UNIT VII RESEARCH

INSTRUCTION ARE ATTACHED 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESEARCH PAPER UNIT VII

In this unit, we discussed 360-degree feedback. During this assignment, you will take this concept a step further and research best practices. Additionally, you will consider how you can use them as a part of your professional career.

Start by researching best practices for 360-degree feedback, and research how leaders/organizations implement it. Then, begin to consider how you would like to handle feedback with your own subordinates.

Your research paper should meet the following criteria:

Include an introduction.
Explain 360-degree best practices and implementation plans.
Include examples of organizations’ use of feedback and your evaluation of its effectiveness. Explain how you will use feedback with your own employees in your future career.
Evaluate how you will use 360-degree feedback to increase employee motivation and morale.

Your research paper should be a minimum of three pages in length, not counting the title and reference pages.

The “New” Performance
Management Paradigm:
Capitalizing on the Unrealized Potential of
360 Degree Feedback
By David W. Bracken and Allan H. Church

3 4 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

Many business executives and human resources professionals today would argue that

performance management (PM) processes have failed to meet, let alone exceed, the

expectations of most organizations. A number of popular management books have highlighted

these concerns with cails to abandon PM systems altogether (e.g., Cohens & Jenkins, 2002;

Culbert & Rout, 2010), and some organizations such as Adobe are experimenting with that very

concept having banished their PMP in 2012 (Robinson, 2013). The “why’s” for these barriers

to effective PM have been well-documented, and we will not repeat them here. While there is

considerable theory and research regarding various aspects of the PM process (see Smither &

London, 2009) and there have been many proposals, case studies and guidelines suggesting

possible improvements (e.g.. Corporate Leadership Council 2002, Lloyd, 2009), one area that

has received insufficient consideration and even outright rejection by some practitioners is the

use of 360 feedback as an integral part of performance management systems.

I
t is our contention that 360 feedback has
evolved over the past 20 years from a
targeted organizational development

and industrial and organizational (I-O) psy-
chology intervention or tool focused on
individual development, to a more main-
stream, established and accepted human
resource people process in most organiza-
tions. As a result, the expansion of 360
feedback as a tool for PM is a natural evolu-
tion that we feel organizations should be
leveraging more extensively. The purpose of
this paper is to describe the ways in which,
when appropriately implemented, 360 feed-
back has the ability to provide new
data-based insights that will enhance the
overall quality and effectiveness of the PM
process in an organization. In addition,
having a fully aligned and integrated 360
system also has potential benefits for enhanc-
ing other aspects of talent management
systems as well as reinforcing and driving
broader culture change efforts.

The Great Debate in
360 Eeedback: An
Abbreviated History
The value of using feedback from multiple
sources as both a leadership development and
a performance measurement tool is a concept
that has been around since the 1980s (see
Burke, Richley & DeAngelis, 1985; Hedge,
Borman & Birkeland,2001). Once 360 feed-

back emerged as a specific intervention in the
early 1990s, however, it wasn’t long before
some practitioners began advocating for its
use in decision-making applications. The first
and perhaps most visible of these was evident
in the publication of Edwards and Ewen’s
360 Degree Feedback: The Powerful New
Model for Employee Assessment and Perfor-
mance Improvement in 1996. Their research
documented the superiority of well-designed
360 processes over the traditional (i.e., single
source) performance appraisal in terms of
both reliability and fairness. Despite their
arguments along with guidelines from other
supporters (e.g., Antonioni, 1996; Dalessio,
1998), 360 interventions during the 1990s
remained largely aimed at either developing
individual leaders (e.g.. Church & Bracken,
1997; Tornow &c London, 1998) or more
systemic OD and culture change initiatives
(e.g.. Burke & Jackson, 1991; Church,
Waclawski & Burke, 2001). Clearly practi-

tioners have been quite active and passionate
over the years in their discussions over the
appropriate use of 360 (Bracken et. al, 1997;
Church, Walker &c Brocker, 2002; London,
2001) and whether it can really “change your
life” (O’Reilly, 1995).

