Journal of Applied Psychology
2001, Vol. 86, No. 5. 930-942
Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
0021-9010/01/S5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.930
360° Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, and Perceptions of Usefulness
Joan F. Brett and Leanne E. Atwater
Arizona State University West
This study examined how 360° feedback ratings and self-other rating discrepancies related to reactions
to feedback, perceptions of feedback accuracy, perceived usefulness of the feedback, and recipients'
receptivity to development. The results indicated that less favorable ratings were related to beliefs that
feedback was less accurate and to negative reactions. Negative reactions and perceptions that feedback
was less accurate were related to beliefs that the feedback was less useful. Those who found feedback less
useful were perceived by a facilitator as less development-focused. Goal orientation did not moderate the
relationship between ratings and perceptions of accuracy or reactions to feedback. Goal orientation was
related to perceptions of usefulness of the process several weeks after receipt of feedback. The results
question widely held assumptions about 360° feedback that negative and discrepant feedback motivates
positive change.
The use of 360° feedback, the process in which subordinates,
peers, and bosses provide anonymous feedback to managers, continues to grow in popularity. Antonioni (1996) reported that an
estimated 25% of companies use some type of upward or 360°
feedback process. One of the reasons for its increased popularity is
the belief that developmental feedback can improve performance.
Studies have reported improvements in overall performance following this type of feedback (e.g., Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal,
1995; Reilly, Smither, & Vasilopoulos, 1996). Positive results
have been shown to be most notable for those who initially rated
themselves higher than the ratings they received from others
(Johnson & Ferstl, 1999).
An assumption of the 360° feedback process is that negative or
discrepant feedback (ratings from others that are lower than selfratings) will create awareness and motivate individuals to change
behaviors. Although studies such as those presented above have
shown that this is sometimes the result, research on performance
appraisal feedback suggests that positive results are only one
possible outcome. Kluger and DeNisi (1996) concluded that in
more than one third of the cases, performance appraisal feedback
actually resulted in decreased performance. Rather than being
motivated to change, managers who received negative feedback
were often discouraged and not motivated to improve. These
negative reactions were particularly the case when feedback concerned personal characteristics rather than task behaviors (Kluger
& DeNisi, 1996). Do these same reactions to negative performance
appraisal feedback occur when individuals receive negative 360°
feedback that is confidential, developmental, and not used for
reward or promotion decisions? Is negative 360° feedback that
highlights weaknesses or development needs perceived as constructive? Or is negative feedback, regardless of its purpose,
poorly received? Although there is a growing body of research on
360° feedback, little is known about whether 360° developmental
feedback has effects similar to performance appraisal feedback in
terms of reactions to feedback. A better understanding of how
managers perceive and react to feedback is needed if 360° feedback is to have the expected value to individuals and organizations.
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships
between 360° feedback ratings and self-other rating discrepancies
and reactions to feedback, perceptions of feedback accuracy and
usefulness, and recipients' receptivity to development following
feedback. We also investigated an individual-differences variable,
goal orientation, which we believed would moderate the relationships between feedback and reactions, accuracy, and usefulness
(Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Farr, Hoffmann, & Ringenbach,
1993).
Overview
The relationships among variables examined in this study are
presented in Figure 1. This is not a causal model but rather an
exploratory model of hypothesized relationships. We proposed that
both rating favorability and the extent to which self-ratings and
others' ratings diverge will be related to perceptions of feedback
accuracy and to positive and negative reactions to feedback. We
expected perceptions of feedback accuracy to be positively related
to positive reactions (e.g., pleased) and negatively related to negative reactions (e.g., anger). Both reactions and accuracy will, in
turn, be related to perceptions of the usefulness of the feedback. In
addition, usefulness will be related to the feedback recipient's
responsiveness to development.
The feedback recipient's goal orientation, a mental framework
influencing how an individual interprets and responds to achievement situations, was expected to serve as a moderator. Dweck
(1986) and Dweck and Leggett (1988) identified two broad classes
Joan F. Brett and Leanne E. Atwater, School of Management, Arizona
State University West.
We thank Ellen Jackofsky, Don VandeWalle, David Waldman, and Fran
Yammarino for their comments on this research. We also thank Paula Hill
of the Southern Methodist University Business Leadership Center and Tom
Daniels of Personnel Decision International for their support on this
project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joan F.
Brett, School of Management, Arizona State University West, P.O. Box
37100, Phoenix, Arizona 85069-7100. Electronic mail may be sent to
[email protected].
930
360° FEEDBACK
-i s
Perceived
Usefulness
of
Feedback
Time 2
13 "8
2 "^
Eo. m
o>
931
fe
s
o
C5
O.
Ic
a
I
0)
=
932
BRETT AND ATWATER
of underlying goal orientations: (a) a learning goal orientation, a
disposition to develop competence by acquiring new skills and
mastering new situations, and (b) a performance goal orientation,
a disposition to demonstrate and validate one's competence by
seeking favorable judgments and avoiding negative judgments.
Goal orientation was expected to moderate the relationship between both rating favorability (e.g., high or low) and self-other
rating discrepancy and accuracy and negative reactions. The hypothesized relationships are described in detail below.
Favorability of Others' Ratings
A number of studies of performance appraisal ratings have
suggested that more positive evaluations are seen as more accurate
and are better accepted than negative ratings (Halperin, Snyder,
Shenkel, & Houston, 1976; Stone & Stone, 1985). Positive ratings
also have been related to satisfaction with the appraisal or the
appraisal process (Dipboye & de Pontbriand, 1981; Ilgen & Hamstra, 1972; Morran & Stockton, 1980; Podsakoff & Farh, 1989).
Because performance appraisal ratings often provide the basis for
evaluative outcomes such as raises or promotions, it is not surprising that more positive ratings are better received. Whether this
finding holds for ratings that have no ties to evaluative outcomes
is uncertain. In one study with a small sample of managers,
Facteau, Facteau, Schoel, Russell, and Poteet (1998) found that
feedback from subordinates and peers was related to acceptance;
that is, more favorable ratings were seen by managers as more
accurate.
Self-enhancement theory (Schrauger, 1975) suggests that individuals will react more positively to higher ratings regardless of
their purpose. We proposed that higher ratings from multisource
anonymous, developmental feedback from others will be perceived. We proposed that higher ratings will be perceived as more
accurate and will be related to more positive reactions than lower
ratings. We expected lower ratings to be perceived as negative
feedback and related to more negative reactions. Kernis and Johnson (1990) found that failure feedback resulted in more unpleasant
emotions such as shame, anger, and overall unpleasantness. Meyer
(1980) found that employees who were given below-average merit
ratings became alienated and demoralized. Taylor, Fisher, and
Ilgen (1984) warned that negative feedback may be perceived as
threatening and may result in defiant opposition. Research has not
examined whether these findings hold for negative feedback that is
designed for developmental purposes (e.g., 360° feedback).
