1984), ``Performance appraisal revisited'', Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 20-35. Lepsinger, R. and Lucia, A. (1997), The Art and Science of 3608 Feedback, Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA. Lepsinger, R. and Lucia, A. (1998), ``Creating champions for 3608 feedback'', Training and Development, Vol. 52 No. 2, February, pp. 49-53. Lindsey, E., Holmes, V. and McCall, M. (1997), Key Events in Executives' Lives, Technical Report No. 32, The Centre for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC. London, M. and Beatty, R. (1993), `` 3608 feedback as a competitive advantage'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/ Fall, pp. 353-72. London, M. and Smither, J. (1995), ``Can multisource feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4, Winter, pp. 803-39. London, M., Wohlers, A. and Gallagher, P. (1990), ``3608 feedback surveys: a source of feedback
to guide management development'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 9, pp. 17-31. Longenecker, C. (1997), ``Why managerial performance appraisals are ineffective: causes and lessons'', Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 212-18. Love, K. (1981), ``Comparison of peer assessment methods: reliability, validity, friendship bias and user reaction'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 451-7. McCall, M.W., Lombardo, M.M. and Morrison, A.M. (1988), The Lessons of Experience: How Successful Executives Develop on the Job, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. McCarthy, A. and Garavan, T. (1999), ``Developing self-awareness in the managerial career development process: the value of 3608 feedback and the MBTI'', Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 437-45. McEvoy, G. and Buller, P. (1987), `Ùser acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 785-97. McMahon, G. and Gunnigle, P. (1994), Performance Appraisal: How to Get it Right, Institute of Personnel Management (IPM), Dublin. Maurer, T. and Tarulli, B. (1996), `Àcceptance of peer/upward performance appraisal systems: role of work context factors and beliefs about managers' development capability'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, Summer, pp. 217-41. Megginson, D. and Casserley, T. (1996), ``Mbracing mpowerment'', People Management, Vol. 2 No. 21, October, pp. 42-5. Meyer, H. (1991), `À solution to the performance appraisal feedback enigma'', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 68-76. Milliman, J., Zawacki, R., Norman, C., Powell, L. and Kirksey, J. (1994), ``Companies evaluate employees from all perspectives'', Personnel Journal, Vol. 73 No. 11, November, pp. 99-104. Mohrman, A., Resnick-West, S. and Lawler, E. (1989), Designing Performance Appraisal Systems: Aligning Appraisals and Organizational Realities, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Moses, J., Hollenbeck, G. and Sorcher, M. (1993), `Òther people's expectations'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/Fall, pp. 283-97. Mount, M. (1984), ``Psychometric properties of subordinate ratings of managerial performance'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 687-701. Murphy, K. and Cleveland, J. (1991), Performance Appraisal: An Organizational Perspective, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA. Napier, N. and Latham, G. (1986), `Òutcome expectancies of people who conduct performance appraisals'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 827-37. Nowack, K. (1993), ``3608 feedback: the whole story'', Training and Development, Vol. 47 No. 1, January, pp. 69-73. O'Reilly, B. (1994), ``3608 feedback can change your life'', Fortune, Vol. 130 No. 8, October, pp. 93-7.
[ 29 ]
Peters, H. (1996), ``Peer coaching for executives'', Training and Development, Vol. 50 No. 3, March, pp. 39-42. Reilly, R., Smither, J. and Vasilopoulos, N. (1996), `À longitudinal study of upward feedback'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, Autumn, pp. 599-612. Riggio, R. and Cole, E. (1992), `Àgreement between subordinate and superior ratings of supervisory performance and effects on self and subordinate job satisfaction'', Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 65, pp. 151-8. Roberson, L., Torkel, S., Korsgaard, A., Klein, D., Diddams, M. and Cayer, M. (1993), ``Selfappraisal and perceptions of the appraisal discussion: a field experiment'', Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 129-42. Rogers, (1995), `Èvaluating performance in selfmanaged work teams: an assessment of peer appraisal'', paper presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Vancouver, Canada, August. Romano, C. (1994) ``Conquering the fear of feedback'', HR Focus, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 9-11. Saavedra, R. and Kwun, S. (1993). ``Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 3, June, pp. 450-62. Schneier, C., Shaw, D. and Beatty, R. (1992), ``Predicting participants' performance and reactions in an experiential learning setting: an empirical investigation'', Proceedings of the Association for Business Simulation and Experiential Learning. Shore, T., Shore, L. and