The impact of 360‐degree feedback on planning for career development

Brutus, Stéphane; London, Manuel; Martineau, Jennifer

doi:10.1108/02621719910293774

Cited by 41 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The involvement of subordinates and peers in 360-degree performance appraisal challenges the dominance of superiors as the most common source of Peers are viewed as a valid source of performance feedback on managers' performance because in working closely with them they have the opportunity to observe and accurately evaluate their behaviour (Brutus et al, 1999). "Also, because ratings are usually collected from a number of peers, they are more defensible from a legal standpoint, than ratings by the superior alone" (Fletcher and Baldry, 2001:124).…”

Section: Peer Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Millmore

Biggs

Morse³

2007

Women in Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.This is a peer-reviewed, post-print (final draft post-refereeing) version of the following published document:Millmore, Mike and Biggs, David M. and Morse, Laura (2007). Gender differences within 360-degree managerial performance appraisals. Women in Management Review, 22 (7), 536-551.Published in Women in Management Review, and available online at:http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09649420710825715We recommend you cite the published (post-print) version.The URL for the published version is http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09649420710825715 DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. Gender differences within Abstract Purpose of this paperThe study examines the impact of gender on the performance assessments of managers arising from the 360-degree scheme operated within the UK headquarters of a large multi-international financial services organisation. Design/methodology/approachA questionnaire approach was used to collect data on 66 managers (33 males and 33 females) against 4 broad capabilities on the 360-degree appraisal system. Data was gathered on each of the 66 managers from eight different sources including the individual being appraised, three of their peers, three of their direct reports (subordinates) and their manager (supervisor). FindingsPerformance ratings were either gender neutral or higher for female than for male managers. Within the case ...

show abstract

Section: Peer Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Brutus, London and Martineau (1999), self-appraisal refers to the type of feedback in which the individual is the source, the evaluator and the recipient of the information.…”

Section: Self-appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Millmore

Biggs

Morse³

2007

Women in Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Others have likewise found some resistance among managers' to subordinate feedback (e.g., Nemeth, 1997), despite findings on the contrary, for a highly beneficial developmental impact of subordinate feedback on managers (e.g., Bailey & Austin, 2002;Brutus, London & Martineau, 1999). Our managers were all categorical in their choice NOT to consult subordinates on performance matters.…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“Catch me if you can?”

Millward

Asumeng

McDowall

2010

Journal of Managerial Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -This paper aims to locate managerial feedback-seeking in a self-regulation model in which self-motivational considerations are uppermost. It seeks to use a qualitative psychological approach to address the question of when, what, how, from whom and why is feedback sought in a performance contingent managerial setting. Design/methodology/approach -Using Kelly's Repertory Grid technique, ten managers reflected systematically on their feedback seeking in an organizational context. A grounded theory framework was used to identify higher-order cross-case constructs. Findings -Managers sought performance feedback when they perceived uncertainty and difficulty in the pursuit of their managerial functions and were minded of their need to develop their management skills. Consistent with the instrumental model, feedback seeking was highly goal-oriented and self-affirmative in pursuit of increased managerial competence. However, the finding that adds most to the understanding on both an empirical and theoretical level is in showing how managers sought their feedback remotely, and from largely external sources, to reconcile development needs with self-protective considerations (i.e. image and ego-costs) in relation to subordinates and peers. These findings have implications for understanding feedback seeking as a multi-dimensional highly self-motivated process. Research limitations/implications -Qualitative research uses small samples and this limits their empirical generalizability; however, the paper's findings link with previous work indicating potential for hypothesis generation and theoretical development. Originality/value -Questions are raised about whether managers feel able to seek performance feedback for learning and development purposes, without feeling threatened in their capability and worth as managers. The paper argues that the environment most conducive to feedback seeking is one in which managers feel "psychologically safe" rather than defensive about their capability.

show abstract

“…Many studies revealed that 360 degree feedback is essential for individuals only as its conjunction with identification of personal strengths(Hensel, Meijers, van der Leeden, & Kessels, 2010; Maurer, 2002). Based on the assumption of the Cognitive Dissonance Theory, individual improved after getting a self-rating and multi-source rating in order to reduce deficiencies and increase the feeling of being assonant (Brutus, London, & Martineau, 1999). However, it was evident that mostly the ratings are based on interpersonal interactions rather than performance.…”

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

The impact of 360‐degree feedback on planning for career development

Cited by 41 publications

References 26 publications

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

Gender differences within 360‐degree managerial performance appraisals

“Catch me if you can?”

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About