The research on reactions to feedback, limited as it is, suggests
that reactions to negative versus positive feedback may include
more affect intensity and arousal (see Russell, 1980). For example,
low ratings may evoke emotional arousal such as anger or defiant
opposition. It is less likely that high ratings will evoke emotional
arousal such as joy or glee, but these ratings may result in positive
reactions such as pleased or inspired. Thus, we proposed distinct
hypotheses for low and high rating favorability and reactions to
feedback. We hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: Higher ratings will be perceived as more accurate.
Hypothesis 2: Higher ratings will be related to positive reactions.
Hypothesis 3: Lower ratings will be related to negative reactions.
Self-Other Rating Discrepancy
Rating favorability may have less of an influence on managers'
attitudes toward feedback than the discrepancies between their
expected ratings and the actual ratings received from various
sources. Control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981) suggests that
self-other discrepancies will motivate the managers to reduce any
discrepancies by changing their behaviors to bring them in line
with others' expectations. However, behavioral change is only one
strategy for discrepancy reduction. Another approach under control theory is for the managers to seek feedback from the environment that would disconfirm the discrepancy. Waldman, Atwater,
Clements, and Atwater (1996) found support for this discrepancy
reduction tactic in a study in which those with lower ratings than
expected were more likely to seek additional feedback. Cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger, 1954) suggests that another way to
reduce the discrepancy between self-ratings and others' ratings is
to discount the feedback from others as inaccurate. The extent to
which feedback ratings deviate from one's expectations has been
shown to be related to perceived accuracy of the feedback and to
recipient reactions. Bernstein and Lecomte (1979) found that feedback that was more negative than expected was valued less than
feedback that was similar to or more positive than what was
expected. Meyer (1980) found that self-other rating discrepancies
were associated with defensiveness on the part of the feedback
recipient.
Feedback that confirms the recipient's self-view is preferred and
is seen as more informative (Pearce & Porter, 1986; Swann &
Read, 1981). Pedler and Boydell (1980) found that feedback that
was too disconfirming of one's self-view resulted in nondevelopmental outcomes (i.e., rationalization). The use of 360° feedback
usually includes self-ratings and averaged ratings from others
(London & Smither, 1995). Consequently, self-other discrepancies are a salient component of the feedback. Overraters, that is,
individuals who receive more ratings from others that are lower
than expected, are predicted to discount the feedback or to perceive
it as less accurate than those who receive fewer ratings from others
that are lower than expected.' We anticipated that self-other rating
discrepancy will be related to perceived accuracy as follows:
Hypothesis 4: Overraters (those who have more ratings from others
that are lower than expected) will rate feedback as less accurate than
individuals with fewer overratings.
The saliency of self-feedback versus others' feedback is likely
to focus recipients' attention on themselves rather than on tasks
(DeNisi & Kluger, 2000). When attention is focused on the self,
affective reactions to the feedback are often strong (e.g., despair or
anger). Because self-ratings are often inflated relative to ratings
provided by others (Mabe & West, 1982), many feedback recipients receive feedback that is more negative than their self-views
(overraters). Feedback discrepancy (e.g., over- vs. underrating) is
expected to relate to reactions to feedback. The more feedback that
indicates an individual overrated himself or herself (e.g., lower
ratings from others than expected), the more the individual will
1
We refer to overraters and overrating. These terms are comparable to
what others have referred to as overestimators and overestimation (Atwater
et al., 1995; Fleenor, McCauley, & Brutus, 1996).
360° FEEDBACK
report negative reactions to the feedback. The more feedback that
indicates an individual underrated himself or herself (e.g., higher
ratings from others than expected), the more the individual will
report positive reactions to the feedback. We expected that selfother rating discrepancy will be related to feedback reactions as
follows:
Hypothesis 5A: Underratings of self will be related to positive
reactions.
Hypothesis SB: Overratings of self will be related to negative
reactions.
Accuracy and Reactions
Several studies have indicated that individuals assess the accuracy of feedback they receive and that perceived accuracy relates
to their reactions to that feedback. O'Reilly and Anderson (1980)
reported that employees' perceptions of the accuracy of their
performance evaluation moderated the relationship between the
feedback received and their satisfaction with the appraisal. In a
similar manner, Cedarbloom and Lounsbury (1980) found that the
extent to which peers believed peer evaluations were valid was
directly related to their satisfaction with the peer evaluation system. Perceptions of accuracy may also relate to recipients' affective reactions to feedback (e.g., anger or discouragement), not just
their satisfaction with the appraisal. We believe that feedback that
is perceived as inaccurate will be associated with negative reactions, whereas feedback that is perceived as accurate will be
related to positive reactions. We proposed the following:
Hypothesis 6A: Perceptions of accuracy will be positively related to
positive reactions.
Hypothesis 6B: Perceptions of accuracy will be negatively related to
negative reactions.
Reactions and Feedback Usefulness
It seems unlikely that individuals who have negative reactions to
feedback also will report that the feedback is useful. Bernstein and
Lecomte (1979) found that subjects who received feedback that
was more negative than expected valued the feedback less than did
those for whom feedback was more positive than expected. Because we expected negative feedback (e.g., low ratings and overratings) to contribute to negative reactions, we expected, in turn,
that negative reactions will be related to perceptions that feedback
is not useful. It is possible that individuals who react negatively
could, at the same time, see that the feedback provides information
they did not previously have. According to London (1994), this
information should be seen as useful or valuable; however, cognitive dissonance theory suggests that feedback that makes one
angry will be seen as having little value. We proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 7A: Positive reactions will be positively related to perceptions of usefulness.
Hypothesis 7B: Negative reactions will be negatively related to perceptions of usefulness.
Accuracy and Feedback Usefulness
Individuals who believe feedback from others is inaccurate will
likely discount the value of that feedback. Regarding formal ap-
933
praisals, Ilgen, Fisher, and Taylor (1979) proposed four stages in
understanding how feedback results in behavior change. First, the
feedback is perceived. Second, the feedback is accepted as accurate. Following acceptance as accurate, the individual expresses a
desire to respond or, in our terms, finds the feedback useful for
future development. The last stage is the actual behavior change.
Consistent with these stages, we proposed that feedback that is
perceived as an accurate portrayal of the recipient's behavior will
be seen as more useful for development. We anticipated that
individuals who find the feedback more useful will express motivation to change and focus on development in a counseling session
with a facilitator. Individuals who find the feedback to be less
useful are expected to be defensive in the session with the feedback facilitator. We hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 8: Perceptions of accuracy will be positively related to
perceptions of feedback usefulness.
Hypothesis 9A: Participants' perceptions of usefulness will be
positively related to facilitators' ratings of participants as
development-focused.
Hypothesis 9B: Participants' perceptions of usefulness will be negatively related to facilitators' ratings of participants as defensive.
Goal Orientation as a Moderator
Dispositional goal orientation may shed light on why some
individuals view negative feedback as a developmental opportunity whereas others discount negative feedback. Learning and
performance goal orientations are associated with two different
interpretive frameworks. First, learning and performance goaloriented individuals hold different implicit theories about the controllability of personal attributes, such as intellectual ability
(Dweck, 1986). Individuals with a performance goal orientation
tend to hold an entity theory about their ability, which is viewed as
a fixed, uncontrollable personal attribute. Individuals with a learning goal orientation tend to hold an incremental theory about their
ability. For them, ability is viewed as a malleable attribute that can
be developed. Second, goal orientation influences how individuals
view effort expenditures (Ames, 1992). With a learning goal
orientation, effort is believed to be a strategy for developing the
ability needed for future mastery. With a performance goal orientation, ability is perceived as a fixed attribute, and effort expenditure indicates that ability is low. That is, only those who are
incapable should need to exert extra effort to master a task.