Thornton, G. (1992), ``Construct validity of self- and peer evaluations of performance dimensions in an assessment center'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 42-54. Smither, J., Wohlers, A. and London, M. (1995a), `À field study of reactions to normative versus individualized upward feedback'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, March, pp. 61-89. Smither, J., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N., Reilly, R., Millsap, R. and Salvemini, N. (1995b), `Àn examination of the effects of an upward feedback program over time'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, Spring, pp. 1-34. Taylor, M.S., Tracy, K., Renard, M., Harrison, J.K. and Carroll, S. (1995), ``Due process in performance appraisal: a quasi-experiment in procedural justice'', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3, September, pp. 495-524. Thornton, G. (1980) ``Psychometric properties of self-appraisals of job performance'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 2, Summer, pp. 263-71. Tornow, W. (1993) ``Perceptions or reality: is multi-perspective measurement a means to an end?'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/Fall, pp. 221-9. Tornow, W. and London, M. (1998), Maximizing the Value of 3608 Feedback: A Process for Successful Individual and Organizational Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Towers Perrin (1998), 3608 Feedback: The Global Perspective, Towers Perrin, London. Vicere, A. (1998), ``Changes in practices, changes in perspectives: the 1997 International Study of Executive Development Trends'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17 No. 7. Waldman, D. and Atwater, L. (1998), The Power of 3608 Feedback: How to Leverage Performance Evaluations for Top Productivity, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. Waldman, D. and Bowen, D. (1998), ``The acceptability of 3608 appraisals: a customersupplier relationship perspective'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, Summer, pp. 117-29. Waldman, D., Atwater, L. and Antonioni, D. (1998), ``Has 3608 feedback gone amok?'', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 2, May, pp. 86-94. Walker, A. and Smither, J. (1999), `À five-year study of upward appraisal feedback: what managers do with their results matters'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, Summer, pp. 393-423. Wexley, K. and Klimoski, R. (1984), ``Performance appraisal: an update'' in Rowland, K. and Ferris, G. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Yammarino, F. and Waldman, D. (1993), ``Performance in relation to job skill importance: a consideration of rater source'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, April, pp. 242-9. Yukl, G. and Lepsinger, R. (1995), ``How to get the most out of 3608 feedback'', Training, Vol. 32 No. 12, December, pp. 45-50.
Adsit, D., London, M., Crom, S. and Jones, D. (1997), ``Cross-cultural differences in upward ratings in a multinational company'', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, August, pp. 385-401. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998), ``3608 feedback and leadership development'', International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 6 No. 1, January, pp. 35-44. Antonioni, D. (1999), ``Predictors of upward appraisal ratings'', Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. XI No. 1, pp. 26-36. Ashford, S. (1989), ``Self-assessments in organizations: a literature review and integrative model'', Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11, pp. 133-74. Atwater, L., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F. and Fleenor, J. (1998), ``Self-other agreement: does it really matter?'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, Autumn, pp. 577-98. Baldwin, T. and Ford, J. (1988), ``Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 63-105. Bernardin, J. and Beatty, R. (1984), Performance Appraisal: Assessing Human Behavior at Work, Kent, Boston, MA. Borman, W. (1997), ``3608 ratings: an analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for
Further reading
[ 30 ]
evaluating their validity'', Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 299-315. Bracken, D., Summers, L. and Fleenor, J. (1998), ``High-tech 3608'', Training and Development, Vol. 52 No. 8, August, pp. 42-6. Brooks, J. and Stuhlmacher, A. (1999), ``Personal characteristics and rater congruence in multi-rater feedback'', paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April. Brotherton, P. (1996), ``Candid feedback spurs changes in culture'', HR Magazine, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 47-52. Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. and London, M. (1998), ``Does 3608 feedback work in different industries? A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source performance ratings'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 215-38. Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. and McCawley, C. (1999), ``Demographic and personality predictors of congruence in multi-source ratings'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 417-35. Brutus, S., London, M. and Martineau, J. (1999), ``The impact of 3608 feedback on planning for career development'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 676-93. Cacioppe, R. (1998) `Àn integrated model and approach for the design of effective leadership development programs'', Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 44-53. Carless, S., Mann, L. and Wearing, A. (1998), ``Leadership, managerial performance and 360-degree feedback'', Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 481-96. Cawley, B., Keeping, L. and Levy, P. (1999), ``Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: a metaanalytic review of field investigations'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 4, August, pp. 615-33. Church, A. (1997) ``Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in organizations'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, April, pp. 281-92. Cleveland, J., Murphy, K. and Williams, R. (1989), ``Multiple uses of performance appraisals: prevalence and correlates'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 130-5. Cook, D. (1998), ``The impact on managers of frequency of feedback'', Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11, pp. 263-77. Crossley, T. and Taylor, I. (1995) ,``Developing competitive advantage through 3608 feedback'', American Journal of Management Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 6-17. Dalessio, A. (1999), `Ùsing multi-source feedback for employee development and personnel decisions'', in Smither, J. (Ed.), Performance Appraisal: State-of-the-Art in Practice, JosseyBass Inc., San Francisco, CA. Dipboye, R. and dePontriand, R. (1981), ``Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisal and appraisal
systems'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, June, pp. 248-51. Facteau, C., Facteau, J., Schoel, L., Russell, J. and Poteet, M. (1998) ``Reactions of leaders to 360degree feedback from subordinates and peers'', Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, December, pp. 427-48. Farh, J. and Dobbins, G. (1989b), `Èffects of self-esteem on leniency bias in self-reports of performance: a structural equation model analysis'', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 835-50. Fletcher, C. (1999), ``The implications of research on gender differences in self-assessment and 360 degree appraisal'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 39-46. Fletcher, C., Baldry, C. and Cunningham-Snell, N. (1998), ``The psychometric properties of 360 degree feedback: an empirical study and a cautionary tale'', International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 6 No. 1, January, pp. 19-34. Flint, D. (1999), ``The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance appraisal: theory-based applications and directions for research'', Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-20. Gardner, D. and Pierce, J. (1998), ``Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organizational context'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, March, pp. 48-70. Geake, A., Farrell, C. and Oliver, A. (1998), A Survey of the Views of HR Practitioners on 360degree Processes, SHL (UK) Ltd, Thames Ditton. Grote, D. (1998), ``Painless performance appraisals focus on results, behaviors'', HR Magazine, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 52-7. Haworth, S. (1998), ``The dark side of multi-rater assessments'', HR Magazine, Vol. 43 No. 6, May, pp. 106-12. Heisler, W. (1996), ``360-degree feedback: an integrated perspective'', Career Development International, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 20-3. Hugget, M. (1998), ``360-degree feedback, great expectations'', Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 30 No. 4. Hurley, S. (1998) `Àpplication of team-based 3608 feedback systems'', Team Performance Management, Vol. 4 No. 5. Klimoski, R. and Inks, L. (1990), `Àccountability forces in performance appraisal'', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 45, pp. 194-208. Levy, P. (1993), ``Self-appraisal and attributions: a test of a model'', Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 51-63. Levy, P., Cawley, B. and Foti, R. (1998), ``Reactions to appraisal discrepancies: performance ratings and attributions'', Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 437-55. London, M., Larsen, H. and Thisted, L. (1999), ``Relationships between feedback and selfdevelopment'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, March, pp. 5-27. London, M., Smither, J. and Adsit, D. (1997), `Àccountability: the Achilles' heel of multi-source feedback'', Group and
[ 31 ]
Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, June, p. 162-84. Longenecker, C., Sims, H. and Gioia, D. (1987), ``Behind the mask: the politics of employee appraisal'', Academy of Management Executives, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 183-93. Martocchio, J. and Judge, T. (1997), ``Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: mediating influences of self-deception and self-efficacy'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 5, October, pp. 764-73. Maurer, T. and Palmer, J. (1999), ``Management development intentions following feedback: role of perceived outcomes, social pressures, and control'', The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 9, pp. 733-51. Mero, N. and Motowidlo, S. (1995), `Èffects of rater accountability on the accuracy and the favorability of performance ratings'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4, August, pp. 517-24. Nilsen, D. and Campbell, D. (1993), ``Self-observer rating discrepancies: once an overrater, always an overrater?'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/ Fall, pp. 265-81. Noe, R. and Wilk, S. (1993), `Ìnvestigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in development activities'', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, April, pp. 291-302. Parker-Gore, S. (1996), ``Perception is reality: using 3608 appraisal against behavioral competences to effect organizational change and improve management performance'', Career Development International, Vol. 1 No. 3. Peiperl, M. (1999), ``Conditions for the success of peer evaluation'', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, June, pp. 429-58. Redman, T. and Mathews, B. (1995), ``Do corporate turkeys vote for Christmas? Managers' attitudes towards upward appraisal'', Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 13-25. Romano, C. (1993), ``Fear of feedback: with proper training, even the most stubborn managers and employees will see the merits of upward appraisal systems'', Management Review, Vol. 82 No. 12, December, pp. 38-42. Rosti, R. and Shipper, F. (1998), `À study of the impact of training in a management
development program based on 3608 feedback'', Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1/2, pp. 77-89. Rowson, A-M. (1998), `Ùsing 3608 feedback instruments up, down and around the world: implications for global implementation and use of multi-rater feedback'', International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 6 No. 1, January, pp. 45-8. Russo, J. and Schoemaker, P. (1992), ``Managing over-confidence'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, Winter, pp. 7-18. Steensma, C., Gould, L. and Moseley, C. (1998), `Ùsing a group-based 360 degree feedback process to facilitate the merger of four marketing units at Disney Networks US'', Human Resource Planning, Vol. 2 No. 4, December, pp. 11-15. Stennett, R., Johnson, C., Hecht, J., Green, T., Jackson, K. and Thomas, W. (1999), ``Factorial invariance and multi-rater feedback'', paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April. Valle, M. and Davis, K. (1999), ``Teams and performance appraisal: using metrics to increase reliability and validity'', Team Performance Management, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 238-44. Vinson, M. (1996), ``The pros and cons of 3608 feedback: making it work'', Training and Development, Vol. 50 No. 4, April, pp. 11-13. Waldman, D. (1997), ``Predictors of employee preferences for multi-rater and group-based performance appraisal'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, June, pp. 264-87. Warr, P. and Ainsworth, E. (1999), ``3608 feedback some recent research'', Selection and Development Review, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 3-6. Westerman, J. and Rosse, J. (1997), ``Reducing the threat of rater non-participation in 3608 feedback systems'', Group and Organization Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, June, pp. 288-309. Wimer, S. and Nowack, K. (1998), ``Thirteen common mistakes using 360-degree feedback'', Training and Development, Vol. 52 No. 5, May, pp. 69-79. Yammarino, F. and Atwater, L. (1993), `Ùnderstanding self-perception accuracy: implications for human resource management'', Human Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos. 2 and 3, Summer/Fall, pp. 231-47.
[ 32 ]

360° Feedback

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

360° Feedback

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Introduction

Understanding 3608 feedback 8

Defining 3608 feedback 8

Historical development and evolution of 3608 feedback 8

Figure 1 Potential raters in multi-source appraisal systems

3608 feedback and traditional 8 top-down appraisal

Differences between 3608 and traditional 8 performance appraisal

Source: Longenecker (1997) [9]

Extent of use of 3608 feedback 8

Targeted employees All employees in the organisation [ 10 ]

The 3608 feedback process 8

Designing and developing 3608 8 assessment instruments: alternative models

Potential benefits of 3608 8 feedback

Difficulties associated with 3608 8 feedback

Applications for multi-source feedback

Potential raters in 3608 feedback processes 8

Benefits and drawbacks of upward appraisal

Upward feedback and subsequent employee performance

Supervisor attitudes towards upward appraisal

Growth and development of peer appraisal

Benefits and drawbacks of peer feedback

Employee acceptance of peer feedback

Peer feedback effectiveness

Advantages and disadvantages of self-ratings

Implications for performance management and development

Purpose: development versus evaluation

Вам также может понравиться