360度回饋

　　Eighty-one managers in a middle sized construction company in Taiwan attended an Emotional Quotient（EQ）workshop. Before the workshop, the competency model of the company and the 360-degree assessment（including nine raters）had been developed and administered.
　　During the EQ workshop, the managers were fed back of their individual results to help them to understand themselves, and also were motivated to use the results to do action plan, to improve their performance.
　　The results showed that: (a)the medians of interrater reliability were between .47 and .74; (b)the medians of 360-degree validity were between .53 and .67; (c)the medians of multiple regression coefficient were between .42 and .98; (d)in-agreement / good and under-estimators were better managers; (e)360-degree assessment could explain more criterion variance than supervisor and self rating; (f)91% managers were satisfied with the whole process.

Keywords: 360ofeedback, competency, emotional quotient, self-rating, supervisor- rating, other-rating, managerial assessment, managerial development, managerial effectiveness

[回上層]

USING 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK AS A COMPETITIVE STRATEGY

　　Today's world is more challenging than ever before. The basic principles for doing business successfully are fundamentally changing. These changes are being driven by a re-shaping of the business environment. Globalization has significantly altered the nature and the intensity of competition (Hagan, 1996).
　　Hamel and Prahalad (1994) propose a core competency management approach as a model for creating and sustaining the transformation that will enable a firm to succeed given today's complexities. Core competencies are defined as "…a bundle of skills and technology that enable a company to provide benefit to customers" (Hamel & Prahalad 1994,p.199). They are unique package of capabilities distinguished by their centrality to customer value, their resistance to imitation and their ability to extent to new business applications(Spencer & Spencer, 1993).
　　According to Parry (1998), competency is a cluster of related knowledge, attitudes and skills that affects a major part of one's job (i.e., one or more key roles or responsibilities); that correlates with performance on the job; that can be measured against well-accepted standard; and that can be improved via training and development. A core competence firm must develop an approach to organizing that facilitates generative learning, sharing and innovation(Hagan, 1996).
　　Traditionally, HRM has been linked to efficiency outcomes, such as managing HR in an attempt to reduce turnover and its associated costs, designing compensation systems to minimize payroll costs, and staffing reduction methods. HRM as a means of value creation for organizations, do certain HRM policies and practices have the potential to increase quality, market share, revenue, and so forth for a company? Atwater & Waldman(1998) believe that 360-degree feedback has such potential.

[回上層]

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PURPOSE AND ASSUMPTIONS

　　The practice of involving multiple raters often including self-ratings, in the assessment of individuals is called 360-degree feedback. Typically, feedback about a target manager is solicited from significant others including the individual's co-workers, subordinates, and superiors. The primary purpose for 360-degree feedback is to enhance managers' awareness of their strengths and weaknesses to guide developmental planning. According to Tornow (1993), 360-degree assessment activities are usually based on two key assumptions: (1)that awareness of any discrepancies between how we see ourselves and how others see us enhances self-awareness, and (2)that enhanced self-awareness is a key to maximum performance as a manager and thus becomes a foundation block for management and leadership development programs. Muchinsky(1997) point out that with 360-degree feedback, differences in rater perspective are regarded as potentially valuable and useful and are not treated as variation to be reduced. Such differences are treated as an opportunity for professional development and personal learning to understand why individuals are perceived as they are by others.

[回上層]

THE POPULARITY AND BENEFITS OF 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK

　　A recent survey (London & Smither, 1995) indicates that 360-degree feedback is widely used. For example, one survey respondent stated that the practice is "nearly universal" among Fortune 500 firms, and another stated that, "Every Fortune 500 firm is either doing it or thinking about it." Romano (1994) reports that companies spent 152 million dollars on multi-source rating development in 1992. Studies show that about 12 percent of American organizations are using full 360-degree programs, 25 percent are using upward appraisals, and 18 percent are using peer appraisals. Furthermore, it appears that the trend is growing(Waldman, Atwater, & Antonioni, 1998).
　　The benefits of 360-degree feedback may include: better performance information (Morhrman, Resnick-West, & Lawler, 1989; Edwards & Ewen, 1996), more reliable and valid ratings than those from a single supervisor (c.f. Wohlers & London, 1989; Edwards & Ewen, 1996), support for high involvement styles of management (Budman & Rice, 1994；McGarvey & Smith, 1993), motivator to improve performance(Edwards & Ewen, 1996), and improved leader (i.e., ratee) performance after receiving feedback (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995；Daw & Gage, 1967；Edwards & Ewen, 1996；Smither, London, Vasilopoulos, Reilly, Millsap, & Salvemini, 1995).
　　The objective of the 360-degree process is to identify areas for both organizational and individual improvement. Some companies use the tool solely as a developmental mechanism. Others incorporate 360-degree feedback as a key part of the performance appraisal process. The technique is used by a growing number of firms including General Electric, AT&T, Digital Equipment Corporation, Nabisco and Warner-Lambert(Hoffman, 1995). Latham & Wexley (1994) believe that the use of multiple sources increases the probability of obtaining a comprehensive picture of an employee's total contribution to the organization. Quite often, the performance ratings of an individual from appraisers at different organizational levels do not agree highly with one another, as the appraisers see different aspects of an employee's behavior. Therefore, Latham & Wexley (1994) recommend the systematic collection of input from supervisors, peers, subordinates, and the individuals themselves when making performance appraisal.
　　Waldman, Atwater, & Antonioni (1998) suggest caution in adopting 360o appraisal, use 360 o feedback strictly for development at first. Let managers and others become comfortable with the process. Once employees see that negative repercussions are unlikely and managers see that the information truly is helpful, they will be less apprehensive about using 360-degree ratings for evaluation. 360-degree feedback is also a quick and easy way of conducting training needs assessments(Lassiter, 1996). By keeping track of the skills needed and the proficiency levels demonstrated, training departments can rapidly and accurately determine the subject, content, and frequency of their program curriculum.

[回上層]

THE PROCESS ISSUES OF 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK

　　360-degree feedback processes usually involve the following steps (Yammarino, Atwater, 1997). First, human resource professionals identify a number of observable managerial and leadership behaviors the organization believes are important for its success. Second, other individuals in the company rate the manager/leader on some type of scale that reflects the traits identified as important, usually via anonymous survey. Third, the manager/leader receives some type of feedback report based on the survey responses. Often scores are averaged across rater groups, thus protecting rater anonymity. A one-size-fits-all approach to survey items is not likely to be effective(Waldman, et al., 1998). The items will need to be customized. It is extremely important that 360-degree surveys reflect those behaviors that the organization values most highly. Care should also be taken to ensure that behaviors measured are closely tied to the accomplishment of the organization's goals.
　　Much of the literature on 360-degree feedback (Bernardin & Beatty, 1987；Edwards & Ewen, 1996；London, Wohlers, & Gallagher, 1990； Van Velsor & Leslie, 1991a, 1991b) has addressed practical issues in the design and delivery of such feedback programs (such as how to maintain confidentiality, how to train managers, how many people should be obtained from each sources, psychometric properties of scales, and characteristics of feedback display)(Warech, Smither, Reilly, Millsap, & Reilly, 1998).
　　Church and Bracken (1997) state that involve the participants in a job analysis to determine what dimensions are important to their organization and should therefore be measured by the 360-degree process. These issues include sample size, rater training, accuracy and validity, support of upper management, fairness, communication, and confidentiality. Involving raters in the total process will give them a sense of ownership; therefore, they will provide more truthful ratings. Church and Bracken(1997) also state that factors that were found to influence response rates, such as the raters' familiarity with the people they are rating, and the amount of time it takes to complete the ratings. Overall, clear communication to all concerned of exactly what is involved in the process is the most important factor in determining the level of participation.
　　Gebelein (1996) suggest that involve them in the creation of the strategic competency model. Explain why continuous employee development is vital to the company's survival. Provide managers with multi-rater feedback first to familiarize them with the benefits of the process. Hold them accountable for the development of their people; this accountability should have a serious impact on their compensation.
　　One of the most important aspects of 360-degree feedback is the ability of the recipient to compare ratings from the various sources to one another (Church & Bracken,1997). If the ratings from one source are much higher or lower than the other sources, this is an important piece of information in itself. For example, self-ratings can be compared to ratings from bosses, peers, and subordinates and discrepancies noted for developmental purposes. When ratings from all sources are not collected, much of the power of this technique is lost. Atwater & Waldman (1998) point out that the most obvious goal of 360-degree feedback is to increase an individual's (usually a manager's) self-awareness so that improvements can be made in how that manager relates to the various sources mentioned above.
　　Latham and Wexley (1994) suggest that appraisers must be aware of the aims and objectives of the person's job, frequently observe the employee on the job, and be capable of determining whether the observed behavior is satisfactory. Appraisers need to be aware of the objectives of a job to know what behaviors are critical to fulfilling the job requirements. They must frequently observe the person on the job to ensure that their appraisals are based on a representative sampling of the person's performance. They must be capable of ascertaining whether the behavior is effective in order to draw correct conclusions about the employee's value to the organization.

