204:
each particular category (direct report, peer, manager) affects the reliability of the feedback. Their research showed that direct reports are the least reliable and, therefore, more participation is required to produce a reliable result. Multiple pieces of research have demonstrated that the scale of responses can have a major effect on the results, and some response scales are better than others. Goldsmith and
Underhill (2001) report the powerful influence of the evaluated individual following up with raters to discuss their results, which cannot be done when feedback is anonymous. Other potentially powerful factors affecting behavior change include how raters are selected, manager approval, instrument quality, rater training and orientation, participant training, supervisor training, coaching, integration with HR systems, and accountability.
100:) is a process through which feedback from an employee's subordinates, peers, colleagues, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation by the employee themselves is gathered. Such feedback can also include, when relevant, feedback from external sources who interact with the employee, such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. 360-degree feedback is so named because it solicits feedback regarding an employee's behavior from a variety of points of view (subordinate, lateral, and supervisory). It therefore may be contrasted with "downward feedback" (traditional feedback on work behavior and performance delivered to subordinates by supervisory or management employees only; see traditional
171:
unconscious bias may still occur due to factors such as the cultural influences or relationship quality between the rater and ratee. Additionally, if there are potential consequences from rater feedback, rater motivation may shift from providing accurate feedback to providing feedback based on self-motivated reasons such as promoting or harming a particular individual. Therefore, it is imperative that a baseline of trust be established between the raters and ratees to improve rater accountability and feedback accuracy.
208:
corporate setting is done in groups, not individually; (3) the
Measurement Paradox, which shows that qualitative, or in-person, techniques are much more effective than mere ratings in facilitating change; and (4) the Paradox of Rewards, which shows that individuals evaluating their peers care more about the rewards associated with finishing the task than the actual content of the evaluation itself.
25:
183:
those "known for less than one year," followed by those "known for three to five years" and the least accurate being those "known for more than five years." The study concludes that the most accurate ratings come from those who have known the individual being reviewed long enough to get past the first impression, but not so long that they begin to generalize favorably.
159:
co-worker's performance, and feedback providers can manipulate these systems. Employee manipulation of feedback ratings has been reported in some companies who have utilized 360-degree feedback for performance evaluation, including GE (Welch 2001), IBM (Linman 2011), and Amazon (Kantor and
Streitfeld 2015).
207:
One group of studies proposed four paradoxes that explain why 360-degree evaluations do not elicit accurate data: (1) the
Paradox of Roles, in which an evaluator is conflicted by being both peer and the judge; (2) the Paradox of Group Performance, which admits that the vast majority of work done in a
178:
It is also important to standardize how information is collected during the review process. 360-degree feedback may be susceptible to decreased accuracy based on the style of assessment used. Research has shown that feedback results may change based on the rating scale used in the assessment as well
170:
The amount and level of training in 360-degree feedback for both the rater and ratee can affect the level of accuracy of the feedback. If no guidance is given, individual bias may affect the rater's ratings and the ratee's interpretation of the feedback. However, even with training measures in place,
186:
It has been suggested that multi-rater assessments often generate conflicting opinions and that there may be no way to determine whose feedback is accurate. Studies have also indicated that self-ratings are generally significantly higher than the ratings given from others. The motivations and biases
149:
Today, studies suggest that over one-third of U.S. companies use some type of multi-source feedback. Others claim that this estimate is closer to 90% of all
Fortune 500 firms. In recent years, this has become encouraged as Internet-based services have become standard in corporate development, with a
141:
Research and
Engineering Company. From there, the idea of 360-degree feedback gained momentum, and by the 1990s most human resources and organizational development professionals understood the concept. The problem was that collecting and collating the feedback demanded a paper-based effort including
111:
There is a great deal of debate as to whether 360-degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. This is due primarily to feedback providers' subjectivity and motivations, inter-rater variations, and whether feedback providers have the ability
211:
Additional studies found no correlation between an employee's multi-rater assessment scores and his or her top-down performance appraisal scores (provided by the person's supervisor). They advise that although multi-rater feedback can be effectively used for appraisal, care needs to be taken in its
182:
A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that the length of time that a rater has known the individual being evaluated has the greatest effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. The study shows that subjects in the group "known for one to three years" are the most accurate, followed by
166:
Adopting the 360-degree review approach is purported by many to be superior to other traditional forms of evaluation and feedback for evaluating employee performance. When successfully implemented, this method can provide a more efficient, thorough, and accurate assessment of performance reviews.
