Journal of Organization and Human Behaviour

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Perception of the Middle-Level Managers on 360-Degree Feedback Process:An Empirical Study


Affiliations
1 HRM, SDM Institute for Management Development, Mysore, Karnataka, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Organizations have employed 360-degree feedback as a tool for performance assessment and employee development for almost a decade now, with reasonable success. However, as there are always two sides to everything, 360-degree as an assessment tool is not an exception. Due caution may have to be employed by organizations, before they use this tool for assessment. Authors attempted to investigate the perception of the middle-level managers, working in different sectors, in the cities of Bangalore and Mysore, on the 360-degree feedback process. Data revealed that the average importance level assigned to the issues of overall 360-degree feedback process, by the respondents, was significantly different. Also, there was significant sector-specific difference between average importance levels assigned to the issues of overall 360-degree feedback process. However, there was no gender-specific difference in the average importance level assigned to the issues. Based on the research findings, HR Departments may initiate in-depth employee opinion survey to investigate whether the managers forwarded socially acceptable responses. Also, HR Departments of the respective companies need to investigate the parameters of the respective company’s culture. Further cross-sectoral studies are also needed to substantial the present study findings.

Keywords

360-Degree Feedback, Process Ownership, Confidentiality, Anonymity, Rater.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Bettenhausen, K., & Fedor, D. (1997). Peer and upward appraisal – A comparison of their benefits and problems. Group and Organisation Management, 22(2), 236–263.

  • CIPD. (2003). Quarterly HR Trends and Indicators. Survey Report, Summer 2003, CIPD.S

  • Dauda, Y. (2018). A review of performance appraisal systems in different countries: The UK, India, South Africa and Ghana. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences, 13(2), 203–221.

  • Fleenor, J. W., & Prince, J. M. (2016). Using 360-degree feedback in organisations. International Journal of Research in Management and Technology, 6(1), 45–51.

  • Gray, A. (2001). Individual differences in 360-degree feedback. The Feedback Project. University of Surrey Roehampton, pp. 7–27.

  • Goodge, P., & Burr, J. (1999). 360-degree feedback – For once the research is useful. Selection and Development Review, 15(2), 3–7.

  • Goodge, P. (2002). Public sector leadership – key measures. Selection and Development Review, 18(5/6), 9–12.

  • Heathfield, S. M. (2018). What is a 360 Review in the Workplace? Retrieved 2018, December 30 from https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-a-360-review-1917541

  • Jagtap, S. P. (2018). 360 degree feedback tool – Pros and Cons. International Journal of Management and Commerce Innovations, 5(2), 1–4.

  • Kearns, P. (2004). New HR charter: Part 3 – do competencies and 360 work? Retrieved 22 July from www.hrzone.co.uk

  • Kettley, P. (1997). Personal feedback: Cases in point, IES Research Report 326, pp. 65–66.

  • London, M., Wohlers, A., & Gallagher, P. (1990). A feedback approach to management development. Journal of Management Development, 9(6), 17–31.

  • Meyer, H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 291–295.

  • Pollack, D., & Pollack, L. (1996). Using 360° feedback in performance appraisal. Public Personnel Management, 25(4), 507–528.

  • Ramamoorthy, R., & Kavitha, S. F. (2017). The effectiveness of 360 degree performance appraisal and feedback in Hotel Green Park, Chennai. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 116(16), 285–290.

  • Rohatgi, S., & Singh, K. K. (2017). Customized 360 degree feedback based appraisal system in India in the era of Internet of Things (IoT). International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 4(7), 337–341.

  • Rogel, C. (2017). 8 benefits of 360 degree feedback. Retrieved 2017, December 8 from https://www.decision-wise.com/benefits-of-360-degree-feedback/

  • Saffie-Robertson, M. C., & Brutus, S. (2014). The impact of interdependence on performance evaluations: The mediating role of discomfort with performance appraisal. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3), 459–473.

  • Sing, R., & Vadivelu, S. (2018). The need for 360 and 720 degree performance appraisal system in Indian organizations. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 119(15), 1101–1118.

  • Taylor, S. (2011). Assess Pros and Cons of 360-Degree Performance Appraisal. Retrieved 2011, July 12 from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-elations/pages/360degreeperformance.aspx

  • Vijay Anand, V., Badrinath, V., Renganathan, R., Siva Bharathi, K., Manjula, R., &, Nallisai, E. (2018). An assessment of 360 degree performance appraisal system - A study with special reference to private banks. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 119(7), 2727–2727.

  • Warr, P., & Ainsworth, E. (1999). 360-degree feedback – Some recent research. Selection and Development Review, 15(3), 3–6.

  • Wilkie, D. (2016). Are Anonymous Reviews Destructive? Retrieved 2016, March 31 from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/360-degree-reviews.aspx,.

  • Yadav, J. (2018). A study of performance appraisal system of employees at cement industry. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 4(1), 594–598.

  • Yen, L. L. (2018). Impact of culture on attitudes towards upwards appraisals. Unpublished PhD thesis, San Francisco State University. Retrieved from https://sfsu-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/204076/AS362018PSYCHY46.pdf?sequence=1.

  • Zondo, R. W. D. (2017). The influence of a 360-degree performance appraisal on labour productivity in an automotive manufacturing organisation. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 1–7. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajems/v21n1/57.pdf.


Abstract Views: 229

PDF Views: 0




  • Perception of the Middle-Level Managers on 360-Degree Feedback Process:An Empirical Study

Abstract Views: 229  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Mousumi Sengupta
HRM, SDM Institute for Management Development, Mysore, Karnataka, India
Nilanjan Sengupta
HRM, SDM Institute for Management Development, Mysore, Karnataka, India

Abstract


Organizations have employed 360-degree feedback as a tool for performance assessment and employee development for almost a decade now, with reasonable success. However, as there are always two sides to everything, 360-degree as an assessment tool is not an exception. Due caution may have to be employed by organizations, before they use this tool for assessment. Authors attempted to investigate the perception of the middle-level managers, working in different sectors, in the cities of Bangalore and Mysore, on the 360-degree feedback process. Data revealed that the average importance level assigned to the issues of overall 360-degree feedback process, by the respondents, was significantly different. Also, there was significant sector-specific difference between average importance levels assigned to the issues of overall 360-degree feedback process. However, there was no gender-specific difference in the average importance level assigned to the issues. Based on the research findings, HR Departments may initiate in-depth employee opinion survey to investigate whether the managers forwarded socially acceptable responses. Also, HR Departments of the respective companies need to investigate the parameters of the respective company’s culture. Further cross-sectoral studies are also needed to substantial the present study findings.

Keywords


360-Degree Feedback, Process Ownership, Confidentiality, Anonymity, Rater.

References