[回上層]

SELF-OTHER RATING AGREEMENT

　　Yammarino & Atwater (1997) point out that a comparison of self-ratings and other ratings yields four different self-other agreement categories: over-estimators (who rate themselves higher than others do); under-estimators (who rate themselves lower than others do); in-agreement/good rater (who rate themselves favorably and similar to others' ratings);and in-agreement/poor raters (who rate themselves unfavorably and similar to others' ratings).These four different types of managers have different HRM outcomes. In general, in-agreement/good raters are the best performers.
　　Yammarino and Atwater (1997) suggest that individuals need information about their knowledge, skills, and abilities, as well as about their individual characteristics, performance, and leadership, and they need this information from several sources. They need to understand how this information is similar to or different from their own perceptions of themselves. More importantly, they need constructive feedback to help them change or maintain appropriate on-the-job behaviors and attitudes. Essentially, constructive feedback, as part of a training program, tends to bring subsequent self-ratings in line with the ratings they receive from others.

[回上層]

EMOTIONAL QUOTIENT

　　According to Mayer & Salovey(1993), emotional intelligence quotient(EQ) is a type of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use the information to guide one's thinking and actions. The scope of emotional intelligence includes the verbal and nonverbal appraisal and expression of emotion, the regulation of emotion in the self and others, and the utilization of emotional content in problem solving. Emotional intelligence could have been labeled "emotional competence".

[回上層]

REACTIONS OF 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK

　　 McEvoy (1990) found that leaders reacted more favorably to evaluations from subordinates if those evaluations were used for developmental and not administrative purposes. Further, research has demonstrated that leaders may prefer that raters sign their rating forms, while raters (in this case, subordinates) prefer to remain anonymous (Antonioni, 1994). Bernardin, Dahmus, and Redmon (1993) found that leaders had a more favorable opinion of a subordinate appraisal system when they received both supervisor and subordinate feedback rather than only subordinate feedback. Other research found that leaders have more positive reactions to subordinate appraisal systems when they receive both individual and normative (e.g., group level) feedback rather than normative feedback alone (Smither, Wohlers, London, 1995). Barclay and Harland (1995) found that rater competence influenced perceptions of fairness of a peer rating system. Finally, Albright and Levy (1995) found that source credibility and message had an interactive effect on reactions to feedback from multiple raters.
　　Reactions to feedback represent an important element of 360-degree feedback success (Atwater & Waldman, 1998). For example, without favorable reactions on the part of ratees, one should not expect positive behavior change such as improvements in leader behavior. Favorable reactions to the process cause feedback recipients to seek additional feedback from raters and to set developmental goals, both of which may be necessary to ensure leadership development.

[回上層]

GIVING AND RECEIVING FEEDBACK TRAINING

　　Using upward or 360-degree feedback with the intention of changing self-ratings and behaviors (e.g., performance) must be approached cautiously (Yammarino & Atwater, 1997). Researchers and HRM professionals who have used upward and 360-degree feedback emphasize the importance of rater training. Simply cautioning people about common rating errors (leniency) can be very helpful. The training should also address people's insecurities about the rating process, its purpose and goals, and how anonymity and confidentiality will be maintained. Individuals receiving feedback that is more negative than expected (i.e., over-estimators) may need some special attention. These managers may suffer from reduced self-esteem, temporary depression, or feelings of inadequacy. In some cases, one-to-one discussions with a counselor or facilitator will ease some of these ill feelings. Also, over-estimators may benefit by receiving feedback as part of a group, rather than individually. They may find comfort in seeing that others (perhaps many others) have received ratings that are more negative than they expected(Yammarino & Atwater , 1997).

[回上層]

360-Degree Feedback and Managerial Performance： A New Perspective of Managerial Assessment and Development in Taiwan

360-Degree Feedback and Managerial Performance： A New Perspective of Managerial Assessment and Development in Taiwan

Yue-Loong Chang University of National Cheng-Chi

Yue-Loong Chang
University of National Cheng-Chi