360° feedback process: performance, improvement and employee career development

McCarthy, Alma; Garavan, Thomas N.

doi:10.1108/03090590110380614

Cited by 85 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 108 publications

(125 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Feedback provides a means for thinking deeply about someone else's work, reflecting on one's own work, and receiving and interpreting criticism. Although an ability to provide high quality feedback is an important skill in engineering, it is lacking among engineering professionals 19 , professors 20 , researchers 17 , and students 21 . There is currently research being conducted to address this lack of feedback skills in industry at the professional level 19 and in education at the instructor 22 and student level 23 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students and Engineering Educators' Feedback on Design

Marbouti¹,

Diefes‐Dux²,

Cardella³

2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a member of Purdue's Teaching Academy. Since 1999, she has been a faculty member within the FirstYear Engineering Program, teaching and guiding the design of one of the required first-year engineering courses that engages students in open-ended problem solving and design. Her research focuses on the development, implementation, and assessment of modeling and design activities with authentic engineering contexts. She is currently a member of the educational team for the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN). Students and Engineering Educators' Feedback on Design AbstractIn this paper, we compared first-year engineering students' and engineering educators' written feedback on a sample of student design work. A coding scheme with two domains, Substance and Focus of feedback, was developed to analyze and compare the feedback provided by the two groups. Overall, not only did educators provide more and longer comments, but their Focus of feedback had no overlap with the students. Students' feedback was focused on giving Negative/Positive Assessment on the design work and giving Direct Recommendations for how to improve the work. Educators focused on asking thought provoking questions, indirectly challenging students' design ideas, and providing details or examples so the feedback could be easily understood. Educators' comments were mostly related to design ideas specific to the design problem while students' comments were related to communication issues with the design work.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students and Engineering Educators' Feedback on Design

Marbouti¹,

Diefes‐Dux²,

Cardella³

2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, TQM was one of the main driving forces in the development of the feedback method. McCarthy and Garavan (2001) stated that 360 degree feedback acts as a very useful and powerful source of information because, with this method, customers and suppliers can provide feedback on various quality dimensions within the organization.…”

Section: Mutual Project Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking construction industry, company and project performance by participants’ evaluation

Kärnä

Junnonen

2016

BIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe construction industry needs effective methods for gathering and utilizing performance information on industry, company and individual project levels. Such benchmarking (BM) information can be collected from project participants' bi-directional evaluations of each other's performance during construction projects. The purpose of this paper is to present the method and discuss the features of a multi-company project evaluation system as a BM tool. Also the accumulated results, based on the extensive BM database in the Finnish construction industry, are investigated. Design/methodology/approachThe web-based project evaluation tool was established in 2007 as a joint research project between the Helsinki University of Technology, construction organizations and main associations widely representing the construction industry in Finland. The evaluation method is based on soft, subjective measures, such as client satisfaction and project participants' satisfaction. The empirical observations of the study are based on over 5,500 evaluations during which the BM system was used in the Finnish construction industry. FindingsThe use of the evaluation is presented as a multi-level BM tool to evaluate the performance of different discipline groups on project, company and industry levels. The Finnish case shows an example of the industrylevel performance BMs of project consultants, main contractors, sub-contractors and architects/designers. The BM categories include project management, staff, collaboration and project goal accomplishment. According to the results, the participants are satisfied with each other's performance. However, main development targets in the Finnish industry are related to risk management and managing design. Also, the development of subcontractors' selection procedures will contribute to the performance of the industry. Practical implicationsClient satisfaction and project participants' satisfaction have been identified as one of the key factors affecting project success. With the help of mutual project evaluation, different BMs enable organizations to monitor their performance and to improve their operations in various areas. They also make it possible to position an organization's performance in comparison to the competitors and help to perceive black spots in the process on project level. As a common system for the parties in the industry, the project evaluation BM system promotes quality improvement, customer orientation and collaboration between participants. Originality/valueMulti-company project evaluation is a new and promising topic in performance measurement which holds potential for performance improvement through the utilization of network information and team dynamics. The study presents its wider utility as the basis of national, company and project BM.

show abstract

“…More than two subordinates act as rater to get average rates. Customers as rater are the most valuable in their feedbacks on outputs rather than work processes internal of the organization (McCarthy & Garavan, 2001). …”

Section: Figure A: 360-degree Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, (Kaplan, 1993)finds that too often feedbacks from supervisors hardly change the employee's behavior. Nevertheless, feedback helps employees in self-judgment and self-improvement according to the organization's needs (McCarthy & Garavan, 2001). It embeds positive norms and values with growth in working competencies and hence, proved to be a powerful tool for organizational change.…”

Section: -Degree Feedback: Employee and Organization Growth:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of 360-Degree Feedback on Employee and Organization Growth: With Reference to Higher Education Institutes of Pakistan.

Siddiqui¹

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

360° feedback process: performance, improvement and employee career development

Cited by 85 publications

References 108 publications

Students and Engineering Educators' Feedback on Design

Students and Engineering Educators' Feedback on Design

Benchmarking construction industry, company and project performance by participants’ evaluation

Impact of 360-Degree Feedback on Employee and Organization Growth: With Reference to Higher Education Institutes of Pakistan.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About