Each goal orientation is associated with different response patterns to failure and feedback (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot &
Dweck, 1988). Individuals with a high learning goal orientation
pursue an adaptive response pattern to failure in that they persist,
escalate effort, and engage in solution-oriented strategies. With a
performance goal orientation, individuals pursue a maladaptive
response pattern in that they withdraw from the task and make
negative ability attributions. Such a response pattern is predictable
because failure calls their ability into question.
A performance goal orientation is defined as the desire both to
gain favorable judgments and to avoid unfavorable judgments
about one's ability (Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Recent research has
conceptualized goal orientation as a three-factor construct: learning, performance-prove, and performance-avoid (VandeWalle,
1997). Separating the performance goal orientation into prove and
934
BRETT AND ATWATER
avoid dimensions captures the distinction between the positive
self-evaluation characteristic of performance-prove and the negative self-evaluation characteristic of performance-avoid.
The different response patterns associated with particular goal
orientations moderate individuals' reactions to feedback (Fair et
al, 1993). According to Dweck (1986), individuals with a learning
orientation view negative feedback as useful information on how
to develop mastery, whereas those with a performance orientation
view negative feedback as an evaluation of one's competence, to
be proven if positive or avoided if negative. Research suggests that
individuals with a performance-prove goal orientation may try to
demonstrate their ability by attempting to look better than others
do. Brett and VandeWalle (1999) found that goal orientation was
related to the goals that individuals set for a training program.
Individuals with a performance-prove orientation were more
likely to set goals for performing better than others, whereas
individuals with a performance-avoid orientation were concerned
with avoiding a negative evaluation during the training. Fair et al.
proposed that individuals with a performance goal orientation are
likely to assess their performance by using similar others as a
reference point and may experience negative reactions when the
feedback does not confirm their competence. Button et al. (1996)
suggested that a performance goal orientation might be associated
with defensive behavior if engaging in a task would risk demonstration of a low skill level and possible negative evaluation from
others.
We proposed that a performance-prove goal orientation moderates an individual's perceptions of and reactions to feedback.
The use of 360° feedback provides an assessment of an individual
as others see him or her. In addition, the feedback process provides
normative data for comparison purposes, thereby focusing the
recipient's attention on how well he or she did relative to others.
Thus, the 360° feedback process is ripe for those with a high
performance-prove goal orientation to react to feedback differently than those with a low performance-prove goal orientation.
We hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 10A: Goal orientation moderates the relationship of ratings and perceived accuracy. (Individuals with a higher prove orientation will perceive lower ratings as less accurate than individuals
with a lower prove orientation.)
Hypothesis WB: Goal orientation moderates the relationship of ratings and negative reactions. (Individuals with a higher prove orientation will have more negative reactions to lower ratings than individuals with a lower prove orientation.)
Hypothesis IOC: Goal orientation moderates the relationship between
self-other discrepancy and perceptions of accuracy. (Overraters with
a higher prove orientation will perceive feedback as less accurate than
those with a lower prove orientation.)
Hypothesis 10D: Goal orientation moderates the relationship of selfother discrepant feedback and negative reactions. (Those with a higher
prove orientation will report more negative reactions to overrating
than those with a lower prove orientation.)
Rating Source
Managers have different relationships with bosses, peers, and
direct reports; thus, managers may value feedback from certain
sources or may expect higher or lower ratings, depending on the
source. Ratings from bosses may be perceived as more important
because superiors control resources and have legitimate power
over recipients. Greller and Herald (1975) found that superiors
were considered to be a more important source of feedback when
compared with coworkers.
Ratings from peers may be perceived as less accurate or valuable because managers have less direct contact with peers than
with superiors or direct reports. However, some managers may
expect higher ratings from peers than from other sources, because
they are more likely to have informal, nonwork relationships with
their peers than with bosses or direct reports.
One could also argue that direct reports' ratings may be perceived as most relevant to a manager because 360° feedback often
includes leadership or management behaviors that are the most
applicable to that group. In addition, some managers may expect
lower ratings from some subordinates, given the various performance issues they face with their subordinates. Although we did
not hypothesize any specific effects for rating source, we did
separately explore relationships for Hypotheses 1 through 6 by
rating source. Support for the preceding hypotheses would extend
the research findings on performance appraisal to 360° developmental feedback and suggest that some of the assumptions about
360° feedback may be called into question.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The sample consisted of 125 students in a master's of business administration (MBA) program. Participants' average work experience was 5.28
years (SD = 2.70 years), and their average age was 27.87 years (SD = 3.06
years). Women made up 29% of the sample. Entering MBA students who
had 2 or more years of managerial experience were invited to participate in
a 360° feedback process offered by a nonacademic business leadership
center at a southwestern university. While still employed full-time, participants asked their bosses, peers, and direct reports to complete a questionnaire that assessed their leadership behaviors. Participants were required to
have a minimum of six total raters. The multirater feedback instrument
used in this study was a customized version of the management skills
"Profilor" (Hezlett, Ronnkvist, Holt, & Hazucha, 1997) developed by
Personnel Decision International (PDI). Respondents sent the completed
questionnaires directly to PDI for scoring.
Six to eight weeks into the semester, participants attended a small group
session conducted by a PDI facilitator. Participants received a feedback
report that included (a) a summary of self-ratings versus boss ratings on the
importance of 20 skills; (b) self-, boss, direct report, and peer ratings; (c)
a graph indicating self-, boss, average direct report, and average peer
ratings set against a range of normative ratings on the 20 skills; and (d)
rankings of the highest and lowest ratings on items across all three rating
sources. The facilitator did not review participants' feedback prior to the
group session. The content of the group session did not differ on the basis
of the participants' feedback, and the facilitator covered the same material
in all of the sessions. The facilitator explained how to interpret the
information included and how to understand the discrepancies between
self-ratings and others' ratings. The facilitator emphasized the importance
of feedback and encouraged participants to schedule a one-on-one meeting
with a facilitator to discuss how to use the feedback for developmental
purposes. At the end of the session, participants completed a questionnaire
that assessed their attitudes and reactions to the feedback.
Two to four weeks later, participants attended an hour-long individual
meeting with the facilitator to discuss developmental plans. At the end of
that session, participants completed a second questionnaire on their reactions to the feedback process. The PDI facilitator, who was naive to the
360° FEEDBACK
hypotheses, rated the participants on their receptivity to development. The
voluntary developmental session was attended by 103 of the 125 participants. There were no significant differences on the study variables (e.g.,
accuracy, reactions) on the basis of attendance at the developmental
sessions.
Measures
The measures were collected from multiple sources (three sources of
work colleagues, facilitator, and self-ratings) across four time periods.