162:
Some members of the U.S. military have criticized its use of 360-degree feedback programs in employment decisions because of problems with validity and reliability. Other branches of the U.S. government have questioned 360-degree feedback reviews as well. Still, these organizations continue to use
158:
360-degree feedback is not equally useful in all types of organizations and with all types of jobs. Additionally, using 360-degree feedback tools for appraisal purposes has come under fire as performance criteria may not be valid and job based, employees may not be adequately trained to evaluate a
203:
related to 360-degree evaluations to reliably generalize their effectiveness. Bracken et al. (2001b) and
Bracken and Timmreck (2001) focus on process features that are likely to also have major effects on creating behavior change. Greguras and Robie (1998) tracked how the number of raters used in
195:
Several studies indicate that the use of 360-degree feedback helps to improve employee performance because it helps the evaluated see different perspectives of their performance. In a 5-year study, no improvement in overall rater scores was found from the 1st year to the 2nd, but scores rose with
174:
It is important to recognize who will receive the data collected and who will maintain the confidentiality of that data. The manager or HR employee who manages the collection of data will need to ensure its confidentiality. When participants remain anonymous, they are more likely to provide more
107:
Organizations have most commonly utilized 360-degree feedback for developmental purposes, providing it to employees to assist them in developing work skills and behaviors. However, organizations are increasingly using 360-degree feedback in performance evaluations and employment administrative
145:
However, due to the rise of the
Internet and the ability to conduct evaluations online, multi-rater feedback use steadily increased in popularity. Outsourcing of human resources functions also has created a strong market for 360-degree feedback products from consultants. This has led to a
212:
implementation or results will be compromised. This research suggests that 360-degree feedback and performance appraisals get at different outcomes. Therefore, traditional performance appraisals as well as 360-degree feedback should be used in evaluating overall performance.
196:
each passing year from 2nd to 4th. Reilly et al. (1996) found that performance increased between the 1st and 2nd administrations, and sustained this improvement 2 years later. Additional studies show that 360-degree feedback may be predictive of future performance.
112:
to fairly evaluate attainment of work and organizational objectives. While these issues exist when 360-degree feedback is used for development, they may be more prominent when employers use them for performance evaluation purposes.
791:
English, A.E, Rose, D.S. & McClellan (2009). Rating scale label effects on leniency bias in 360-degree feedback.Paper presented at the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, April, New Orleans,
857:
Nooravi, S. Sherry (2010) Transforming high-silo, low-feedback organizational cultures: Using 360-degree feedback and coaching to maximize potential in individuals, groups, and cultures. "Dissertation
Abstracts International"
721:
Bracken, D.W., and Paul, K.B. (1993). The effects of scale type and demographics on upward feedback. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Society Annual Conference, May, San Francisco,
917:
Wilkie, D. (2016). "Are Anonymous Reviews Destructive?" Society of Human Resources Management Online. Retrieved May 7, 2016 at www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/employeerelations/articles/pages/360-degree-reviews-.aspx.
766:
Caputo, P. and Roch, S. (2009) Rating formats and perceptions of performance appraisal fairness. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, April, New Orleans,
773:
DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2):
175:
accurate feedback. Moreover, the data should only be available to the employee who has been reviewed and the manager who will be facilitating the feedback for developmental purposes.
861:
Pfau, B. & Kay, I. (2002). Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance? Studies show that 360-degree feedback may do more harm than good. What's the problem?
830:
Kaiser, R.B., and Kaplan, R.E. (2006). Are all scales created equal? Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, May, Dallas, TX.
886:
Smither, J.W., London, M., and Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis and review of empirical findings.
763:
Cannon, M.D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2): 120-134.
879:
Seifert, C., Yukl, G., & McDonald, R. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence of behavior of managers toward subordinates.
948:
546:
445:
714:
Atkins, P., & Wood, R. (2002). Self-versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs.
753:
Bracken, D.W., and Timmreck, C.W. (2001) Guidelines for multisource feedback when used for decision making. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H.
108:
decisions (e.g., pay; promotions). When 360-degree feedback is used for performance evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called a "360-degree review".
770:
DeNisi, A., & Kluger, A. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14(1): 129-139.
802:
Goldsmith, M., & Underhill, B.O. (2001). Multisource feedback for executive development. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H.
