You are here

Home » Content

360 Derece Geribildirim Sistemi ve Uygulaması

Characteristics and Implementation of 360 Degree Feedback System

Journal Name:

  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2008

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study, the literature about 360 Degree Feedback System (DFS) was reviwed and discussions on implementation were presented. 360 DFS, defined as a developmental system that the work behavior related feedbacks collected from various different sources like employees' subordinates, superordinate, collaborates, customers etc. It can be used for both personal and organizational development purposes. 360 DFS is considered as an individualistic western human resources tool. Although there can be some differences, recent studies have shown that it can be used in different cultures. Especially, communication with stake holders before and after the implementation of 360 DFS can control the effect of cultural difference. Also, some studies have shown that implementation of 360 DFS is a cultural change tool itself. It is known that the success of 360 DGS studies depends on organizational readiness. Related literature insisted that to increase the effectiveness of 360 DFS, a detailed plan must be made. That plan must consist of the goal of 360 DFS, participants, the tool used for assessments, trainings, following systems etc. In general it has been accepted that the anonymity of assessors is important for overcoming the evaluation biases. In 360 DFS, selection of assessors is also critical. It is important to select the sources from the people who have chance to observe the target person as he/she working. 360 DFS evaluation must be made on the dimensions that are related with the work behaviors (competencies/behaviors). Related literature has emphasized the shared and used evolutional dimensions. The data from 360 DFS can be collected from a variety of different ways like paper-pencil and optical reading. Although the paper-pencil tests are well-known methods to collect the data, evaluation by computers gives chance to employees to make their evaluations whenever they want. At the onset of the implementation, generally there are two training sessions that can be planned for introduction of the 360 DFS, explanation of the implementation steps, and sharing the information about evolutional method and biases and planning personal development. Reporting and sharing the evaluation results is important for participants to accept and use the feedbacks on their personal development plan and to act for improving their behaviors. At this point, it is known that workshops and facilitators have positive effect on 360 DFS. 360 DFS is not useful without personal development and action plans. The benefits of 360 DFS can be followed by the following systems, which are defined at the beginning of the implementation process. In sum, implementation and effectiveness of the 360 DFS depend on the detailed and careful preparation.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada 360 Derece Geibildirim Sistemi (DGS) ile ilgili olarak ilgili alan yazını taranarak, uygulamaya dair tartışmalara yer verilmiştir. 360 DGS, çalışanın iş davranışlarının ast, üst, akran, müşteri gibi çok sayıda ve farklı kaynaktan değerlendirildiği çoğunlukla bir gelişim sistemi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. 360 DGS hem kişisel hem örgütsel gelişim için kullanılabilir. 360 DGS bireyci kültürel yapıya sahip batılı bir insan kaynakları aracı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Ancak yapılan çalışmalar bazı farklılıklar olsa da genel olarak 360 DGS'nin farklı kültürlerde uygulanabildiğini göstermektedir. Özellikle 360 DGS öncesi ve sonrası örgüt içinde paydaşlarla kurulacak iletişim kültürden kaynaklanan etkiyi kontrol etmek için yerinde bir yaklaşımdır. Ayrıca 360 DGS uygulamasının kendi başına kültürel bir değişim aracı olduğunu gösteren çalışmalar mevcuttur. 360 DGS çalışmalarının başarıya ulaşmasında bir diğer önemli koşulun örgütsel hazır bulunuş olduğu bilinmektedir. İlgili yazın, örgüt içinde 360 DGS'nin etkililiğini artırmak için; kullanım amacı, katılımcıları, kullanılacak araç, eğitimler izleme göstergeleri vb. ilgili tüm konularda çok detaylı bir planlama yapılması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Genel olarak 360 DGS çalışmalarında, değerlendicilerin anonim olmasının değerlendirme hatalarını ortadan kaldırmada önemli olduğu kabul edilir. 360 DGS içinde değerlendirme yapacak kişilerin seçimi kritik öneme sahiptir. Önemli olan değerlendirici olarak seçilecek kaynak kişilerin, çalışanı iş yaparken gözleme şansına sahip kişilerden seçilmesidir. 360 DGS değerlendirmeleri, çalışanın iş davranışlarına işaret eden değerlendirme boyutları (yetkinlik/davranış) üzerinde gerçekleştirilmelidir. İlgili yazın genel olarak bilinen ve kullanılan ortak değerlendirme boyutlarının varlığına işaret etmektedir. 360 DGS verisi kağıt kalem, optik okuyucu gibi pek çok farklı şekilde toplanmaktadır. Genel olarak kağıt kalem çalışanların daha aşina oldukları bir yöntem olmakla birlikte; bilgisayar ortamı değerlendiriciye istediği zaman diliminde değerlendirme fırsatı vermektedir. 360 DGS kurulup uygulamaya alınırken, sistemi tanıtmak, uygulama basamaklarını aktarmak, değerlendirme yöntemi, değerlendirici hataları ve kişisel gelişim planlama konularını paylaşmak üzere iki tür eğitim yapılmaktadır. 360 DGS değerlendirme sonuçlarının raporlanması ve katılımcılarla paylaşılması, verilen geribildirimlerin katılımcılar tarafından benimsenip kişisel gelişim planlarına yansıtılması ve davranışlarını iyileştirmek yolunda katılımcınn eyleme geçmesi üzerinde etkilidir. Bu noktada çalıştay ve kolaylaştırıcı kişilerin (facilitator) sistemin işlerliğine katkısı olduğu bilinmektedir. Kişisel gelişim planları ve buna bağlı faaliyet planları olmadıkça geribildirimlerin kişiye yarar sağlaması beklenmemektedir. 360 DGS'den elde edilecek verilerin çalışan ve örgüt açısından ne kadar yararlı olduğu daha sistem kurulurken belirlenecek izleme göstergeleri ile takip edilebilir. Özetle, 360 DGS'nin örgüt içinde kurulması ve uygulama verimliliği her bir adımda gösterilecek özen ve titiz çalışmaya bağlıdır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-360-derece-geribildirim-sistemi-uygulamasi.pdf
  • 2
137-164
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