We certainly appreciate the arguments on
both sides of the discussion (and both authors
have developed systems that support devel-
opment only and decision-making
applications). But, after 20 years of practice,
we would argue that the ongoing debate over
whether 360s should be used for performance
management and other personnel decisions
should come to an end. For starters, the dis-
tinction is not an either/or one. Except for the
pure information-only 360 process where the
ratees are discouraged from sharing their
results, most other development-only 360s
are one point along a continuum of uses that
require that decisions are made with increas-

EXHIBIT 1 : USES OF 360 FEEDBACK IMPACTING HR DECISIONS

Deveiopment
Only

Information Development Succession
Only Planning Planning

1 I I

Performance
Management/

Appraisal Downsizing

I
Decision
Making

Self

Development

Training
Decisions

High Potential ID
and

Development

Performance
Assessnrient/
Measurement

VOLUME 36/ISSUE 2 — 2013 35

ing impact on the individual and organization
resources moving left to right (Exhibit 1).
Performance management is one of those
major uses.

The fact is that many organizations are
already successfully using 360 feedback as
part of their performance management sys-
tems, as well as for other personnel decisions
such as staffing, succession planning and high
potential selection and development. A recent
benchmark study (3D Group ,2013) of more
than 200 organizations with active 360 pro-
grams reports that 47 percent of those
organizations are using 360 feedback for per-
formance management, which represents a
15 percent increase from the survey they con-
ducted in 2009. While there will always
remain some 360 feedback processes that are
targeted for purely development purposes or
broader culture change initiatives (and, there-
fore, not designed to support decision
making), we believe that 360 feedback is the
key to improving the quality and effective-
ness of performance management in
organizations today.

The Argument for
Using 360 Feedback
in Performance

Management

In order to understand the unique contribution
that 360 feedback can play in enhancing PM,
it is important to distinguish between two types
of performance in organizational settings that
have been recognized as important to driving
the bottom-line: the what and the how.

The “What” and “How” of
Performance
Historically, performance ratings originated
from the need to quantify results and pay
people accordingly, e.g., with an emphasis on
goal setting and differentiation (e.g., Smither
& London, 2009). In contrast, 360 feedback
was initially a form of survey feedback focused
on driving individual development and behav-
ior change in organization development efforts
by unfreezing the present state (Ghurch et. al,
2001). In recent years, however, these streams
of organizational science have begun to come
together for three reasons: (a) the increasing
comfort levels and familiarity among leaders
and managers with 360 feedback as a tool in
general, (b) the prevalence of large scale HR
applications and solutions that make linking

360 feedback and performance management
processes easier and more efficient, and per-
haps most importantly, (c) the recognition of
the unique role and value that 360 feedback
can add behaviorally to the performance eval-
uation process. As a result and when integrated
appropriately (vs. simply being misused), the
360 link to performance management can
result in (a) a more robust and valid PMP pro-
cess due to the enhanced measurement aspects
of 360, and (b) a 360 feedback tool and mea-
surement framework that is linked more fully
to the overall business strategy of the corpora-
tion in which it is imbedded.

sions, we would argue that 360 feedback is
designed ideally for the purpose of measur-
ing the “how” of performance management.

In the next section, we describe a short case
example of how multisource feedback has
evolved in one multinational consumer
products company from a primarily devel-
opmental tool to one that is much more
consistently applied and aligned to the
decision-making processes in the organiza-
tion while still retaining a large development
component.

In the end, performance management is not an
exact science, nor is 360 feedback. Both rely on
the perceptions of others in the workplace
regarding various behaviors demonstrated and
outcomes achieved.