823:
Johnson, L.K. (2004). The Ratings Game: Retooling 360s for Better Performance. Harvard Management Update, Vol. 8(1). Retrieved May 7, 2016 at
522:
421:
35:
893:
Theron, D. & Roodt, G. (1999). Variability in multi-rater competency assessments. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 25(2): 21-27.
54:
72:
816:
Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development.
760:
Bracken, D.W., Rose, D.S. (2011) "When does 360-degree Feedback create behavior change? And How would we know when it does?",
910:
Walker, A., & Smither, J.W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters.
809:
Greguras, G.J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings.
943:
179:
as the length of the assessment. Furthermore, rater feedback may change based on the time they completed the assessment.
337:
Bent, William (September 2015). "Speaking Out: The State Department Needs to Reevaluate Its Use of 360-Degree Reviews".
351:
Cerella, A. (2020). Multi-Source Feedback in the U. S. Army: An Improved Assessment, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
958:
920:
Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1993). Self-perception accuracy: Implications for human resource management.
50:
150:
growing menu of useful features (e.g., multiple language options, comparative reporting, and aggregate reporting).
622:
Bracken & Paul, 1993; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Caputo & Roch, 2009; English, Rose, & McClellan, 2009
137:. One of the earliest recorded uses of surveys to gather information about employees occurred in the 1950s at the
746:
Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., Fleenor, J.W., & Summers, L. (2001b). 360 degree feedback from another angle.
833:
Lee, G.G. (2015). Caution Required: Multirater Feedback in the Army. Military Review, July–August 2015, 58-67.
938:
101:
128:
200:
850:
Maylett, Tracy (2009). 360-Degree Feedback Revisited: The transition from development to appraisal.
872:
Reilly, R., Smither, J.W., & Vasilopoulos, N. (1996). A longitudinal study of upward feedback.
125:
265:
Johnson, Lauren Keller (January 2004). "The Ratings Game: Retooling 360s for Better Performance".
953:
540:
488:
439:
642:
903:
Waldman, A. D., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has 360-degree feedback gone amok?
104:), or "upward feedback" delivered to supervisory or management employees by subordinates only.
528:
518:
480:
461:"When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?"
427:
417:
389:
134:
163:
and refine their assessments that offer multi-rater feedback in their development processes.
46:
472:
379:
779:
360° Feedback: The powerful new model for Employee Assessment & performance improvement
322:
Lee, Gregory G. (July–August 2015). "Caution Required: Multirater Feedback in the Army".
836:
Maylett, T. M., & Riboldi, J. (2007). Using 360° Feedback to Predict Performance.
613:
Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001b; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005.
932:
725:
Bracken, D.W., Dalton, M.A., Jako, R.A., McCauley, C.D., & Pollman, V.A. (1997).
492:
460:
896:
Vinson, M. (1996, April). The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: Making it work.
307:
Bracken, David R. (September 1994). "Straight Talk about Multirater Feedback".
784:
Eichinger, Robert. (2004). Patterns of Rater Accuracy in 360-degree Feedback.
688:
The relationship of multi-rater feedback to traditional performance appraisals
686:
532:
476:
431:
121:
845:
The Relationship Of Multi-rater Feedback To Traditional Performance Appraisal
484:
393:
586:
Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999
512:
411:
824:
847:. Doctoral Dissertation, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, California.
384:
367:
797:
Using 360-degree feedback in organizations: An annotated bibliography.
732:
Bracken, D.W., Summers, L., & Fleenor, J.W. (1998) High tech 360.
517:. Taylor, Sylvester; Chappelow, Craig (Second ed.). Oakland, CA.
366:
Bracken, David W.; Rose, Dale S.; Church, Allan H. (December 2016).
727:
Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes?
138:
18:
739:
Bracken, D.W., Timmereck, C.W., & Church, A.H. (2001a).
852:
Compensation and Benefits Review, September/October 41(5),
146:
proliferation of 360-degree feedback tools on the market.
577:
Lublin, 1994; Yammarino & Atwater, 1993; Nowack, 1992
199:
Some authors maintain, however, that there are too many
42:
142:
either complex manual calculations or lengthy delays.
246:
Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, & Pollman, 1997
53:, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a
781:. New York: AMACOM American Management Association.
187:of feedback providers must be taken into account.
