Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors

Abstract

SummaryFeedback from 360 degree ratings based on competency principles and used for developmental purposes was investigated for interrelationships among the ratings and for its relationships with performance and selection data. Relationships among: (1) feedback ratings from supervisors, peers, and self; (2) feedback ratings and selection test data; and (3) feedback ratings and performance appraisals on about 2000 employees of a Midwestern insurance company were examined. The 360 ratings by peers and managers were related to performance appraisals. All signi®cant correlations of manager and peer ratings with selection tests were positive, but signi®cant correlations of 360 degree self-ratings with selection tests were negative.

Self–other rating agreement in leadership: A review

“…Cognitive, analytical, and numerical abilities as measured with standardized tests were all found to be negatively related to employees' self-ratings of performance (Beehr, Ivanitskaya, Hansen, Erofeev, & Gudanowski, 2001). Again, this suggests that those with more ability are less likely to inflate their self-ratings.…”

The relationship between workplace learning and midwives’ and nurses’ self-reported competence: A cross-sectional survey

“…In a similar way, feedback from others can provide experienced nurses with new insights into their practice. Nowadays, 360-degree feedback (or multisource feedback), in which feedback from various sources including supervisors, peers and subordinates is given to an individual to offer multifaceted views of his/her performance, is a popular method of promoting employees' competence (Beehr et al, 2001). The issue of negative feedback, which may cause employees' emotional distress, seems to be less problematic for experienced nurses.…”

A team level investigation of the relationship between Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) differentiation, and commitment and performance

“…Team performance was evaluated by means of a 9-item scale (Beehr, Ivaniskaya, Hansen, Erofeev, & Gudanowski, 2001). Each item dealt with a specific aspect of team performance and had to be rated on a 10-point scale by the school principal.…”