Although organizations remain manically
focused on performance management in
the context of achieving bottom-line busi-
ness results or the “what” that is delivered
on a regular basis (e.g., share, volume,
sales, profit, etc.), in recent years there has
been an increasing recognition that the
“how” those results are achieved is impor-
tant to measure as well (Kaiser, McGinnis
& Overfield, 2012). Ghanging workforce
demographics, recognition of generational
and work style differences among various
cohorts, and the increasing importance of
such factors as employee engagement,
integrity and manager quality have all con-
tributed significantly to this trend (e.g.,
Hankin, 2005; Meister & Willyerd, 2010).
In response to this need to quantify the
“how” dimension of performance, how-
ever, many organizations have been
somewhat challenged when it comes to
measurement. While some have looked at
quantifying their corporate values, others
have pursued competencies (usually lead-
e r s h i p ) or o t h e r t y p e s of m o r e
objective-based measures such as the dual
business and people results model intro-
duced by PepsiGo (Gorporate

Leadership

Gouncil, 2005). Given the multi-rater data-
based nature of 360 feedback, and its
inherent flexibility to measure behaviors
refiective of all of these types of dimen-

Case Example of the
Evolution of 360
Feedback
PepsiGo has a long history as a pay for perfor-
mance culture. As a result, the performance
management process has been designed to
recognize and reward individuals at three dif-
ferent levels of impact: individual, team and
organization. While the team and organiza-
tion levels are based on relatively
straightforward business performance met-
rics, the individual level performance
component is somewhat unique and its evolu-
tion and impact over time have been profiled
several times by the Gorporate Leadership
Gouncil (2002; 2005) and at a number of pro-
fessionalmeetingssponsoredbytheGonference
Board and the Society for Industrial and Orga-
nizational Psychology from 2007 to 2012 as
an example of a best practice performance
management system. In general, it features a
dual five-point performance rating scheme
that evaluates individuals along two separate
dimensions: business results and people
results. In many ways, this system reflects the
concept of the “what” and the “how” of per-
formance described above. However, the
people results in the PepsiGo model are just as
outcome-based (and therefore require con-
crete measurement) as the business results.

36 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

Designed and launched in 2001, the dual rat-
ing process was intended to address the need
to improve manager quality (CLC 2002,
2005) and drive a culture of diversity and
inclusion throughout the organization
(Thomas & Creary, 2009) as a result of turn-
over and other lingering cultural elements
dating back to the 1980s (e.g., Pearson,
1987). When the initial program was
launched, the weighting between business
and people results was set at 67 percent and
33 percent respectively given the sensitivity
and complexities of introducing such a new
performance model to the organization. As a
result of the new people results component
impacting performance outcomes, there was
an immediate need to help leaders and man-
agers quantify these results. While
performance metrics such as sales, revenue,
share and volume were easy to calculate,
there were questions regarding the best meth-
od for assessing people outcomes.

At the time, the organization had a robust 360
feedback process in place. However, a review
of that process revealed that (a) the leadership
model on which it was based was not aligned
to the future business or people strategy, and
(b) the execution was fragmented and used
primarily for individual development across
the business. The first major overhaul of the
process resulted in a new leadership model for
the 360 tool that reflected the behaviors for
driving the desired culture change. It also pro-
duced a harmonized, consistent and unified
administration and delivery process and time-
line to meet the performance management
cycle so that the feedback could be used for
people results discussion. Despite the wide-
spread familiarity of the organization with
360 feedback as a process, the shift in orienta-
tion of the results from development only to
performance management required that the
initial messaging focus on “input” versus
being hard-wired. This was done to allow the
360 results to have teeth and influence the
people results but not make the link so direct
that manager and HR discretion could not be
applied to have a balanced rating outcome. In
general, the approach was well-received and
this application of 360 lasted for approxi-
mately five years.

