Multisource feedback: Lessons learned and implications for practice

Abstract

Introduction Multisource feedback (MSF), also known as 360-degree feedback, is a process in which a leader receives anonymous feedback from subordinates, peers, bosses, and customers. MSF is pervasive throughout U.S. organizations and is spreading to other parts of the world. Estimates indicate that as many as 29% of U.S. organizations (Church, 2000) are using this process. Many organizations embrace the 360-degree feedback process as part of their overall leadership development programs. However, recent research suggests that results may be modest. Smither, London, and Reilly (2005) analyzed the results of 24 longitudinal studies on MSF and concluded, "Practitioners should not expect large, widespread performance improvements after employees receive multi-source feedback" (p. 33). While their results found modest, yet positive improvements in employee behaviors and attitudes, practitioners that seek ways to increase the effectiveness of their firm's MSF interventions can look to the existing and current research on MSF processes.The purpose of this article is to outline recent studies on MSF in order to inform practice and increase the likelihood that more leaders and organizations will benefit from this developmental process. Our intentions are threefold. First, we highlight research knowledge in the area of MSF. Second, we describe all we have learned from MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK: LESSONS LEARNED AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE L E A N N E E . AT W AT E R , J O A N F. B R E T T, A N D AT I R A C H E R I S E C H A R L E SOrganizations around the world are using multisource, or 360-degree, feedback. Although many HR practitioners embrace it as an important mechanism for leadership development, organizations must attend to and address several issues in order to maximize the utility of multisource feedback (MSF). We discuss current research findings and highlight issues for managers to consider both before starting a multisource feedback process and after the feedback is given, plus we review potential outcomes of the process. We also describe lessons learned from an intensive three-year investigation of an MSF implementation in two organizations. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. an intensive three-year investigation of an MSF implementation in two organizations. Third, we discuss the implications of MSF research for leaders and human resource professionals in the field. Where appropriate, we indicate where MSF research has relevance to performance appraisal (PA), since both processes involve feedback. Figure 1 presents a framework for presenting recent research on MSF. The framework includes factors that HR practitioners should consider prior to implementation, factors to consider about the actual MSF process, factors to consider after leaders receive feedback, and outcomes that organizations can anticipate. For each of these topic areas, a table summarizes the MSF findings and applications for practice. The issues noted in italics in Figure 1 and the tables indicate results from our three-year study.We also highlight t...

What Does an Executive Coaching Intervention Add Beyond Facilitated Multisource Feedback? Effects on Leader Self‐Ratings and Perceived Effectiveness

“…Along these lines, two broader interventions have gained attention in the human resource development literature, each combining various aspects of the strategies noted above. A feedback workshop is conducted with groups of leaders and focuses mainly on assisting with the interpretation of the feedback and development of action plans (Atwater, Brett, & Charles, 2007;Atwater, Waldman, & Brett, 2002;Brutus & Derayah, 2002;DeNisi & Kluger, 2000). An alternative approach partners each leader with an executive coach for some duration preceding and/or following participation in the MSF (Goodstone & Diamante, 1998;Hooijberg & Lane, 2009;Luthans & Peterson, 2003;Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, & Kucine, 2003).…”

A conceptual framework for understanding leader selfschemas and the influence of those self-schemas on the integration of 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. The next section will illustrate how leadership self-schemas might be the underlying reason why leaders often fail to seek feedback or integrate it when it does occur.…”

“…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. Atwater, Brett and Charles (2007) provided a useful categorisation of the above factors into the following dimensions: factors to be considered before giving feedback (e.g. personality and goal orientation), factors to consider about the feedback process (e.g.…”

Developing Sustainable Workplaces with Leadership: Feedback about Organizational Working Conditions to Support Leaders in Health-Promoting Behavior

“…A possible approach to support leaders in creating a sustainable workplace could involve feedback-tools that allow leaders to monitor their leadership behavior and improve their behavior if necessary. By getting feedback on their leadership behavior from their employees, leaders can find out about their leadership potential and address fields for improvement [5]. Feedback-tools in leadership have a long tradition when it comes to more "traditional" leadership Sustainability 2017, 9, 1944 2 of 16 tasks such as management or interpersonal behavior [6] but can be used to monitor efforts in health-promoting behavior as well.…”