Table 1 depicts the time line and data sources. The "Profilor" assesses
leadership and managerial behavior on 20 skill dimensions and 6 general
performance dimensions. Each of the 20 skill dimensions is based on 3 to 6
items, resulting in a total of 87 items. For example, the dimensions include
listens to others (3 items), manages disagreements (4 items), and fosters
teamwork (4 items). Self, boss, peers, and direct reports rated the extent to
which the participant performed each behavior on a scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 5 (to a great extent). The internal consistency reliability for
the 26 dimensions ranged from .68 to .88 for self-ratings, from .75 to .94
for boss ratings, from .85 to .97 for direct report ratings, and from .82 to
96 for peer ratings.
Ratings. For the purposes of analysis and because the dimensions are
correlated, an overall rating for each source (self, boss, direct reports, and
peers) was calculated on the basis of the average ratings for the 26
dimensions. The direct report and peer ratings were based on information
from multiple raters. An average score across direct reports (and peers) was
obtained for each of the 26 dimensions. PDI collected feedback from the
multiple sources and conducted the analysis. Reliability and intraclass
correlations were based on a PDI "Profilor" database using a random
sample of 1,400 managers with three or more peers and three or more direct
reports (Hezlett et al., 1997). Interrater reliability was computed using
analysis of variance (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Intraclass correlations ranged
from .47 to .60 for peers and from .48 to .61 for direct reports, indicating
acceptable interrater reliability.
Accuracy. Participants responded to the following: "Some participants
initially question the accuracy of the feedback as either too positive or too
negative. Please use the following scale to rate your perceptions of feedback accuracy." Participants provided separate ratings of the accuracy of
boss, peer, and direct report ratings (accuracy boss, accuracy peer, and
accuracy direct report) using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 7 (very accurate).
Reactions. Participants rated 13 reactions indicating "the extent to
which you feel this way now" by using a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not
at all) to 4 (very much). These items were based on the expected reactions
to feedback from the goal orientation literature and on input from the PDI
facilitator, who routinely conducted 360° feedback sessions and was familiar with the range of reactions experienced by feedback recipients. The
Positive Reaction scale included 7 items (inspired, encouraged, informed,
aware, pleased, motivated, and enlightened) with a Cronbach's alpha
reliability of .81. The Negative Reaction scale included 6 items (angry,
judged, confused, examined, criticized, and discouraged) and had a Cron-
935
bach's alpha of .76. The Positive and Negative Reaction scales were not
highly correlated (r = .02). These measures were the last items on the
questionnaire to minimize any influence on the ratings of accuracy or
usefulness.
Usefulness. Participants twice rated their perceptions of the usefulness
of the feedback report: at the group session when they received their
feedback report and after the one-to-one developmental session with the
facilitator. This scale included 3 items (e.g., "This report was useful to me"
and "This report is valuable for helping me diagnose my management
abilities"). The 3 items had a Cronbach's alpha reliability of .74 at Time 1
and .67 at Time 2.
Facilitator's ratings. After the developmental session, the PDI facilitator rated each participant on 12 items using a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Development Focused scale was based on 7 items (e.g., "This person was open to feedback"
and "This person was concerned with understanding what the feedback
meant for their development"). The Defensiveness scale consisted of 5
items (e.g., "This person blamed his/her scores on other people or situations" and "This person came across as defensive"). The two scales had
Cronbach's alphas of .95 and .87 for Development Focused and Defensiveness, respectively.
Goal orientation. A 13-item measure assessed goal orientation
(VandeWalle, 1997). The instrument has three subscales: (a) 5 items
measure a learning goal orientation, (b) 4 items measure a performanceprove orientation, and (c) 4 items measure the avoid dimension of a
performance goal orientation. A 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used. This measure
was completed in an academic course during the first week of classes.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and Intel-correlations of the study
variables are presented in Table 2. Reliability estimates (Cronbach's alphas) are located along the diagonal in Table 2.
Rating Favombility, Accuracy, and Reactions to the
Ratings
Hypothesis 1 asserted that the higher the ratings a participant
received, the more accurate he or she would rate the feedback. The
zero-order correlations shown in Table 2 indicate that this hypothesis was supported for boss (r = .31, p < .001) and direct report
(r = .57, p < .001) ratings but was not significant for peer ratings.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that higher ratings from boss, peers, and
direct reports would be positively related to positive reactions.
This hypothesis was not supported for any rating source. However,
in support of Hypothesis 3, lower boss and peer ratings were
significantly related to negative reactions (r = —.38, p < .001, and
r = —.25, p < .01, respectively; see Table 2).
Table 1
Time Line, Data Sources, and Measures
Variable
Time 1
Time 2
Time period
Employment prior to
MBA program
Self, boss, peer, and
direct report ratings
Week 1 of semester
Weeks 6-8 (Feedback returned)
Weeks 9-12 (One-on-one with facilitator)
Goal orientation
questionnaire
Perceptions of accuracy, Time 1 usefulness,
and positive and negative reactions
Time 2 usefulness and facilitator's ratings
of participant's development and
defensiveness focus
Measure
Note.
MBA = master's of business administration.
Time 3
Time 4
936
BRETT AND ATWATER
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Correlations Among Study Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
M
SD
N
Learn"
Prove"
Avoid'
Self-rating
Boss rating
Peer rating
Direct report rating
Over boss
Over peer
Over direct report
Under boss
Under peer
Under direct report
Accuracy boss
Accuracy peer
Accuracy direct report
Positive reaction
Negative reaction
Useful 1
Useful 2
Develop"
Defend"
1
(.69)
-.03
-.32***
.05**
-.04
.02
-.22*
.15*
.08
.09
-.11
-.24***
-.22**
-.01
.04
-.03
.06
-.02
-.06
.09
.08
.05
6.22
0.59
124
2
(.81)
.26**
.06
-.11
-.18*
-.23*
.15*
.12
.13
-.13
-.14
-.12
.00
.12
-.10
-.21**
-.00
.04
-.15
-.15
.17*
5.04
1.07
124
3
(.84)
-.07
-.06
-.07
.10
-.01
-.06
-.05
-.05
-.04
.04
-.12
-.03
.05
-.07
.15
.04
-.15
-.12
-.10
3.30
1.14
124
4
5
(.75)
.13
24**
.04
.50***
.55***
.40***
-.46***
_ 57***
-.34***
.13
.11
.06
.03
.05
-.05
.06
-.03
.06
3.87
0.35
122
(.83)
.20**
.19
_ 7 ]***
-.07
-.05
.66***
.08
.09
.31***
-.12
.00
.06
-.38***
.20**
.13
.01
.02
3.97
0.45
117
6
(.88)
.48***
.03
-.50***
-.03
.01
.51***
.04
.07
-.03
.11
.09
-.25**
.08
.04
-.07
-.03
4.00
0.34
117
7
(.90)
-.16
-.31**
_70***
.04
.33***
.57***
-.17
-.15
.57***
.16
.03
.14
.15
-.02
-.04
4.05
0.46
68
8
9
.45***
.37***
— 54***
-.28***
-.22**
-.16*
.34***
-.25**
-47***
-.22*
.13
.02
-.04
.26***
-.13
-.00
-.03
.08
5.36
6.67
124
.03
.05
-.05
-.06
.26***
-.08
.11
-.01
.05
3.53
4.99
124
Note. Coefficient alphas appear in parentheses along the diagonal. Over = overrating; Under = underrating; Useful 1 = usefulness at Time 3; Useful
2 = usefulness at Time 4.
a
Learn, prove, and avoid were the three goal orientations. b Develop and defend refer to the facilitator's ratings of the feedback recipient's development
focus and defensiveness, respectively.
t p < . 1 0 . *p<.05. **p<.0\. ***/><.001.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 examined the relationships of self-other
discrepancies and participants' attitudes and reactions. Separate
hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for the different
dependent variables and for each of the three rating sources.
