Has 360 degree feedback gone amok?

360‐degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis suggests a winning combination

“…By combining the systematic coaching with a 360-degree program, we hope to have initiated the change in focus from the question of whether 360-degree feedback is really applicable and useful to today's challenges facing organizations, to more specific research questions and application guidelines regarding the nature, structure, and impact of 360-degree feedback on work attitudes, turnover, and, eventually, performance. Increasingly, the real value of 360-degree feedback is being questioned (Armour, 2003;London, Smither, & Adsit, 1997;Waldman, Atwater, & Antonioni, 1998). However, by providing new initiatives such as combining it with systematic coaching, as used in this study, the positive benefits of a 360 program may yet be realized.…”

“…First, developing the coaching as used in this study may help overcome some of the problems associated with 360s such as processing the feedback information, dealing with the self and other discrepancies, and what to do with the information to become more effective (Antonioni, 1996;DeNisi & Griffin, 2001;Stajkovic, 2003;Waldman et al, 1998). Second, showing that feedback-coaching had a positive effect on work attitudes and intentions to quit can help managers not only meet the challenge of improving 360-degree programs, but also reduce cost through decreased turnover and improved job satisfaction and organizational commitment that are related to performance.…”

Employee perspectives on communication and consultation: findings from a cross-national survey

“…For this, it is important to differentiate between the application as a decision making instrument and the application as a developmental tool (see also Waldman, Atwater and Antonioni, 1998). In the latter case the aim is providing constructive feedback in a climate wherein one's growth is fostered and wherein there is room for improving one's weaknesses without immediate negative consequences.…”

“…Research has demonstrated that anonymous feedback is more honest and closer to what raters actually feel about the feedback recipients. Appraisers whose identity is known to the feedback recipients give higher ratings than those who are anonymous (London and Smither, 1995;Waldman, Atwater and Antonioni, 1998). Yet, in order to truly make use of knowledge of perception differences and openly share the information, employee and supervisor have an elaborate base of information to talk about the differences in perception (Jones, 2001).…”

Are Self-Evaluations Helpful or Harmful When Employees are Unaware of Their Marginal Contribution to Firm Welfare?

“…For instance, Waldman et al (1998) find that 50% of businesses that incorporate selfevaluations in their reward systems subsequently abandon such measures. In addition, studies by Roberson et al (1993) and Inderrieden et al (2004) show lower levels of employee satisfaction when self-evaluations are employed.…”