Antonioni, D.
(1994)
. The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings. Personnel Psychology, 47, 349-356.
Antonioni, D. (1995). Problems associated with implementation of an effective upward appraisal feedback process: An experimental field study. Human Resource Delopment Quarterly, 6, 157-171
Nihal MAMATOĞLU
Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360 degree feedback process. Organizational Dynamics, 25, 24-38.
Ashford, S. J.
(1989)
. Self -assessments in organizations: a literature review and integrated model. Reseach in Organizational Behavior, 11, 133-174.
Ashford, S. J. (1993). The feedback environment: an exploratory study of cue use. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 201-224.
Atwater, L., Roush, P. ve Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upward feedback on self and Follower ratings of leadership. Personel Psychology, 48, 35-59.
Atwater, L. ve Waldman, D. (1998). Accountability in 360 degree feedback. HR Magazine,
43, 96-104. Bernardin, J. H., ve Beatty, R. W. (1987). Can subordinate appraisals enhance managerial productivity? Sloan Management Review, 28(4), 63-74.
Atwater, L. ve Waldman, D. (1998). 360 degree feedback and leadership delopment. Leadership
Quarterly, 423-426.
Atwater, E., Waldman, D. A. ve Brett, J. F. (2002). Understanding and optimizing multi source feedback. Human Resource Management, 41, 193-208.
Atwater, L, Waldman, D., Ostroff, C., Robie, C., ve Johnson, K.M. (2005). Self-other agreement:
Comparing its relationship with performance in the U.S. and Europe. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 25-40.
Atwater, L. ve Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45, 141-164.
Aycan,
Z.
, Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J.,Stahl, G., ve Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource management practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192-221.
Bernardin, H. J. (1979). A study to identify feasible appraisal systems for employees of the US Geological Survey. Washington, DC.: Gornment Printing Office.
Bernardin, H. J. ve Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performans Appraisal : Assessing Human Behavior at Work. Boston, MA.: Kent.
Bernardin, J. H. ve Beatty, R. W. (1987). Can subordinate appraisals enhance managerial productivity? Sloan Management Review, 28(4), 63-74.
Bernardin, J. H., Dahmus, S. A., ve Redmon, G. (1993). Attitudes of firstline supervisors toward subordinate appraisals. Human Resource Management, 32, 315-324.
Bracken, D. W. (1994). Straight talk about multirater feedback. Training and Delopment,
48, 44-51.
Bracken, D. W. ve Timmereck, C. W. (1999). Guidelines for multisource feedback when used for decision making. The Industrial- Organizational Psychologist, 36 (4), 64-74.
Borman, W. C. (1997). 360-degree ratings: An analysis of assumptions and a research agenda for evaluating their validity. Human Resource Management Review, 7 (3), 299-315.
Bracken, D. W., Timmrech, C. W, Fleenor, J. W. ve Summers, L. (2001). 360 Degree feedback from another angle. Human Resource Management, 40, 3-20.
159
360
Derece Geribildirim Sistemi ve Uygulaması
Brutus, S., Derayeh, M., Fletcher, C., Bailey, C., Labath, V., Shi, K., Simon, C., ve Velazquez, P. (2006) Multisource feedback systems: A six-country comparative analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, In Press
Burke, W. W. Richley, E. A. ve DeAngelis, L. (1985). Changing leadership and planning processes at the Lewis Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Human Resource Management, 24, 81-90.
Carver, C. S. ve Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation:A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Church , A. H. (1995). Linking leadership behaviors to service performance: Do managers make difference? Managing Service Quality, 5(6), 26-31.
Church, A.H. (1997), Managerial self-awareness in high performing individuals in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281-92.
Church, A. H. (1999). Large scale applications of small scale data. Performance in Practice, 7-8.
Church, A. H. (2000). Do higher performing managers actually receive beter ratings? A validation of multi-rater assessment methodology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice ve
Research, 52, 99-116.
Church, A. H. ve Bracken, D. W. (1997). Advancing the state of the art of 360- degree feedback: Special issue editors' comments on the research and practice of multi rater assessment methods. Group and Organization Management, 22, 149-161.
Church, A. H., Jawitch, M. ve Burke, W. W. (1995). Enhancing professional service quality: feedback is the way to go. Managing Service Quality, 5, 29-33.
Church, A. H., ve Waclawski, J. (1998). Designing and using organizational surveys. Alderhot, England: Gover.
Church A. H., ve Waclawski, J. (1999). Influence behaviors and managerial effectiness in lateral relations. Human Resource Delopment Quarterly, 10, 3-34.
