|
Article Excerpt
The concept of 360 degree or multi-source feedback refers to a process whereby direct reports, peers, supervisors, and/or customers provide anonymous feedback to recipients about their performance in a number of areas. Generally, this feedback is developmental with the purpose of increasing the recipient's awareness of his or her strengths and development needs. This process is becoming increasingly popular as it is touted as a valuable leadership development tool that will help companies achieve competitive advantage (Waldman & Atwater, 1998). While few studies have looked at the impact of 360 on bottom-line outcomes (e.g. Erickson & Allen, 2003), a number of studies have reported performance improvements for leaders who have received 360 degree feedback (Smither, London, & Reilly, 2004). So why would most organizations not embrace 360 degree interventions as an avenue for performance improvement?
Positive behaviour change and increased self-awareness are not the only outcomes that may result from 360 degree feedback. Recent research has suggested that individuals may react with anger and discouragement when feedback is negative or not as positive as expected (Brett & Atwater, 2001). Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) work on the influence of feedback interventions on performance raised the issue that performance improvement is not the only outcome that can be expected from performance feedback. In fact, they concluded that one third of the feedback interventions actually resulted in decreased performance. Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, and Cartier (2000) found that improvement following an upward feedback intervention only resulted for 50% of the supervisors who received it. Atwater et al. also found that supervisors' commitment to their direct reports was influenced by the favourability of the feedback supervisors received from their direct reports. More positive feedback resulted in greater commitment, while more negative feedback resulted in reduced commitment. These results suggest that those receiving positive feedback may benefit more from this process than those who receive negative feedback. It seems unlikely that organizations would want to invest thousands of dollars in a process that helps good managers improve but discourages and angers managers receiving negative feedback. Understanding how the characteristics and the design of 360 degree feedback process influence recipients' reactions to negative feedback may enhance the likelihood that a 360 degree feedback process will assist those most in need of development.
The format of the feedback presented is one characteristic of a 360 degree feedback system that may influence how positively or negatively feedback recipients react to their feedback (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; London & Smither, 1995). Most 360 degree feedback interventions rely on a numeric feedback format in which the recipient sees the average scores he or she received on a variety of performance indicators from various rater groups (e.g. direct report, peer, manager, customer). To our knowledge, to date, no research has been conducted to examine the impact that this format may have on recipient reactions. Smither and Walker (2004) studied narrative comments often included in 360 degree feedback. They found that a small number of unfavourable, behaviour-related comments resulted in more favourable subsequent ratings while a large number of unfavourable, behaviour-related comments resulted in a decline in subsequent ratings. The implications of the Smither and Walker study are more about the amount of negative feedback rather than the format in which it is presented. Earlier work tentatively suggests that not only is the amount of negative feedback relevant, but a 'scoring' format may have a negative impact on recipient reactions when those scores are negative (i.e. low or lower than expected; Bobko & Colella, 1994; Brett & Atwater, 2001). When feedback recipients compare their self-ratings with the ratings other managers receive (normative ratings), this may focus attention on the self and minimize feedback effectiveness (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000). The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of two different feedback formats--a traditional numeric 360 degree format and an alternative text format on recipients' emotions and reactions. The text format provides words indicating areas in need of development rather than average scores from raters.
Feedback format
Recent research on 360 degree feedback suggests that some feedback recipients may not benefit from the process while others demonstrate notable improvements (Atwater, Waldman, & Brett, 2002). The format of the feedback recipients receive may influence how individuals respond to feedback, especially negative feedback. In this vein, Ivancevich and McMahon (1982) found that individuals showed greater performance improvements when they received feedback only about their own goal progress than when they received information about how their performance compared with other group members. Ilgen and Davis (2000) suggested that the framing of negative feedback may influence how recipients cognitively and affectively respond to the feedback. They asserted that the challenge of delivering effective negative feedback is achieving a balance between making recipients accept responsibility for low performance and not lowering the individual's self-concept. It should also be noted that the effects of feedback sign may vary depending on particular characteristics of the individual such as the individual's self-efficacy (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Kluger and DeNisi's (1996) feedback intervention theory (FIT) about the effectiveness of feedback interventions asserts 'feedback intervention (FI) effects on performance are attenuated by cues that direct attention to meta-task processes' (p. 267). Their example of meta-task processes is attention to the self rather than the task at hand. The feedback diverts attention from the task to the self. Diverting attention from a resource demanding activity to meta-task processes may cause performance loss due to the competition for cognitive resources. They also suggest that 'normative information (comparisons with others ...), should debilitate performance because it directs attention to meta-task processes' (p. 270). DeNisi and Kluger (2000) reported that the literature supports the notion that feedback that provided comparative information was associated with performance decline. Another feature of feedback that is expected to direct attention to self is graphic presentation. Feedback interventions 'provided graphically should debilitate FI effects because it may direct attention to meta-task processes' (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, p. 271). Graphic and numeric feedback with normative information is a typical 360 degree feedback format. However, FIT would suggest that this format may not be optimally effective. An alternative format that is designed to minimize attention to self may have results that are more positive.
It was our intention to create two format conditions; one designed like most 360 degree feedback formats, which provides ratings in numeric and graphic form with normative information, and an alternative format that did not include these features that were hypothesized to exacerbate attention to meta-processes and debilitate the intervention. Both formats, however, included comparisons with self-ratings because this is one method for focusing attention on feedback-standard gaps that are one of the...
|