With the change in CEO, however, came a
further refinement of the business and talent
strategy of the organization (Morris, 2008),
and as a result, the performance management
process evolved accordingly as well. While
the business and people results remained
intact, the weighting shifted to 50 percent
each making the “how” aspect of manager

EXHIBIT 2: CHANGING EVOLUTION OF FEEDBACK TOOLS AT PEPSICO

t
Influence

Leadership

Development
& “inpuT for Tatem Mgt

Management

Upward reedbäck
•feed” for PMP

Development
& ‘input” foi PMP

Unaligned Process &
Development Only

quality that much more significant in the PM
process. As a result, there was increased pres-
sure to tighten the link between the 360
process and the people ratings. This was
accomplished successfully by separating the
existing 360 process into two different multi-
rater feedback tools: one administered
annually to direct reports only that was
dedicated to performance management ( i.e.,
the Manager Quality Performance Index or
MQPI — see Church, TuUer, Desrosiers, 2013
for details on that specific tool), and a full 360
process focused on leadership capability
administered on a rolling basis that was pri-
marily developmental but was linked to
talent management and succession planning
at more senior levels in the organization
(Church & Waclawski 2010). By separating
the two feedback tools, the organization had
effectively achieved three goals:

1. made the distinction clear between
what are considered to be effective
manager behaviors at any level versus
leadership behaviors needed to be suc-
cessful at higher levels

2. formally articulated the linkages
between the different feedback tools
and their respective uses (i.e., perfor-
m a n c e m a n a g e m e n t , t a l e n t
management/planning, and individual
development)

3. adjusted the timing and execution win-
dows to align each feedback process to
best match the cadence of the HR system
it feeds (e.g., performance calibration,
people planning / talent reviews, etc.)

Although the MQPI as implemented in this
case was a direct report only feedback mea-
sure (i.e., technically an upward or 180
feedback application), this decision was
based on the goal of focusing on “people
results” as a manager quality initiative vs. a
methodological concern over using a full-
blown 360. Had collaboration with peers in
a matrix environment or client-centered
behaviors in a professional services firm been
the primary cultural concerns with respect to
people results, the organization would have
focused on peer or client ratings as in other
cases (e.g.. Church et al., 2001; 2002). Today,
both feedback systems (the 360 and MQPI)
are currently in place with considerable
demand from the field for each. Results from
internal employee surveys over time point to
both increased perceptions of managers being
held accountable for both business and peo-
ple results since the MQPI was put in place,
and very positive outcomes with respect to
the impact and utility of the 360 feedback for
individual development and career planning
applications. Exhibit 2 provides a summary
of the evolution of the feedback process.

How 360 Eeedback Can
Improve Performance
Management
In general, our experience has shown that a
properly implemented 360 feedback process,
installed across a whole organization such as
PepsiCo (or subgroup specific business unit,
region or function), can provide a number of >•

VOLUME 36/ISSUE 2 — 2013 37

benefits, including enhancing the quality of
the performance management process. Each
of these benefits is described below:

Alignment: One of the most important needs
for employees from a performance manage-
ment process is a clear understanding of what
the organization expects of them (Smither &
London, 2009). In a properly designed 360
process, the means for achieving business
strategies and goals are translated into lead-
ership competencies and behavioral
statements that uniquely capture the needs of
the organization for current and future suc-
cess. These behavioral statements bring to life
in very tangible terms the “rules of game” for
being successful in this specific organization.

of 360 feedback (Bracken et al., 2001). But
it usually at least starts with requiring that
we are measuring the right things in a reli-
able way. The “reliable way” part has
literally dozens of design elements in 360s,
but, when done correctly, do produce infor-
mation that is appropriate to use for decision
making (including performance manage-
ment) (Church, 2000; Edwards & Ewen,
1996; Murphy, Cleveland and Mohler,
2001 ), and typically has less negative impact
on groups such as women and older workers
(Edwards & Ewen, 1996; Eichinger 6c Lom-
bardo, 2004).

The most compelling support for validity
when measuring the “how” of performance

A properly implemented 360 process, installed across
a whole organization can provide a number of benefits
including enhancing the quality of the performance
management process.

and are communicated through the content
of the 360 instrument and the underlying
measurement framework on which it is based
(Bracken & Rose, 2011; Church et. al, 2002).