Predictor variables were entered in the following order: (a) others'
ratings, (b) self-ratings, and (c) others' ratings by self-ratings
interaction. A significant interaction indicated that the self-other
rating discrepancy was relevant (Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, &
Fleenor, 1998). Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-other discrepancies would be negatively related to perceptions of accuracy. Table
3 indicates that the regression model explained a significant portion of the variance in perceptions of accuracy for direct reports
(R2 = .40, p < .001) and for bosses (R2 = .11, p < .05). The
self-other interaction added significantly to the prediction of accuracy only for direct reports (A./?2 = .07, p < .05).
To determine whether an over- or underrating discrepancy
accounted for these results, over- and underrating variables
were computed. First, a discrepancy score was created by
subtracting others' ratings from self-ratings for each of the 26
dimensions. An overrating variable was computed by summing
the number of discrepancy scores that were positive (self-rating
was higher than others' rating) across the 26 dimensions. The
underrating variable was computed by summing the number of
negative discrepancy scores (self-ratings were lower than others' ratings) for the 26 dimensions. For example, if a manager
rated himself or herself higher than did his or her boss on 13
dimensions, the boss overrating score was 13, or if a manager
rated himself or herself lower than peers rated him or her on 19
dimensions, the peer underrating score was 19. This measure
was used rather than the more traditional categories of underand overraters (see Fleenor et al., 1996) for two reasons. First,
we believed that given that the recipient saw a graph of his or
her self-ratings and others' ratings on each of the 26 dimensions, the number of dimensions on which he or she overrated
was likely more salient than the degree of discrepancy on the
dimensions. Second, our sample size was too small to create
meaningful cell sizes if we broke the sample into four or six
category groupings. As such, six variables were created (over
boss, over peer, over direct report, under boss, under peer, and
under direct report). In Table 2, the significant zero-order
correlations indicate that when participants rated themselves
higher than their boss and direct reports, they perceived their
boss (r = -.16, p < .05) and direct report (r = -.35,;? < .001)
ratings as less accurate. Accuracy and self-peer rating discrepancies were not related.
We tested Hypotheses 5A and 5B with multiple regression
analyses. Specifically, others' ratings, self-ratings, and the interaction between self-ratings and others' ratings were entered to
predict reactions. Hypothesis 5A predicted that underrating would
be related to positive reactions to feedback. Table 3 indicates that
self-other discrepancies were not significantly related to positive
reactions (i.e., the interactions were not significant). Neither selfratings, others' ratings, nor the interaction term predicted positive
reactions. However, the underrating score was negatively related
360° FEEDBACK
10
11
12
-.13
—
-.27**
.43**
-.14
.32***
.40***
-.06
.19*
.13
-.11
.09
-.09
-.35*** -.02
-.01
.02
.05
.01
.04
-.26**
-.17*
.08
.01
• 13t
.01
-.04
.13t
.03
-.08
-.06
.09
-.07
.13
6.66
2.38
6.30
6.24
5.22
6.50
124
124
68
14
13
-.03
-.10
.27**
.11
.01
.12
.05
-.02
-.04
4.51
6.64
68
15
.13
.14
.12
.09
.15*
-.08
-.28***
.22**
-.02
.05
.25**
.06
.09
-.02
-.05
5.15
5.48
0.81
1.30
115
116
to negative reactions for boss (r = —.26, p < .01) and peers (r =
—.17, p < .05; see Table 2). Individuals who had more underratings did not report more positive reactions to their feedback;
however, those who had fewer underratings reported lower negative reactions.
Hypothesis 5B proposed that the more recipients overrated
themselves, the more negative their reactions to feedback would
16
937
18
17
.23**
(.81)
-.02
-.03
.54***
.26**
.31**
.38***
.12
.33***
.02
-.12
5.21
2.59
0.63
1.15
86
120
20
19
(.76)
(.74)
-.16*
-.05
.58***
(.67)
-.02
.39***
.36***
-.02
-.15
-.151
1.00
5.79
5.99
0.67
0.67
0.75
120
103
116
Boss ratings
Perceived accuracy
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Self-rating
Step 3: Other X Self
Positive reactions
Step 1 : Other rating
Step 2: Self-rating
Step 3: Other X Self
Negative reactions
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Self-rating
Step 3: Other X Self
22
(.95)
-.52
5.19
1.12
103
(.87)
2.98
1.09
103
be. Table 3 shows that this hypothesis was supported for peers and
bosses. Specifically, the self-ratings by peer ratings interaction
significantly predicted negative reactions after self-ratings and
peer ratings were entered into the equation (A/?2 = .04, p < .05).
In a similar manner, the self-ratings by boss ratings interaction was
marginally significant (A/?2 = .03, p < .10). The correlations
between overrating and negative reactions (i.e., over boss, over
Table 3
Results of the Regression Analysis With Self-Other Ratings
Variable
21
Peer ratings
P
AR2
R2
ft
AR2
0.70*
0.40
-0.51
.01
.00
.10**
.11*
.11*
-0.34
-0.19
0.45
.01
.00
-1.02
-0.80
1.40
.00
.01
.00
.00
.01
-0.27
-0.38
0.58
-2.54*
-l.Slt
2.78f
.01
.03t
14***
.15***
.18***
1.57
2.11*
-2.92*
Note. Betas are for when all variables were in the equation.
t p < . 1 0 . *p<.05. **/?<.01. ***/>< .001.
Direct report ratings
ft
AR2
.01
.01
-2.53
-2.40*
3.90*
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
.01
-2.79t
-2.32t
3.70*
.00
.02
.03
.06*
.09
.01
.06*
.08*
.11**
0.37
0.35
-0.42
R2
.00
.04*
R2
.33***
.34***
.07* , .40***
.01
.00
.00
.01
.01
938
BRETT AND ATWATER
peer, and over direct report with negative reactions) provided in
Table 2 showed that self-overratings for boss and peers were
related to negative reactions (r = .26, p < .001, and r = .26, p <
.001, respectively). This was not the case for direct reports. Thus,
Hypothesis 5B was supported for two sources.
that a performance-prove orientation would moderate the relationship between self-other rating discrepancies and perceptions of
accuracy and feedback reactions. Table 4 shows that goal orientation did not moderate these relationships.
