Coming Full Circle: Using Research and Practice to Address 27 Questions About 360-Degree Feedback Programs.

The research evidence addressing practical issues faced when implementing a 360-degree feedback system are reviewed. Notwithstanding the popularity and apparent utility of 360-degree feedback programs, there is a need for clearer translations of research-based knowledge into recommendations for practically applying such programs. This article uses the published research studies that have been conducted on 360-degree feedback programs to address 27 specific questions that often arise in the development, implementation, administration, and interpretation of multisource feedback programs.

[1]  James W. Smither.  Performance appraisal : state of the art in practice , 1998 .

[2]  Manuel London,et al.  A Feedback Approach to Management Development , 1990 .

[3]  Jeff W. Johnson,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF INTERRATER AND SELF‐OTHER AGREEMENT ON PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT FOLLOWING UPWARD FEEDBACK , 1999 .

[4]  Sarah A. Hezlett,et al.  TRAIT, RATER AND LEVEL EFFECTS IN 360‐DEGREE PERFORMANCE RATINGS , 1998 .

[5]  Francis J. Yammarino,et al.  SELF‐OTHER AGREEMENT: DOES IT REALLY MATTER? , 1998 .

[6]  N. Epstein,et al.  Examination , 1947, IUPAC Standards Online.

[7]  James W. Smither,et al.  CAN MULTI-SOURCE FEEDBACK CHANGE PERCEPTIONS OF GOAL ACCOMPLISHMENT, SELF-EVALUATIONS, AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED OUTCOMES? THEORY-BASED APPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH , 1995 .

[8]  James W. Smither,et al.  A FIVE‐YEAR STUDY OF UPWARD FEEDBACK: WHAT MANAGERS DO WITH THEIR RESULTS MATTERS , 1999 .

[9]  L. Atwater,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF UPWARD FEEDBACK ON SELF‐ AND FOLLOWER RATINGS OF LEADERSHIP , 1995 .

[10]  A. Felstead,et al.  Training and development , 1995 .

[11]  David A. Waldman,et al.  Has 360 degree feedback gone amok , 1998 .

[12]  Walter W. Tornow,et al.  Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end? , 1993 .

[13]  H. J. Bernardin,et al.  Attitudes of first-line supervisors toward subordinate appraisals , 1993 .

[14]  Mary N. Vinson,et al.  The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: making it work , 1996 .

[15]  David Antonioni,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF FEEDBACK ACCOUNTABILITY ON UPWARD APPRAISAL RATINGS , 1994 .

[16]  W. Harvey Hegarty,et al.  Using subordinate ratings to elicit behavioral changes in supervisors. , 1974 .

[17]  R. Snell.  Congenial Ways of Learning: So Near and Yet So Far , 1990 .

[18]  Richard W. Beatty,et al.  360‐degree feedback as a competitive advantage , 1993 .

[19]  Glenn M. McEvoy,et al.  User Acceptance of Peer Appraisals in an Industrial Setting , 1987 .

[20]  Richard R. Reilly,et al.  A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF UPWARD FEEDBACK , 1996 .

[21]  Walter W. Torno.  Editor's note: Introduction to special issue on 360‐degree feedback , 1993 .

[22]  John Schaubroeck,et al.  A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. , 1988 .

[23]  David Antonioni,et al.  Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process , 1996 .

[24]  Richard R. Reilly,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECTS OF AN UPWARD FEEDBACK PROGRAM OVER TIME , 1995 .