Agility: Today, 360 feedback is almost exclu-
sively technology driven (vs. in the 1990s
when it was first introduced). Therefore, the
process can quickly reach a wide range or
leaders and managers in an organization and
the behavioral requirements can be easily
modified to reflect the changing external and
internal environment and quickly dissemi-
nated through the measurement process. As
long as the timing of the behavior change is
managed in consort with the performance
management cycle (to maintain the alignment
dimension as noted above), it is relatively
easy to shift these behavioral indicators and
link them to the desired results. If the entire
organization is using a 360 process on a
repeated, regular basis (e.g., yearly or even
more frequently), changes in definitions of
leader requirements can be communicated to
the entire employee population very quickly,
followed by the accountability inherent in
integration into performance management
and other HR systems.

Validity: The definition of what “validity”
means can be elusive, particularly in the area

may be clear alignment with organizational
values that defines successful performance
(i.e., requiring a leader to comply with orga-
nizational values to be considered
“successful”). While we justifiably turn to
possible legal challenges to reinforce the need
for valid measurement, the fact is that a much
better argument for validity is that it pro-
duces information that helps us make better
decisions that affect individuals and the orga-
nization as a whole.

Accountability: This has been called the
Achilles heel of 360 feedback (London,
Smither &c Adsit, 1997) and is arguably one
of the most important factors in ensuring the
success of any 360 process in general (Brack-
en, Timmreck & Church, 2001; Bracken &
Rose, 2011). The importance of account-
ability only intensifies, however, in the
context of using 360 results for performance
management. More specifically, if the orga-
nization believes that the “how” side of
performance is at least as important as the
“what,” then there needs to be comparable
accountability for each. Accountability
comes in two forms in this context. One type
of accountability is defined by the content of
the 360 items that define successful leaders.
In other words, high scores on the 360 feed-
back do not necessarily have to predict

successful leadership (though in some orga-
nizations the leadership model on which
they are based may well have been validated
to do just that for talent management pur-
poses — see the discussion earlier about the
importance of validity), but state that you
are a successful leader because you behave
consistently with organizational values or
cultural norms, with appropriate conse-
quences. The second type of accountability
is defined by the leader’s performance of
activities that create a trusting feedback cli-
mate, including coaching and feedback.
These two types of accountability are inter-
woven when the 360 also asks whether the
leader is performing those actions.

Consistency: One of the pitfalls of many HR
systems (beyond just 360 feedback programs)
is inconsistent administration and use, lead-
ing to real and perceived unfairness in the
process. Examples of potential inconsistency
in 360 processes that translate into real and
perceived unfairness includes steps such as
the selection of who participates in getting
feedback, giving feedback (e.g., all direct
reports, only select direct reports, only some
dotted-line individuals, etc.), the method and
number of raters selected, and rater training.
Inconsistent use can occur on both the front-
and back-end of the process when decision
makers (managers, human resources) misin-
terpret, misapply and/or ignore the feedback
results, often due to lack of training and
monitoring. Inconsistent use of performance
management practices is undoubtedly one of
the reasons that they have been unsuccessful,
perhaps in part due to no way to clearly
define and measure the “how” side of perfor-
mance without the use of 360 feedback.
Having a robust feedback measure based on
a set of well-defined behaviors aligned to a
single leadership model, a set of core values
or strategic business priorities will add rigor
to any PM process and increase the consis-
tency of its application.

Response to the
Naysayers
While it should be clear from the example
above that 360 feedback processes can, and
in our opinion should, be effectively used for
performance management purposes in orga-
nizations today, we would be remiss if we did
not acknowledge the vehement resistance our
position creates on the part of some. The
objections most commonly come from two
cohorts (that are not independent). The first
includes the leader development purists who

3 8 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

¡EXHiBiT 3: THE SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN 360 FEEDBACK AND PMP

Better, Fairer Information
forDecisions

360°
Feedback

ACCOUNTABILITY

believe that feedback should be a safe, private
event, sometimes to the extent that results
should not be shared with others in the orga-
nization (with external coaches being perhaps
the only exception). The concern here is that,
despite the best of intentions, sharing feed-
back results with others may somehow
inadvertently influence internal perceptions,
and therefore influence talent- or perfor-
mance-related decisions.