Church A. H., ve Waclawski, J. (2001). A five - phase framework for designing a successful multisouce feedback system. Consulting Psychology Journal, 53, 82-95.
Church A. H., Waclawski, J. ve Burke, W. W. (2001). Multisource feedback for organization delopment and change. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, ve A. H. Church (Ed), The handbook of multisource feedback the comprehensi resource for designing and implementing MSFprocesses (s. 301-317). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conway, J. M. ve Huffcutt A. I. (1997). Psychometric properties of multisource performance ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and self-ratings. Human Performance, 10 (4), 331 - 360.
Cleveland, J. N., Murphy, K. R. ve Williams, R. E. (1989). Multiple uses of performance appraisal: Prevalence and correlates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 130-135.
Dalton, M. (1996). Multi rater feedback and conditions for change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 12-16.
Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: a review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581¬613.
160
Nihal MAMATOĞLU
DeNisi, A.D. ve Kluger, A.N.
(2000)
, "Feedback effectiness: can 360-degree appraisals beimprod?. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 129-39.
Entrekin, L., ve Chung, Y. W. (2001). Attitudes towards different sources of executive appraisal: A comparison of Hong Kong Chinese and American managers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(6), 965-987.
Edwards, M. R. ve Ewen, A. J. (1996). 360-degree feedback. The powerful new model for employee assessment and performance improment. New York: AMOCOM.
Facteau, C.L., Facteau, J.D., Schoel, L.C., Russell, J.E.A. ve Poteet, M.L. (1998), Reactions of
leaders to 360-degree feedback from subordinates and peers. Leadership Quarterly, 9,
427-48.
Ghorpade, J. (2000), Managing paradoxes of 360-degree feedback. Academy of Management Executive, 14, 140-50.
Goodstone, M. S. ve Diamante, T. (1998). Organizational use of therapeutic change: Strengthening multisource feedback systems through interdisiplinary coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Reseach, 50, 152-163.
Greguras, G. J., Ford, J. M. ve Brutus S. (2003). Manager attention to multisource feedback. Journal of Management Development, 22 (4), 345-361.
Harris, M.M. ve Schaubroeck, J. (1988), A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peersupervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology. 41, 43-62.
Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A. ve Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360- degree feedback on management skills delopment. Human Resource Management, 32, 325-351.
Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F. ve Schneider, R. J. (1992). Behavior change: Models, methods, and a review of the evidence. In M. D. Dunnette ve L. M. Hough (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2. basım, Vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Johnson, J. F. ve Ferstl, K. L. (1999). The effects of interrater and self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 52, 271-303.
Kluger, A. N. ve 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.
Lepsinger, R. ve Lucia, A. D. (1997). The art and sciences of360 degree feedback. San Francisco, Calif: Pfeiffer Press.
Lepsinger, R. ve Lucia, A. D. (1998). Creating champions for 360 degree feedback. Trainning and
Delopment, 52, 49-52.
Levy, P. E., ve Williams, J. R. (2004). The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the future. Journal of Management, 30(6), 881-905.
London, M. (1997). Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
London, M. ve Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competiti advantage. Human Resource Management, 32, 352-373.
161
360
Derece Geribildirim Sistemi ve Uygulaması
London, M. ve Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multisource feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance -related outcomes? Theory-based applications and direction for research. Personnel Psychology, 48, 803-839.
London, M., Wohlers, A. J., ve Gallagher, P. (1990). 360 feedback surys: A source of feedback to guide managerial delopment. Journal of Management Delopment, 9, 17- 31.
Ludeman, L. (2000). How to conduct self directed 360. Training ve Delopment, 54, 44- 47.
Mamatoğlu,
N
. (2008). Effects on organizational context (culture and climate) from implementing a 360-degree feedback system: The case of Arcelik. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, (4), 426- 449.
McEvoy, G. M. ve Buller, P. F. (1987). User acceptance of peer appraisals in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 40, 785-797.
McLean, G. N. (1997). Multirater 360 feedback. In L. J. Bassi ve D. Russ-Eft (Ed.). What works:
