Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:35:49.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improvements in Performance Management Through the Use of 360 Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2015

Michael C. Campion ,
Emily D. Campion  and
Michael A. Campion
Michael C. Campion*
Affiliation:
Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina
Emily D. Campion
Affiliation:
School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo
Michael A. Campion
Affiliation:
Krannert School of Management, Purdue University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael C. Campion, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, 1014 Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail: michael.campion@grad.moore.sc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this commentary is to complement the lead article by Pulakos, Mueller Hanson, Arad, and Moye (2015) by proposing the incorporation of 360 feedback as another means of improving performance management (PM). A 360 feedback refers to the practice of soliciting anonymous ratings and narrative comments on the job performance and other behaviors of the focal employee from a wide range of others who have worked with the employee. These sources include peers, subordinates, other managers, and often customers, as well as the immediate supervisor and self-ratings. There is an extensive body of research literature on 360s. Almost 300 articles and books have accumulated on the topic over the past 30 years (Campion, Campion, & Campion, 2014), resulting in substantial knowledge about the usefulness and effectiveness of 360s. Although the primary purpose of 360s has been employee development, 360s are being increasingly used within PM systems.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 85 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antonioni, D. (1994). The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349–356. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb01728.xGoogle Scholar
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25 (2), 24–38. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90023-6Google Scholar
Bernardin, J. H. (1986). Subordinate appraisal: A valuable source of information about managers. Human Resource Management, 25, 421–439. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930250307Google Scholar
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, N. & Borman, W. C. (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Campion, M. C., Campion, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (2014). Practice feedback: Using best practices to develop a model for using 360-feedback for performance management. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Church, A. H., & Bracken, D. W. (1997). Advancing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback. Group & Organization Management, 22, 149–161. doi:10.1177/1059601197222002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, J., & Huffcutt, A. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10, 331–360. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1004_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), 129–139.Google Scholar
Flint, D. H. (1999). The role of organizational justice in multi-source performance appraisal: Theory-based applications and directions for research. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 1–20. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00009-1Google Scholar
Folger, R., Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1992). A due process metaphor for performance appraisal. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 14, pp. 129–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Greguras, G. J., Ford, J. M., & Brutus, S. (2003). Manager attention to multisource feedback. Journal of Management Development, 22, 345–361. doi:10.1108/02621710310467631Google Scholar
Greguras, G. J., & Robie, C. (1998). A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360-degree feedback ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 960–968. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.960Google Scholar
Greguras, G. J., Robie, C., Schleicher, D. J., & GoffM., III M., III. (2003). A field study of the effects of rating purpose on the quality of multisource ratings. Personnel Psychology, 56, 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00141.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438Google Scholar
Hannum, K. M. (2007). Measurement equivalence of 360-degree assessment data: Are different raters rating the same constructs? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 293–301. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00389.xGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1988.tb00631.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32, 325–351. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930320210Google Scholar
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078Google Scholar
Hollander, E. P. (1954). Buddy ratings: Military research and industrial implications. Personnel Psychology, 7, 385–393. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1954.tb01607.xGoogle Scholar
Kane, J. S., & LawlerE. E., III E. E., III. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555–586. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Burgess, J. R., Kaiser, R. B., Atchley, K. E., & James, L. R. (2003). The restriction of variance hypothesis and interrater reliability and agreement: Are ratings from multiple sources really dissimilar? Organizational Research Methods, 6, 80–128. doi:10.1177/1094428102239427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.52Google Scholar
Lewin, A. Y., & Zwany, A. (1976). Peer nominations: A model, literature critique and a paradigm for research. Personnel Psychology, 29, 423–447. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1976.tb00426.xGoogle Scholar
London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 32, 353–372. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930320211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
London, M., & Wohlers, A. J. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 44, 375–390. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00964.xGoogle Scholar
March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, T. J., Mitchell, D. R. D., & Barbeite, F G. (2002). Predictors of attitudes toward a 360-degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 87–107. doi:10.1348/096317902167667Google Scholar
McDowall, A., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Employee development: An organizational justice perspective. Personnel Review, 33, 8–29. doi:10.1108/00483480410510606Google Scholar
McEvoy, G. M., & Buller, P. F. (1987). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785–797. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00624.xGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0255Google Scholar
Ployhart, R. E., Nyberg, A. J., Reilly, G., & Maltarich, M. A. (2014). Human capital is dead: Long live human capital resources! Journal of Management, 40, 371–398. doi:10.1177/0149206313512152Google Scholar
Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., Masimova, M., & Campion, M. A. (2013). A high performance work practices taxonomy: Integrating the literature and directing future research. Journal of Management, 39, 1840–1220. doi:10.1177/0149206313478184Google Scholar
Pulakos, E. D., Mueller Hanson, R., Arad, S., & Moye, N. (2015). Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8, 51–76.Google Scholar
Roberson, L., Galvin, B. M., & Charles, A. C. (2007). When group identities matter: Bias in performance appraisal. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 617–650. doi:10.1080/078559818Google Scholar
Rothstein, H. R. (1990). Interrater reliability of job performance ratings: Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 322–327. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420Google Scholar
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653Google Scholar
Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.514_1.xGoogle Scholar
Toegel, G., & Conger, J. A. (2003). 360-degree assessment: Time for reinvention. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 297–311. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2003.10932156Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 557–574.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Moderating influence of job performance dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job performance: Confounding construct-level convergence and rating difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 345–354. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.345Google Scholar
Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Antonioni, D. (1998). Has 360 degree feedback gone amok? Academy of Management Executive, 12 (2), 86–94.Google Scholar
Waldman, D. A., & Bowen, D. E. (1998). The acceptability of 360 degree appraisals: A customer-supplier relationship perspective. Human Resource Management, 37, 117–129. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-050X(199822)37:2<117::AID-HRM3>3.0.CO;2-ZGoogle Scholar
Wherry, R. J., & Fryer, D. H. (1949). Buddy ratings: Popularity contest or leadership criteria? Personnel Psychology, 2, 147–159. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1949.tb01395.xGoogle Scholar