No abstract

No abstract

We review evidence showing that multisource feedback ratings are related to other measures of leadership effectiveness and that different rater sources conceptualize performance in a similar manner. We then describe a meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal studies showing that improvement in direct report, peer, and supervisor ratings over time is generally small. We present a theoretical framework and review empirical evidence suggesting performance improvement should be more likely for some feedback recipients than others. Specifically, improvement is most likely to occur when feedback indicates that change is necessary, recipients have a positive feedback orientation, perceive a need to change their behavior, react positively to the feedback, believe change is feasible, set appropriate goals to regulate their behavior, and take actions that lead to skill and performance improvement.It has been nearly 10 years since London and Smither (1995) evaluated the state of multisource feedback practice and offered theory-based propositions for understanding how people process and use the feedback. This article assesses progress in the field, especially focusing on the extent to which feedback recipients improve their performance after receiving multisource feedback. We argue that practitioners should not expect large, widespread performance improvement after employees receive multisource feedback. Instead, we present a theoretical model that suggests some feedback recipients should be more likely to improve than others. First, we review empirical evidence concerning the validity of multisource feedback. This is important because it would make little sense to focus

We note that applicant reactions to selection procedures may be of practical importance to employers because of influences on organizations’attractiveness to candidates, ethical and legal issues, and possible effects on selection procedure validity and utility. In Study 1, after reviewing sample items or brief descriptions of 14 selection tools, newly hired entry‐level managers (n= 110) and recruiting/employment managers (n= 44) judged simulations, interviews, and cognitive tests with relatively concrete item‐types (e.g., vocabulary, standard written English, mathematical word problems) to be significantly more job related than personality, biodata, and cognitive tests with relatively abstract item‐types (e.g., quantitative comparisons, letter sets). A measure of new managers’cognitive abilities was positively correlated with their perceptions of the job relatedness of selection procedures. In Study 2, applicant reactions to a range of entry‐level to professional civil service examinations (assessed immediately after tasting the exam) were positively related to (procedural and distributive) justice perceptions and willingness to recommend the employer to others (assessed one month after the exam, n= 460).

Multi‐source feedback extends traditional performance appraisal by collecting information from subordinates, peers, supervisors, and customers. Ratees often receive the results along with normative data and self‐ratings. This paper explores how multi‐source feedback goes beyond traditional performance appraisal by providing ratees with comparative information. Focusing on person perception and information processing dynamics, this paper develops a model and associated propositions to explain the effects of multi‐source feedback on perceptions of goal accomplishment, re‐evaluation of self‐image, and changes in outcomes such as goals, development, behavior, and performance. Moderators of relationships between the major components in the model include individual difference variables (self‐image, feedback seeking, self‐monitoring, task‐specific self‐efficacy, and impression management) and situational conditions (the content and process of multi‐source feedback and organizational performance standards). Issues of research and practice intended to improve understanding and effectiveness of multi‐source feedback are discussed.