Search results

Benchmark surveys regarding talent management assessment practices and interventions of choice for organization development (OD) practitioners have shown 360-degree feedback to be a popular tool for both development and decision-making in the field today. Although much has been written about implementing 360-degree feedback since its inception in the 1990s, few longitudinal case examples exist where interventions have been applied and their impact measured successfully. This chapter closes the gap by providing research findings and key learnings from five different implementation strategies for enhancing 360-degree feedback in a large multi-national organization. Recommendations and implications for future research are discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceived usefulness to participants of a particular 360‐degree leadership survey process to assist an understanding of how ratees receive and respond to 360‐degree feedback.

The paper includes a sample of eight new and emergent leaders at one university in Australia who complete a 360‐degree feedback survey. Through semi‐structured interviews, they are asked to report on their learning as a result of undertaking the 360‐degree exercise. A constant comparison method of data analysis is used to analyse the participants' responses.

The research study finds from the group undertaking the 360‐degree feedback process that, in equal proportion, participants report receiving: no surprising feedback but reinforcement and affirmation; and new insights, with developmental strategies identified to effect change as a result of feedback. The paper argues, from findings of the literature and the study, the importance of a measure of institutional support for the feedback process including sound facilitation. The results of the semi‐structured conversations held with the small sample attest to the importance of self‐efficacy (belief of capacity to learn and develop) on the part of ratees to act on feedback gained, and of the organisation's role in assisting self‐efficacy in 360‐degree programs. The findings support an incremental theory approach in that participants see the feedback exercise as an opportunity to improve their capabilities and pursue learning goals over time by acting on development items suggested by the feedback. It is posited that support received by participants in undertaking the feedback activity as part of a program of development contributes to the positive response. The paper concludes by providing some guidelines for conducting effective 360‐degree feedback discussions.

There is a reasonable body of literature about 360‐degree feedback processes from a theoretical standpoint. This qualitative study addresses a relative gap in the literature to explore how participants describe their experience of undertaking a facilitated 360‐degree feedback exercise, including whether they gain new knowledge, or no new knowledge. The paper also suggests some principles that might be employed in facilitating 360‐degree feedback to maximise benefit from the process.

Most of the studies in entrepreneurship depend on single-source rating methods to collect data on both predictors and criteria. The threat to effect sizes as a result of using single-source ratings is particularly relevant to psychology-based entrepreneurship research. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the prospects of applying 360-degree feedback to the field of entrepreneurship and to discuss a set of cases regarding how 360-degree feedback may boost effect sizes in entrepreneurship research.

A qualitative review of current literature was performed.

The review indicated that the effect sizes in psychology-based entrepreneurship research are mostly small and the use of single-source ratings is prevalent; some preliminary findings supported the utility of 360-degree feedback in entrepreneurship research; entrepreneurial orientation (EO) research may benefit from 360-degree feedback; and members of top management teams, employees from research and product development, sales agents, retail buying agents, store sales clerks, and consumers are all valid informants to provide ratings of EO.

The present study provided theoretical explanations and used empirical evidence to elucidate how 360-degree feedback may benefit the field of entrepreneurship. In addition, recommendations for future research using 360-degree feedback in entrepreneurship research were offered and discussed. A sample research study on EO using 360-degree feedback was delineated.

Focuses on 360 degree feedback which is defined as a contrived method of providing a flow of feedback to employees from all directions. Addresses the purposes of feedback within the organization, with special emphasis on its use for employee development and careeµr development; the benefits of such feedback to the organization and the individuals involved; the mechanisms used to obtain feedback; and, finally, the pitfalls of 360 degree feedback.

This study focused on the relationship between 360‐degree (multi‐source) survey feedback to managers and subsequent selection of development goals. We hypothesized that performance ratings would be negatively related to setting development goals, that supervisor ratings would have a greater effect than ratings from peers or subordinates in the selection of developmental goals, and that self‐other discrepancies would be related to goal selection. Data from 2,163 managers showed that multi‐source feedback contributed to the selection of developmental goals. However, contrary to expectations, subordinate ratings were most important to goal setting compared to ratings from any other sources. Direct feedback itself affected goal selection, not its relationship to self‐perceptions. For several goals, the relationship between performance ratings and goal selection was stronger for lower level managers. Implications of the results for the practice of 360‐degree feedback and related research are discussed.

How generalizable are 360-degree feedback instruments in different cultures? Research investigating the validity and utility of these instruments across the globe is scarce, yet, extraordinarily important. This chapter investigates the utility of a 360-degree feedback instrument across the globe, as well as how different raters from various cultures perceive leaders.

Engaged employees are a critical asset in any business. This is largely because engaged employees tend to proffer innovative solutions to complex problems in the workplace. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between engagement and innovation as moderated by the use of 360-degree evaluation.

A survey targeting employees in Lebanon solicited their perceptions of 360-degree evaluation, engagement and innovative behaviors along with a statement as to whether their firm used 360-degree evaluations or not. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the moderating effect of 360-degree evaluations on the latent variables of engagement and three facets of innovation.

SEM results show that 360-degree evaluations serve to enhance engaged employees’ innovative work behavior. However, ideation (creation and implementation) behaviors are more strongly influenced by the presence of 360-degree evaluation as compared to their “tangible” counterpart (technology and financial resource use).

Respondents selected for this research were randomly sampled employees in Lebanon. A stronger study strategy would be to study paired departments within organizations – one implementing 360-degree evaluation and another not implementing it.

Managers, seeking to engender and strengthen innovative behaviors in engaged employees, should utilize 360-degree evaluation processes. Furthermore, the 360-degree evaluations should be designed to probe both tangible (technology and financial resource use) and intangible (idea generation and implementation) facets of innovation.

This study yields a deeper understanding of the relationship between engagement and innovative behaviors in the workplace along with managerial insights into the design and use of 360-degree evaluation.

Asserts that intelligence gathered from multiple sources enhances both internal and external customer service. Notes also that multi‐source assessment or 360‐degree feedback enhances information quality, provides specific performance feedback and targets developmental areas. Uses findings from the experience of a variety of organizations which have implemented multi‐source assessment to support these beliefs. Suggests that this form of marketing research targeted to each person facilitates performance improvement by providing strong motivation to take action. Notes that optimizing performance and customer service relies on accurate information ‐ citing the provision of such information as the strength of 360‐degree feedback.

This paper aims to examine why 360‐degree feedback, which fell out of favor for a while, is now back in vogue.

The paper puts forward some of the weaknesses of 360‐degree feedback as it used to be practiced, and defines a five‐step process to ensuring most effective use of the tool.

The paper highlights the importance of defining the purpose of 360‐degree feedback, preparing the ground, and agreeing how the survey will be run and the results delivered.

The paper contends that the feedback collected is both fair and constructive.

The paper provides a five‐step process to implementing 360‐degree feedback properly.

Looks at the difference between success and failure with regard to 360‐degree feedback projects, stressing the need for a formalized structure to facilitate effective implementation. Initially outlines the reasons why firms seek to adopt 360‐degree feedback, setting out the benefits for the various parties involved ‐ customers, employees, etc. Goes on to outline “fatal errors” such as insufficient communication, lack of training and poor regard for the time factors involved, which can lead to failure. Offers solutions to these problems and concludes that, while 360‐degree feedback is not a cure‐all for assessment problems, it does hold promise for future improvement in this field.