Discussion
Accuracy, Reactions, Usefulness, and Facilitator's
Ratings
Hypotheses 6 through 10 were tested with zero-order correlations (see Table 2). Hypothesis 6A predicted that perceptions of
accuracy would be positively related to positive reactions. Perceptions of accuracy were positively related to positive reactions for
peers (r = .15, p < .05) and direct reports (r = .23, p < .01).
Hypothesis 6B proposed that accuracy would be negatively related
to negative reactions. Individuals who believed that feedback was
inaccurate would have more negative reactions. Perceived accuracy of the boss ratings was negatively related to negative reactions (r = -.28, p < .05); that is, ratings that were perceived as
less accurate were accompanied by negative reactions. Perceived
accuracy of peer and direct report ratings was not related to
negative reactions. Partial support was found for Hypotheses 6A
and 6B.
Hypothesis 7A predicted that positive reactions would be related
to perceptions of usefulness of the feedback. Positive reactions
were positively related to perceptions of usefulness (r = .54, p <
.001). Hypothesis 7B predicted that negative reactions would be
negatively related to perceptions of usefulness. This hypothesis
also was supported (r = —.I6,p< .05). Therefore, when individuals react more positively, they also believe the feedback is
more useful; when they react more negatively, they see the feedback as less useful.
Hypothesis 8 asserted that perceptions of accuracy would be
positively related to perceptions of usefulness. As Table 2 indicates, the more participants perceived their boss and direct report
ratings as accurate, the higher their perceptions of feedback usefulness (r = .22, p < .01, for boss and r = .26, p < .01, for direct
report accuracy). Hypothesis 8 was supported.
Hypothesis 9A proposed that participants' perceptions of the
usefulness of the feedback would be positively related to the
facilitator's ratings of the participants as development-focused. In
support of this hypothesis, participants' ratings of feedback usefulness were significantly related to the facilitator's ratings of the
participants as development-focused (r — .39, p < .001). Hypothesis 9B was marginally supported in that participants' ratings of
usefulness were marginally negatively correlated with the facilitator's ratings of defensiveness (r — —.I5,p< .10).
Goal Orientation as a Moderator
Hypotheses 10A through 10D proposed that goal orientation
would serve as a moderator variable. These hypotheses were tested
with separate hierarchical regressions in which goal orientation
was entered after others' ratings and self-ratings were entered to
predict each dependent variable. Hypotheses 10A and 10B proposed that individuals with a higher performance-prove orientation would perceive lower ratings as less accurate and would have
more negative reactions to lower ratings than those with a lower
performance-prove orientation. Hypotheses IOC and 10D asserted
The results of this study, summarized in Table 5, provide
evidence that some of the assumptions made by those using 360°
feedback should be questioned. Specifically, negative feedback
(i.e., ratings that were low or that were lower than expected) was
not seen as accurate or useful, and it did not result in enlightenment
or awareness but rather in negative reactions such as anger and
discouragement. In addition, high ratings were not related to
positive reactions but merely to the absence of negative reactions.
These findings suggest that people who may need feedback the
most because they are not performing well or have an inflated view
of their effectiveness (overraters) are least receptive to it and find
it least useful. This study extends the research on the detrimental
effects of negative performance appraisal feedback to 360° developmental feedback.
One striking feature of our findings is that, in contrast to the
performance appraisal feedback studied by Kluger and DeNisi
(1996), the feedback in this study was clearly provided as developmental. Participants in this study were no longer working with
the individuals who provided their feedback. Work colleagues
provided the ratings while the participants were still employed, and
participants received the feedback 2 to 4 months later after they
had quit work and begun a full-time MBA program. This 360°
process was designed to provide participants with developmental
feedback to personalize their 2-year program of study. However,
rather than perceiving discrepant feedback as an opportunity for
awareness and enlightenment (positive reactions), participants reported negative reactions to it. One wonders how managers who
receive negative or discrepant feedback and must continue working with these raters would alter their attitudes and reactions
toward them. A recent study by Atwater, Waldman, Atwater, and
Cartier (2000) revealed that individuals who received low ratings
from their subordinates reduced their level of loyalty and commitment to their subordinates after receiving feedback. A second
study by Atwater, Brett, Waldman, and Yammarino (2000) suggested that supervisors' ratings of leader-member exchange and
liking toward their subordinates decreased following negative
feedback from those subordinates. These results, coupled with our
findings regarding negative reactions, suggest that more research is
needed to identify potential negative reactions and to take steps to
prevent or manage them as part of the 360° feedback process.
Goal orientation did not moderate the relationships between
ratings and accuracy and reactions, as we expected. Given that an
individual with a performance-prove orientation views negative
feedback as a statement about his or her ability, we expected that
these individuals would be more likely to distort the accuracy of
the ratings and report negative reactions. Participants appeared to
report negative reactions to lower ratings regardless of goal orientation. The findings suggest that the 360° process may create an
"evaluative" context in which a performance-prove goal orientation has been induced by the situation. Although typically designed
for developmental purposes, 360° feedback programs may reinforce the salience of evaluative and comparative information. In
360° FEEDBACK
939
Table 4
Results of the Regression Analysis With Goal Orientation
Variable
Perceived accuracy
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Self-rating
Step 3: Other X Self
Step 4: Prove
Step 5: Prove X Other
Step 5: Prove X Self
Perceived accuracy
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Prove
Step 3: Prove X Other
Positive reactions
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Self-rating
Step 3: Other X Self
Step 4: Prove
Step 5: Prove X Other
Step 5: Prove X Self
Positive reactions
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Prove
Step 3: Prove X Other
Negative reactions
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Self-rating
Step 3: Other X Self
Step 4: Prove
Step 5: Prove X Other
Step 5: Prove X Self
Negative reactions
Step 1: Other rating
Step 2: Prove
Step 3: Prove X Other
ft
0.24
0.14
-0.47
-1.33
0.84
0.64
-0.12
-0.76
0.87
R2
ft
AR2
.00
.10***
.11**
.11**
.11*
.12*
.12*
-0.36
0.32
0.32
0.90
0.36
-1.26
.01
.00
.01
.00
.01
.00
.01
.10***
.10**
.11**
-0.09
-0.06
0.18
.01
.00
.00
.00
.01
.05
.05
.05
-0.68
-0.40
0.85
-0.35
0.49
-0.38
.00
.04
-0.16
-0.74
.04
0.54
A«2
.01
.00
.00
.01
-1.07
0.66
1.60
0.59
-0.26
-0.61
0.14
0.01
-0.22
-2.06
-1.39
2.84
1.27
-1.07
-0.38
0.12
0.89
-1.01
.00
.01
.04*
.00
.00
.04*
.00
.00
.02
.00
.15***
.15***
.18***
.18***
.20**
.20**
2.00*
1.83*
-2.60*
1.50
-1.65
0.16
.00
.02
.15**
.15**
.16**
0.44
1.78
.00
.03tt
Direct report ratings
Peer ratings
Boss ratings
-1.80
.00
.00
.05*
.00
.04*
.00
R2
ft
AS2
R2
.02
.02
.03
-2.68
-2.78
4.07*
-0.70
0.15
0.78
.01
.06*
.02
.00
.00
.34***
.34***
.40***
.42***
.42***
.42***
.00
.01
.01
-0.01
-1.04
1.17
.01
.02
.34***
.35***
.36***
.01
.01
.01
.06
-3.22
-1.91
4.43*
2.11
-0.33
-2.08
.01
.05tt
-0.39
-1.04
.00
.01
.01
.06
.05
1.00
.02
.00
.08*
.00
.03
.10
.10
.02
.13
.02
.00
.01
.03
.04
.00
.01
.01
.01
.02
.03
0.77
1.73
-1.77
-0.80
.00
.07**
.08*
.11**
.11*
.13*
.13*
1.28
-1.36
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
.00
.03
.07**
.07*
.09*
-0.26
-0.57
0.60
.00
.00
.01
.04*
.00
.02
.00
.00
.01
t t p < . 0 7 . */?<.05. **/?<.01. ***/><.001.