120:The origins are from around 1930, with the German
413:360° feedback : a transformational approach
799:Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
729:Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
368:"The Evolution and Devolution of 360° Feedback"
459:Bracken, David W.; Rose, Dale S. (June 2011).
777:Edwards, Mark R., & Ewen, Ann J. (1996).
8:
795:Fleenor, J. W., & Prince, J. M. (1997).
514:Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback
545:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
444:: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
383:
73:Learn how and when to remove this message
949:Industrial and organizational psychology
372:Industrial and Organizational Psychology
691:(EdD thesis). Pepperdine Univ. Abstract
279:Bracken, Timmereck, & Church, 2001a
221:
825:http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3935.html
538:
437:
228:Bracken & Rose, 2011; Maylett 2009
34:contains content that is written like
755:The Handbook of Multisource Feedback.
741:The handbook of multisource feedback.
506:
504:
502:
405:
403:
361:
359:
357:
297:Bracken, Summers, & Fleenor, 1998
7:
804:The Handbook of Multisource Feedback
410:Ainsworth, Elva R. (12 April 2016).
905:The Academy of Management Executive
643:"Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right"
465:Journal of Business and Psychology
133:developed a methodology to select
14:
881:Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
838:Training + Development, September
23:
898:Training and Development, April
641:Peiperl, Maury (January 2001).
1:
922:Human Resource Management, 32
818:Human Resource Management, 32
811:Journal of Applied Psychology
806:. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
820:(2–3), 325–351.
757:San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
743:San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
604:Maylett & Riboldi, 2007
339:The Foreign Service Journal
975:
734:Training & Development
685:Maylett, Tracy M. (2005).
595:Walker & Smither, 1999
309:Training & Development
924:(2&3), 231–235.
748:Human Resource Management
511:Fleenor, John W. (2020).
477:10.1007/s10869-011-9218-5
267:Harvard Management Update
912:Personnel Psychology, 52
716:Personnel Psychology, 55
288:Edwards & Ewen, 1996
876:, 49(3), 599–612.
843:Maylett, Tracy (2005).
647:Harvard Business Review
255:Atkins & Wood, 2002
130:Johann Baptist Rieffert
98:multi source assessment
907:, 12(2), 86–94.
750:, 40 (1), 3–20.
631:Bracken et al., 2001b
201:confounding variables
126:military psychologist
102:performance appraisal
94:multi source feedback
55:neutral point of view
944:Personal development
888:Personnel Psychology
874:Personnel Psychology
813:, 83, 960–968.
237:Waldman et al., 1998
90:multi-rater feedback
914:(2), 393–423.
883:(3), 561–569.
718:(4), 871–904.
385:10.1017/iop.2016.93
86:360-degree feedback
47:promotional content
959:Workplace programs
890:, 58, 33–66.
788:, 27, 23–25.
135:officer candidates
49:and inappropriate
524:978-1-5230-8835-5
423:978-1-78452-244-5
83:
82:
75:
966:
865:, Jun 2002. 47,
701:
700:
698:
696:
682:
676:
673:
667:
664:
658:
657:
655:
653:
638:
632:
629:
623:
620:
614:
611:
605:
602:
596:
593:
587:
584:
578:
575:
569:
566:
560:
557:
551:
550:
544:
536:
508:
497:
496:
456:
450:
449:
443:
435:
407:
398:
397:
387:
363:
352:
349:
343:
342:
334:
328:
327:
319:
313:
312:
304:
298:
295:
289:
286:
280:
277:
271:
270:
262:
256:
253:
247:
244:
238:
235:
229:
226:
78:
71:
67:
64:
58:
36:an advertisement
27:
26:
19:
16:Feedback process
974:
973:
969:
968:
967:
965:
964:
963:
929:
928:
927:
710:
708:Further reading
705:
704:
694:
692:
684:
683:
679:
674:
670:
665:
661:
651:
649:
640:
639:
635:
630:
626:
621:
617:
612:
608:
603:
599:
594:
590:
585:
581:
576:
572:
567:
563:
559:Eichinger, 2004
558:
554:
537:
525:
510:
509:
500:
458:
457:
453:
436:
424:
409:
408:
401:
365:
364:
355:
350:
346:
336:
335:
331:
324:Military Review
321:
320:
316:
306:
305:
301:
296:
292:
287:
283:
278:
274:
264:
263:
259:
254:
250:
245:
241:
236:
232:
227:
223:
218:
193:
156:
118:
88:(also known as
79:
68:
62:
59:
40:
28:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
972:
970:
962:
961:
956:
951:
946:
941:
939:Job evaluation
931:
930:
926:
925:
918:
915:
908:
901:
900:, 11–12.