We are in full agreement that some feedback
scenarios are focused solely on developing a
single leader and the results of those process-
es are rarely appropriate for use in decision
making. Our intention is not to argue against
individual development, but rather to improve
another very flawed HR process (i.e., perfor-
mance management) with a powerful tool
that should, by the way, always include a
development component. We are in no way
suggesting that all 360 processes should be
used for decision making, though we are sug-
gesting that all 360 processes could benefit
from being designed and implemented as if
they might be used to make decisions about
employees at some point in the future.

The second group of objectors or naysayers
regarding linking 360 to performance man-
agement comes at us from the data integrity
side of the argument, stating that using the
data for anything other than development
only will cause raters to be less willing to
provide honest feedback for fear of either
harming the leader’s career or causing retri-
bution from the leader. This position is
somewhat amusing because the development-

only proponents generally implement systems
that are the least likely to have any impact at
all because they bypass the majority of best
practices described above in their approach
to 360 by recommending a far less systemic
and robust process in general (e.g., one that
has not been validated, consistently applied,
or customized to the meet the strategic busi-
ness needs or cultural change agenda of the
organization, etc.). In addition, our experi-
ence has suggested that overt rater
manipulation of 360 results occurs no more
frequently than standard manager perfor-
mance rating biases in performance
management systems. Moreover, there are
methods to correct many of these issues, such
as implementing high caliber rating nomina-
tion (selection) review processes with
manager and/or HR review and approval
such as those used at PepsiCo (e.g.. Church
etal., 2013).

Some detractors point to the mixed research
results -regarding the reliability and validity
of 360 systems, another “half full, half empty”
situation. Different rater groups do appear to
bring different types of baggage to the feed-
back process (Eichinger & Lombardo, 2004;
Nowack 6c Mashihi, 2012). At the same time,
each perspective group seems to have a valid
perspective on performance, even though
they may not agree with each other (Bynum
et al, 2013; Church 2002). Potential “unreli-
ability” as seen from this context (i.e., lack of
intragroup agreement) can be addressed
through ensuring sufficient numbers of raters
in each group, another design element often
neglected in “development-only” processes.

The main point here is that the problems
associated with unreliable 360 feedback rat-
ings are the same ones that plague
performance management processes in gen-
eral. Thus, the arguments against making the
linkage between 360 and performance man-
agement do not have much merit from our
perspective. In addition, many practitioners
have implemented various interventions to
improve rater accuracy, including rater
training and well-researched and designed
rating scales that reduce leniency effects
(Nowack & Mashihi, 2012).

Summary
In the end, performance management is not
an exact science, nor is 360 feedback. Both
rely on the perceptions of others in the
workplace regarding various behaviors
demonstrated and outcomes achieved.
Similarly, rater performance is a complex
phenomenon, involving opportunity to
observe, ability to observe, and then both
the capability and motivation to perform
the rating task competently. We are still
learning how to improve rater performance.
While we don’t have all the answers yet,
there are some solutions and the field has
progressed immensely from where we were
20 years ago. We ask you to consider as to
whether 360 feedback should ultimately
replace PMP (or become the “new” PMP,
which is an even more radical concept).
This would mean using a methodology for
creating a feedback culture with ongoing
coaching and evaluation that leverages its
potential to generate better data to support
both performance and talent management
processes. At a minimum, a well-designed
and implemented 360 process can be inte-
grated with a performance management
system so that they create a symbiotic rela-
tionship, each benefitting from the other
(see Exhibit 3).

In closing, we propose that 360 feedback has
come of age and it is time for organizations
to fully utilize its potential for driving indi-
vidual performance and broader culture
change. As Smither, London and Reilly
(2005) stated some time ago, we are long past
the point of arguing whether 360 “works”
and if it can and should be used to improve
HR processes such as performance manage-
ment. We need to turn our attention to
improving practices that increase the likeli-
hood that we are using the best methods to
improve our performance and talent man-
agement systems.