Assessment, delopment, and measurement (s.87-108). Alexandra, VA: American Society for Training and Development.
Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, T. E., Sytsma, M. R. ve Hezlett, S. A. (1998). Trait, rater and lel effects in 360-degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology,51, 557-576.
Moravec, M., Gyr, H. ve Friedman, L. (1993). A 21st century communication tool. HR Magazine,
38, 77-81.
Morgeson, F. P., Mumford, T. V. ve Campion, M.A. (2005). Coming full circle using research and practice to address 27 questions about 360-degree feedback programs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, (3), 196-209.
Murphy, K.R. ve Cleveland, J.N. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social organizational and goal-based perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA:.Sage Publications,
Nowack, K. M. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management delopment. Human Resource Delopment Quarterly, 3, 141-155.
Peiperl M. A. (2001). Getting 360 degree feedback right. Harvard Business Review. 79, 1,January-142-147.
Ramamoorthy, N., ve Carroll, S.J. (1998). Individualism/Collectivism orientations and reactions towards alternative human resources practices. Human Relations, 51, 571-588.
Reilly, R. R., Smither, J. W. ve Vasilopoulos, N. L. (1996). A longitudinal study of upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 49, 599- 612.
Seifert, C., Yukl, G. ve McDonald, R. (2003). Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence behavior of managers towards subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 561-569.
Smither, J. W. London, M. ve Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? As theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical finding, Personnel Psychology, 58. ,13-66.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Vasilopoulos, N. L., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E. ve Salmini, N. (1995). An examination of the effects of an upward feedback program or time. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 1-34.
162
Nihal MAMATOĞLU
Smither, J. W., Wohlers, A. J. ve London, M. (1995). A field study of reactions to normatisus individualized upward feedback.. Group and Organization Management, 20, 61-89.
Stone-Romero, E.F., ve Stone, D.L. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in responses to feedback:
Implications for individual, group, and organizational effectiveness. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 275-331.
Sümer , H. C. ve Bilgiç, R. (2006). Performans Değerlendirmelerinde Geleneksel Olmayan
Değerlendirici Kaynaklarının Kullanımı. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi , 21 (57), 25-40.
Thornton, G. C., III. (1980). Psychometric properties of self-appraisals of job performance. Personnel Psychology, 33, 263-271.
Tornow, W. W. (1993a). Editörün notu: Introduction to special issue on 360-degree feedback. Human Resource Management, 32, 211-219.
Tornow, W. W. (1993b). Perceptions of reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end? Human Resource Management, 32,221-230.
Vinson, M. N. (1996). The pros and cons of 360-degree feedback: Making it work. Training ve Delopment, 50, 11-12.
Waklawski, J. (1996). Using organizational survey results to improve organizational performance. Managing Service Quality,6(4), 53-56.
Waclawski, J. ve Church, A. H. (1999). Four easy steps to performance coaching. Performance in Practice, 4-5.
Waldman, D. ve Atwater, L. E. (1998). The power of 360° feedback: How to lerage performance evaluations for top productivity. Houston: TX: Gulf Publishing,
Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E. ve Antonioni, D. (1998). Has 360 feedback gone amok? Academy of Management Executi, 12, 86- 94.
Walker, A. G. ve Smither, J. W. (1999). A five -year study of upward feedback: what managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52, 393-424.
Wexley, K.N. ve Klimoski, R. (1984). Performance appraisal: an update, in Rowland, K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resources management. 2 (s. 35-79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wimer, S. ve Nowack , K. M. (1998). 13 common mistakes using 360 - degree feedback. Training ve Delopment, 52, 69-80.
Yammarino, F. J. (2003). Modern data analytic techniques for multi-source feedback. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 6-14.
Yammarino, F. J. ve Atwater, L. E. (1993). Understanding self-perception accuracy: Implications for human resource management. Human Resource Management, 32, 231-248.
Yammarino, F. J. ve Atwater, L. E.(1997). Do managers see themsels as others see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4), 35-44.
Yukl, G. ve Lepsinger, R. (1995). How to get the most out of 360-degree feedback. Training, 32,
45-50.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com