other words, the 360° process itself may induce a "situational"
performance orientation (Button et al., 1996), in which individuals,
regardless of their dispositional goal orientation, respond with a
performance goal orientation. The feedback format in which selfratings, others' ratings, and normative data are provided may
create a situation in which recipients are more concerned about
their performance as compared with others than with the developmental aspect of the feedback. However, when the "strong" situational cues have subsided, the effects of dispositional goal orientation may appear. With time, individuals with a high learning
orientation may be more likely to see the value of the feedback
than individuals with a high performance-prove or avoid orientation. We conducted a post hoc analysis to test whether this relationship changed with time. After we controlled for perceptions of
usefulness at Time 1, the partial correlation between learning
orientation and usefulness at Time 2 was significant and positive
(r = .17, p < .05). The correlation between performance-prove
and usefulness at Time 2 was not significant (r = —.10). The
correlation for performance-avoid and usefulness at Time 2 was
significant and negative (r = —.24, p < .05). Fisher's z tests
indicated that the correlation between usefulness and learning goal
orientation differed significantly from that for performance-prove
as well as avoid orientation. This finding suggests that individuals
with a learning goal orientation may have recovered from the
situationally induced performance context and its concomitant
negative reactions and thus changed their perceptions of the usefulness of the feedback. Those with performance-prove or avoid
orientations did not change their perceptions of the usefulness of
the feedback with time.
The rating source, although not the focus of this study, showed
two interesting patterns. First, the findings regarding accuracy that
were significant for bosses and direct reports did not hold for
peers. For peers, higher ratings were not seen as more accurate. It
is possible that because raters selected the peers who rated them,
they were less surprised by their ratings. Or, the participants may
have had different expectations regarding the ratings they expected
from the peers. Perhaps the participants rationalized that low
ratings were, in fact, deserved from peers, even though low ratings
from peers were related to negative reactions. Nonetheless, these
results suggest that ratings from different sources are perceived
differently. Second, participants did not report negative reactions
when they received low or discrepant ratings from their direct
reports. Participants may have expected, given various performance or interpersonal issues, that some subordinates would rate
940
BRETT AND ATWATER
Table 5
Summary of Results by Rating Source
Finding
Accuracy
Higher ratings—more accurate
More overratings—less accurate
Positive reactions
Higher ratings— more positive reactions
More underratings—more positive reactions
Hypothesis
1
4
Accuracy (— ) related to negative reactions
Usefulness
Accuracy ( + ) related to usefulness
Positive reactions (+) with usefulness
Negative reactions (— ) with usefulness
Usefulness and developmental focus (+)
Usefulness and defensiveness (-)
Goal orientation moderator
Exploratory: Goal orientation and usefulness at Time 2
them lower than or discrepant from their own ratings. Feedback
from direct reports appeared not to influence reactions as much as
feedback from bosses and peers. Taken together, these findings
suggest that a better understanding of the value and relevancy of
feedback from different sources is needed.
Managerial Implications
The results of this study offer insights for the conduct of 360°
programs. This study indicated that negative and discrepant feedback is seen as less accurate, less useful, and related to negative
reactions. It is important for administrators of 360° programs to
understand that those who receive negative feedback may need
different follow-up activities than those who receive positive feedback. Executive coaches or multiple follow-up sessions may help
those receiving negative or discrepant feedback to deal with negative reactions and work through them. Indeed, in our study,
perceptions of usefulness increased after the one-to-one sessions
(but primarily for those with a learning orientation). We can infer
that the facilitator had some impact on this change. It may also be
worthwhile to understand specific characteristics of the feedback
recipients that make them more susceptible to negative reactions
(e.g., a performance-prove goal orientation or high self-esteem).
Although it is not surprising that feedback recipients find positive feedback to be most accurate because it often supports their
high opinions of themselves, it is surprising that feedback recipients see feedback that they are doing well as most useful when it
provides the least information about development needs. It is also
interesting that negative feedback is related to negative reactions
but positive feedback is not related to positive reactions. Facilitators may be able to focus some of the feedback recipients' attention on areas in which they received positive ratings and help them
feel good about their high ratings. They also may be able to focus
some attention on positive areas to minimize some of the negative
reactions to low ratings and suggested development needs. They
Direct reports
Peers
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
2
5A
No
No
No
No
No
3
5B
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
6A
6B
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
8
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Negative reactions
Lower ratings— more negative reactions
More overratings—more negative reactions
Accuracy and reactions
Accuracy (+) related to positive reactions
Boss
7A
7B
9A
9B
10
Yes
Yes
Yes
Marginal
No
Yes
also may be able to motivate feedback recipients to continue the
behaviors they are doing successfully.
Given our results, we would caution organizations that are
considering adopting 360° feedback delivery methods that eliminate the costs associated with a facilitator (e.g., mailings, E-mail,
or Web). If organizations are to benefit from their investment in
the 360° process, then the costs associated with a facilitator may
ensure that those managers who need the feedback the most
receive special attention.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations that should be considered
when one is interpreting the results of this study. First, 360°
feedback was conducted as part of an educational experience
rather than as part of the organization in which the recipient
worked. Reactions may have been different if recipients were
going to be expected to continue work-related interactions with
their feedback providers. In addition, knowledge that the participants were leaving their jobs may have influenced the ratings that
were provided for the participants. Participants also may have been
different from currently employed managers in that part of their
reason for leaving to return to school may have been dissatisfaction with their current jobs. Their dissatisfaction may have exacerbated their negative reactions to ratings from former coworkers.
Second, we did not have posttest data to assess who actually
changed and how perceptions of accuracy, usefulness, and reactions were related to subsequent outcomes. We did have facilitator
judgments about the participants' developmental orientation, but
actual outcome data would have certainly added to the interpretation of our findings. Third, we did not collect data on organizational level or organization type. These variables could have influenced the type of feedback that individuals received and,
therefore, their reactions to it. Fourth, much of the data that we
collected came from the feedback recipient. Although some mea-
360° FEEDBACK
surements were separated in time, the influence of same-source
bias on the results should be considered because it could have
artificially raised some of the correlations. Fifth, the facilitator
knew the ratings that each recipient received. There is some
possibility that the facilitator's ratings of the recipient's development or defensive attitudes could have been affected by this
knowledge. Nonetheless, these results are provocative for future
research, suggesting that the outcomes of 360° feedback are complex and varied.