VOLUME 36/ISSUE 2 — 2013 39

References
3D Group (2013). Current practices in 360 degree feed-
back: A benchmark study of North American companies.
Emeryville, CA: 3D Croup.

Antonioni, D. (1996). Designing an effective 360-degree
appraisal feedback process. Organizational Dynamics,
25(2), 24-38.

Bracken, D.W., & Rose, D.S. (2011). When does 360
degree feedback create behavior change? And how would
we know it when it does} Journal of Psychology and Busi-
ness, 26, \S3-\91.

Bracken, D.W., Dalton, M.A., Jako, R.A., McCauley, C D .
and Pollman,V.A. (1997) Should 360-Degree Feedhack Be
Used Only for Developmental Purposes? Greensboro:
Center for Creative Leadership.

Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church, A.H. (eds.).
(2001a) The Handhook of Multisource Feedback. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., Fleenor, J. W , & Sum-
mers, L. (2001b). 360 feedback from another angle.
Human Resource Management Journal 40, 3-20.

Burke, W. W., & Jackson, P. (1991), Making the Smith-
Kline Beecham m e r g e r w o r k . Human Resource
Management, 30, 69-87.

Burke, W. W., Richley, E. A., 8c DeAngelis, L. (1985).
Changing leadership and planning processes at the Lewis
Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration. Human Resource Management, 24, 81-90.

Bynum, B. H., Hoffman, B.J., Meade, A.W., and Gentry,
W. A. (2013) Reconsidering the equivalence of multisource
performance ratings: Evidence for the importance and
meaning of rater factors. Journal of Psychology and Busi-
ness, 28, 203-219.

Church, A. H., (2000). Do better managers actually receive
better ratings.-” A validation of multi-rater assessment
methodology. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &
Research, 52(2),99-116.

Church, A. H., & Bracken, D. W (1997). Advancing the
state of the art of 360-degree feedback: Guest editors’
comments on the research and practice of multirater
assessment methods. Group & Organization Manage-
ment, 22(2), 149-161.

Church, A. H.,Tuller, M. D., & Desrosiers, E. 1. (2013).
The M a n a g e r Q u a l i t y Performance Index ( M Q P I ) :
Driving superior people results through measurement.
In E. Biech (Ed.). The 2013 Pfeiffer Annual: Training,
147-166, San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Church, A.H., Walker, A..G., & Brockner, J. (2002), Mul-
tisource feedback for organization development and
change. In J. Waclawski, & A.H. Church, (Eds.), Organiza-
tion Development: A Data-Driven Approach to
Organizational Change (pp. 27-54), San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Church, A. H. & Waclawski, J. (2010). Take the Pepsi
Challenge: Talent development at PepsiCo. In R. Silzer &
B. E. Dowell (Eds.). Strategy-Driven Talent Management:
A Leadership Imperative, 617-640, San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Church, A. H., Waclawski, J., & Burke, W. W. (2001),
Multisource Feedback for Organization Development and

Change. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H.
Church (Eds.), The Handhook of Multisource Feedhack,
(pp. 301-317), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coens, T. &l Jenkins, M. (2002). Abolishing Performance
Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Corporate Leadership Council (2002). Closing the Perfor-
mance Gap: Driving Business Results Through
Performance Management. Washington, DC: Corporate
Executive Board.

Corporate Leadership Council (2005). PepsiCo’s Dual
Performance Rating Practice: An Overview of the Practice
and a Conversation with Allan Church, VP Organization
& Management Development. Washington, DC: Corpo-
rate Executive Board.

Culbert, S. A. & Rout, L. (2010). Get Rid of The Perfor-
mance Review! How Companies Can Stop Intimidating,
Start Managing—And Focus on What Really Matters.
New York, NY: Hachette Book Group.

