This article examines the status of 360‐degree feedback in organizations. How to optimally use feedback from multiple constituencies as a competitive advantage is discussed. Differences between traditional performance appraisal and 360‐degree feedback are elucidated. Elements of designing and implementing an effective 360‐degree feedback program are explored: content, employee involvement, item type, format, relevance, implementation, using results for evaluation and/or development, including managers' self‐assessment, and the form and content of the feedback. A research agenda on 360‐degree programs is charted. © 1993 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

No abstract

Assessment center ratings of 52 state law enforcement agency managers predicted both a contaminated promotions criterion and two uncontaminated ratings criteria, but they did significantly better in predicting the former. Criteria data were gathered two, four, and seven years after the assessment center, and a modest upward trend in validity coefficients was observed. Ratings by subordinates demonstrated promise as a near term predictor, outperforming the assessment center on uncontaminated criteria in the two‐ and four‐year time frames. Last, regression analyses using Year 7 criteria revealed unique predictive power for both ratings by subordinates and assessment centers above and beyond that provided by supervisor ratings. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Management meeting, Anaheim, California, August 7‐10, 1988.

In many organizations performance measurement and management (PMM) systems are little more than human resource bureaucracies with forms, rules, and review layers. These paper‐driven systems are burdens to managers and hence are completed marginally, if at all. They are typically seen by raters as extra work and by ratees as at best irrelevant, at worst demotivating. Most PMM improvement efforts center on the most visible aspect of PMM—the form. But these quick fixes attempt to treat symptoms (e.g., leniency), while diseases (e.g., lack of managerial accountability for performance improvement or development) go unchecked. Rather than periodic revisions to the rating scales, PMM can be made relevant by linking it to strategy execution. PMM can be a vital tool for strategy execution by signaling what is really important, providing ways to measure what is important, fixing accountability for behavior and results, and helping to improve performance. In this article a PMM process is described which begins with identification of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) derived directly from business strategy. These are the basis for a PMM process that is a welcome managerial tool. The successful use of PMM as a device for strategy execution is illustrated via a case study.