Does Performance Improve Following Multisource Feedback? A Theoretical Model, Meta‐analysis, and Review of Empirical Findings

Abstract

We review evidence showing that multisource feedback ratings are related to other measures of leadership effectiveness and that different rater sources conceptualize performance in a similar manner. We then describe a meta-analysis of 24 longitudinal studies showing that improvement in direct report, peer, and supervisor ratings over time is generally small. We present a theoretical framework and review empirical evidence suggesting performance improvement should be more likely for some feedback recipients than others. Specifically, improvement is most likely to occur when feedback indicates that change is necessary, recipients have a positive feedback orientation, perceive a need to change their behavior, react positively to the feedback, believe change is feasible, set appropriate goals to regulate their behavior, and take actions that lead to skill and performance improvement.It has been nearly 10 years since London and Smither (1995) evaluated the state of multisource feedback practice and offered theory-based propositions for understanding how people process and use the feedback. This article assesses progress in the field, especially focusing on the extent to which feedback recipients improve their performance after receiving multisource feedback. We argue that practitioners should not expect large, widespread performance improvement after employees receive multisource feedback. Instead, we present a theoretical model that suggests some feedback recipients should be more likely to improve than others. First, we review empirical evidence concerning the validity of multisource feedback. This is important because it would make little sense to focus

Getting Rid of Performance Ratings: Genius or Folly? A Debate

“…Multirater 360 feedback in the form of either formal ratings or informal input may be especially relevant as work becomes more team based, less hierarchical, and more customer focused, as other changes result in additional parties having performance information on an employee, and as work arrangements change (e.g., remote work) such that the manager has less of an opportunity to observe the work of the employee. It has many potential advantages, such as increased reliability, reduced bias, and reduced leniency (e.g., Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013;Antonioni, 1994;Flint, 1999;London & Wohlers, 1991;Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005). Simplifying the cognitive demands and reducing, through simplification of the process and forms, the motivational barriers for managers is also likely to be helpful (Efron & Ort, 2010).…”

A multidisciplinary review into the definition, operationalization, and measurement of talent

“…Furthermore, we advise using multisource assessments in order to reduce bias that could result from using only one assessor (Smither, London & Reilly, 2005). The talent-identification process is quite subjective by nature (Dominik & Gabriel, 2009;Heslin, Latham & Vandewalle, 2005).…”

A conceptual framework for understanding leader selfschemas and the influence of those self-schemas on the integration of feedback

“…In their research, Kluger and Denisi (in Atwater et al, 2000, p. 278) have shown that in over 33% of the cases, the performance actually decreased after feedback. It is highly likely that a combination of the eight factors highlighted by the meta-analysis conducted by Smither et al (2005) might to a varying degree account for these findings. One factor not explicitly identified by the meta-analysis (Smither et al, 2005) nor by Atwater et al (2007) is the role of self-schemas.…”

“…Those managers who are conscientious, open to new experiences and able to manage their emotions are also more likely to implement the feedback they have received (Smither et al, 2005).…”

“…In a meta-analysis conducted by Smithers, London and Reilly (2005), it was found that eight factors influenced individuals' willingness to use feedback (from peers, subordinates, and supervisors) to improve their performance. These factors include characteristics of the feedback (positive or negative), the leader's reaction to the feedback, his or her personality, their feedback orientation, their beliefs about the change suggested by the feedback, the perceived need for change, goal setting, and taking action from the feedback.…”