Dalessio A. T. (1998). Using multisource feedback for
employee development and personnel decisions. In J. W.
Smither (Ed.). Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in
Practice (pp. 278-330). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, M. R., & Ewen, A. J. (1996). 360-Degree Feed-
back. The Powerfui New Model for Employee Assessment
and Performance Improvement. New York: AMACOM.

Eichinger, R.W., & and Lombardo, M.M. (2004). Patterns
Of Rater Accuracy In 360-Degree Feedback. Human
Resource Planning, 27(4), 23-25.

Hankin, H. (2005), The New Workforce: Five Sweeping
Trends That Will Shape Your Company’s Future, New
York: AMACOM.

Hedge, J. W , Borman, W. C , & Birkeland, S. A. (2001).
History and development of multisource feedback as a
methodology. In D.W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, and A.
H. Church, (Eds.), The Handbook of Multisource Feed-
hack, (15-32), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lloyd K. (2009). Performance Appraisals and Phrases for
Dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc.

London, M., (2001 ), The great debate: Should 360 be used
for administration or development only? In D.W. Bracken,
C. WTimmreck, and A . H . Church, (Eds.), TfceHaMi/fcoofe
of Multisource Feedback, (368-385), San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

London,M.,Smitlier,J.W.,&Adsit,D.J.(1997).Account-
ability: The Achilles’ heel of multisource feedback. Group
& Organization Management, 22(1), 162-184.

Maylett,T. & Ribaldi,J. (2007). Using 360° feedback to pre-
dict performance. Training + Development, September, 48-52

Meister, J. C , & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 Work-
place: How Innovative Companies Attract, Develop, and
Keep Tomorrow’s Employees Today. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.

Morris, B. (2008). The Pepsi challenge: Can this snack and
soda giant go healthy? Fortune, March 3 , 2 0 0 8 , 5 5 – 6 6 .

Murphy, K.R., Cleveland, J.N., & Mohler, C.J. (2001).
Reliability, validity and Meaningfulness of multisource
ratings. In Bracken, D.W., Timmreck, C.W., and Church,
A.H. (eds.) The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nowack, K.M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based
answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree feed-
back. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 64(5), 157-lSl.

O’Reilly, B. (1994). 360° feedback can change your life.
Fortune, 130(8), 93-94.

Pearson, A. E. (1987). Muscle-build the organization. Har-
vard Business Review, jaly-Augusi, 49-55.

Robinson, A. H. (2013). Ditch Your Performance Reviews,
Human Capital Institute Blog, February 27. http://www.
hci.org/blog/ditch-your-performance-reviews,

Smither, J. W. & London, M. (Eds.). (2009). Performance
management: Putting research into practice. SIOP Profes-
sional Practice Series. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smither, J.W., London, M., & Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does
performance improve following multisource feedback? A
theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical
findings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.

Thomas, D. A., & Creary, S. J. (2009). Meeting the diver-
sity challenge at PepsiCo: The Steve Reinemund Era (Case:
9-410-024). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub-
lishing.

Tornow, W. W , & London, M. (1998). Maximizing The
Value of 360-Degree Feedhack: A Process for Successful
Individual and Organizational Development. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.

David W. Bracken, Ph.D., is vice presi-
dent of Leadership Development and
Assessment with OrgVitality LLC. He
received a BA from Dartmouth College
and MS and Ph.D. degrees in Indus-
trial/Organization Psychology from
Georgia Tech. Bracken is a Certified
Professional Coach and resides in the
Atlanta area.

Allan H. Church, Ph.D., is vice presi-
dent of Organization Development
for the Global Groups, Functions and
Corporate, and Executive Assessment
and Development for PepsiCo, Inc. He
received his Ph.D. in Organizational
Psychology from Columbia Universi-
ty. He is a Eellow of the Society for
Industrial-Organizational Psycholo-
gy, the American Psychological
Association, and the Association for
Psychological Science.

40 PEOPLE & STRATEGY

Copyright of People & Strategy is the property of HR People & Strategy and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.