Future Research
An assumption underlying many 360° feedback programs is that
as long as feedback is not associated with administrative purposes
(e.g., compensation, promotion), it is interpreted as developmental
and not evaluative. Our findings suggest this may not be so. The
detrimental effects associated with negative performance appraisal
research were also associated with negative developmental feedback. If participants are to benefit from the feedback process and
if organizations are to recoup their investment in this process,
additional research is needed in the following areas. First, a better
understanding of the emotional and cognitive reactions to feedback
is needed. Why do higher ratings have no effect on positive
reactions? What negative behaviors and repercussions accompany
negative feedback? Do these reactions dissipate over time? If so,
how long do negative reactions last? What individual-differences
variables (e.g., personality, self-esteem) should be considered in
attempts to understand reactions to feedback? Second, research
needs to examine the role of feedback format in recipients' acceptance of and reactions to feedback. Can feedback format reduce
negative reactions and increase perceptions of accuracy and usefulness? For example, do individuals react less negatively and see
feedback as more useful if normative data are not included? Or
perhaps numeric data should be eliminated and only narrative
descriptions of strengths and development needs provided. What
can be done in the feedback delivery process to help individuals
manage negative reactions? Do group delivery sessions foster a
comparative and evaluative context? How can feedback delivery
foster a developmental rather than a performance-prove orientation? Are some participants leaving feedback sessions with negative reactions that may later manifest themselves in negative
organizational attitudes, turnover, retribution, or other negative
consequences? Third, research needs to consider that those who
receive positive versus negative feedback may experience a different 360° process. Are the positive results found from 360°
programs merely capturing the good getting better? Are research
results on outcomes and consequences of 360° feedback contingent on how many recipients in the study received positive versus
negative feedback? The answers to these research questions will
help organizations understand how to successfully implement 360°
programs that will motivate those managers who most need to
change their behaviors to do so.
Conclusion
In sum, our research extends the work done on performance
appraisal feedback by suggesting that even when feedback is used
strictly for developmental purposes, feedback is perceived as most
useful when participants get high ratings that confirm their own
941
self-assessments rather than when they receive information about
development needs they did not know they had. Similar to the
research done with performance appraisal feedback, negative ratings are not seen as accurate or useful, and they engender negative
reactions. Our results also suggest that recipients may see the
process as evaluative in nature rather than developmental even
when results are confidential and the individuals no longer work
with the feedback providers. Overall, the findings suggest that
researchers and practitioners need to focus more attention on ways
to make the 360° feedback process more developmental and how
to minimize negative reactions to negative feedback.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 24-38.
Atwater, L. E., Brett, J. F., Waldman, D., & Yammarino, F. (2000).
Predictors and outcomes of upward feedback. Unpublished manuscript,
Arizona State University West.
Atwater, L. E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F., & Fleenor, J. W. (1998).
Self-other agreement: Does it really matter? Personnel Psychology, 5],
577-598.
Atwater, L. E., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward
feedback on self- and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48, 35-60.
Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D., Atwater, D., & Cartier, P. (2000). An upward
feedback field experiment: Supervisors' cynicism, follow-up and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, 53, 275-297.
Bernstein, B. L., & Lecomte, C. (1979). Supervisory-type feedback effects:
Feedback discrepancy level, trainee psychological differentiation, and
immediate responses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 295-303.
Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as
predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 863-873.
Button, S., Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26-48.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A
control theory approach to human behavior. New York: SpringerVerlag.
Cedarbloom, D., & Lounsbury, J. (1980). An investigation of user acceptance of peer evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 33, 567-579.
DeNisi, A. S., & Kluger, A. N. (2000). Feedback effectiveness: Can
360-degree appraisals be improved? Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-139.
Dipboye, R. L., & de Pontbriand, R. (1981). Correlates of employee
reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 66, 248-251.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256—273.
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Facteau, C. L., Facteau, J. D., Schoel, L. C., Russell, J. A., & Poteet, M.
(1998). Reactions of leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates
and peers. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 427-448.
Farr, J. L., Hoffmann, D. A., & Ringenbach, K. L. (1993). Goal orientation
and action control theory: Duplications for industrial and organizational
psychology. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 191-232.
942
BRETT AND ATWATER
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7, 117-140.
Fleenor, J., McCauley, C., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and leader effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 487-506.
Greller, M, & Herold, D. (1975). Sources of feedback: A preliminary
investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13,
244-256.
Halperin, K., Snyder, C. R., Shenkel, R. J., & Houston, B. K. (1976).
Effects of source status and message favorability on acceptance of
personality feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 142-147.
Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231-247.
Hezlett, S. A., Ronnkvist, A. M., Holt, K. E., & Hazucha, J. F. (1997). The
profdor technical summary. Minneapolis, MM: Personnel Decisions
International.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of
individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64, 349-371.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hamstra, B. W. (1972). Performance satisfaction as a
function of the difference between expected and reported performance at
five levels of reported performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 359-370.
Johnson, J. W., & Ferstl, K. L. (1999). The effects of interrater and
self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward
feedback. Personnel Psychology, 52, 271-303.
Kernis, M., & Johnson, E. (1990). Current and typical self-appraisals:
Differential responsiveness to evaluative feedback and implications for
emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 241-257.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
London, M. (1994). Interpersonal insight in organizations: Cognitive models for human resource development. Human Resource Management
Review, 4, 311-332.
London, M., & Smither, J. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change
perceptions of goal accomplishments, self-evaluation, and performancerelated outcomes? Personnel Psychology, 48, 803-839.
Mabe, P., & West, S. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.
Meyer, H. (1980). Self-appraisal of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 291-295.
Morran, K., & Stockton, R. (1980). Effect of self-concept on group
member reception of positive and negative feedback. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27, 260-267.
O'Reilly, C., & Anderson, J. (1980). Trust and the communication of
performance appraisal information: The effects of feedback on performance and job satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 6, 290298.
Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal
performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,
211-218.
Pedler, M., & Boydell, T. (1980). Is all management development selfdevelopment? In J. Beck & C. Cox (Eds.), Advances in management
education (pp. 165-196). New York: Wiley.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Farh, J. L. (1989). Effects of feedback sign and
credibility on goal setting and task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 45—67.
Reilly, R. R., Smither, J. W., & Vasilopoulos, N. L. (1996). A longitudinal
study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49, 599-612.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
Schrauger, J. S. (1975). Responses to evaluation as a function of initial
self-perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 581-596.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Stone, D., & Stone, E. (1985). The effects of feedback consistency and
feedback favorability on self-perceived task competence and perceived
feedback accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 167-185.
Swann, W., & Read, S. (1981). Acquiring self-knowledge: The search for
feedback that fits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,
1119-1128.
Taylor, M. S., Fisher, C. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1984). Individuals' reactions
to performance feedback in organizations: A control theory perspective.
In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (pp. 81-124). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain
goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995-1015.
Waldman, D., Atwater, L. E., Clements, D., & Atwater, D. (1996, August).
Attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of an upward feedback process.
Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.
Received May 4, 2000
Revision received November 6, 2000
Accepted November 6, 2000