894:
891:
884:
877:
870:
869:; 54–60.
859:
855:
848:
841:
840:, 48–52.
834:
831:
828:
821:
814:
807:
800:
793:
789:
782:
775:
771:
768:
764:
761:
758:
751:
744:
737:
730:
723:
719:
711:
709:
706:
703:
702:
677:
668:
659:
633:
624:
615:
606:
597:
588:
579:
570:
561:
552:
523:
498:
471:(2): 183–192.
451:
422:
399:
378:(4): 761–794.
353:
344:
329:
314:
299:
290:
281:
272:
257:
248:
239:
230:
220:
219:
217:
214:
192:
189:
155:
152:
117:
114:
81:
80:
51:external links
31:
29:
22:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
971:
960:
957:
955:
952:
950:
947:
945:
942:
940:
937:
936:
934:
923:
919:
916:
913:
909:
906:
902:
899:
895:
892:
889:
885:
882:
878:
875:
871:
868:
864:
860:
856:
853:
849:
846:
842:
839:
835:
832:
829:
826:
822:
819:
815:
812:
808:
805:
801:
798:
794:
790:
787:
783:
780:
776:
772:
769:
765:
762:
759:
756:
752:
749:
745:
742:
738:
735:
731:
728:
724:
720:
717:
713:
712:
707:
690:
689:
681:
678:
675:Maylett, 2009
672:
669:
666:Maylett, 2005
663:
660:
648:
644:
637:
634:
628:
625:
619:
616:
610:
607:
601:
598:
592:
589:
583:
580:
574:
571:
565:
562:
556:
553:
548:
542:
534:
530:
526:
520:
516:
515:
507:
505:
503:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
455:
452:
447:
441:
433:
429:
425:
419:
416:. St Albans.
415:
414:
406:
404:
400:
395:
391:
386:
381:
377:
373:
369:
362:
360:
358:
354:
348:
345:
340:
333:
330:
325:
318:
315:
310:
303:
300:
294:
291:
285:
282:
276:
273:
268:
261:
258:
252:
249:
243:
240:
234:
231:
225:
222:
215:
213:
209:
205:
202:
197:
190:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
153:
151:
147:
143:
140:
136:
132:
131:
127:
123:
115:
113:
109:
105:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
77:
74:
66:
56:
52:
48:
44:
38:
37:
32:This article
30:
21:
20:
921:
911:
904:
897:
887:
880:
873:
866:
862:
854:52–59.
851:
844:
837:
817:
810:
803:
796:
786:Perspectives
785:
778:
754:
747:
740:
733:
726:
715:
693:. Retrieved
687:
680:
671:
662:
650:. Retrieved
646:
636:
627:
618:
609:
600:
591:
582:
573:
568:Vinson, 1996
564:
555:
513:
468:
464:
454:
412:
375:
371:
347:
338:
332:
323:
317:
308:
302:
293:
284:
275:
266:
260:
251:
242:
233:
224:
210:
206:
198:
194:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
148:
144:
129:
119:
110:
106:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
69:
60:
45:by removing
41:Please help
33:
124:, when the
933:Categories
863:HRMagazine
533:1159679868
432:1031336375
216:References
122:Reichswehr
63:March 2019
43:improve it
954:Workplace
858:70(12-B).
736:, August.
541:cite book
493:145745127
485:0889-3268
440:cite book
394:1754-9426
774:254-284.
652:6 April
191:Results
116:History
695:15 May
531:
521:
491:
483:
430:
420:
392:
154:Issues
489:S2CID
96:, or
697:2009
654:2012
547:link
529:OCLC
519:ISBN
481:ISSN
446:link
428:OCLC
418:ISBN
390:ISSN
139:Esso
792:LA.
767:LA.
722:CA.
473:doi
380:doi
935::
645:.
543:}}
539:{{
527:.
501:^
487:.
479:.
469:26
467:.
463:.
442:}}
438:{{
426:.
402:^
388:.
374:.
370:.
356:^
92:,
867:6
827:.
699:.
656:.
549:)
535:.
495:.
475::
448:)
434:.
396:.
382::
376:9
341:.
326:.
311:.
269:.
76:)
70:(
65:)
61:(
57:.
39:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.