The 360º Performance Appraisal in the Portuguese Labor Market
Facilitators and Barriers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4000/cp.1088Keywords:
Performance evaluation, 360º method, good factors, barriersAbstract
To prevent some limitations of traditional performance appraisal (i.e., chief rates his employee), an approach to 360º performance appraisal becomes relevant, in a way that it considers more than one appraiser, as it permits to control eventual idiosyncrasies. In this sense, this study pretends to understand the perceptions of different professionals regarding the facilitators and barriers of the 360º evaluation in the Portuguese labor market. We resorted to a qualitative methodology and a sample of convenience, having performed four Focus Group. The information gathered showed that the 360º performance appraisal is particularly relevant when compared to the traditional performance evaluation, because it allows the active participation of all/almost all organizational actors. Furthermore, this methodology promotes anonymity and confidentiality of those involved, their training while evaluators and the decentralization of the evaluative power of supervisors.
Downloads
References
Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Becton, J., e Schraeder, M. (2004). Participant Input into Rater Selection: Potencial Effects on the Quality and Acceptance of Ratings in the Context of 360-Degree Feedback. Public Personnel Management, 33: pp. 23-32.
Bracken, D., Timmreck, C., e Church, A. (2000). The Comprehensive Resource for Designing and Implementing MSF Processes. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck., A. H. Church (Ed.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. New York, Jossey-Bass.
Bracken, D., Timmreck, C., Fleenor, J., e Summers, L. (2001). 360-Feedback From Another Angle. Human Resource Management, 40: pp. 3-20. DOI : 10.1002/hrm.4012 good / bad
Bracken, D., e Rose, D. (2011). When Does 360- Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does? Journal Business Psychology, 26: pp. 183-192. DOI : 10.1007/s10869-011-9218-5 good / bad
Brutus, S., e Brassard, N. (2005). Unbilan de l’évaluation multisource. Gestion, 30: pp. 24-30.
Brutus, S., e Gorriti, M. (2005). La Evaluación Multifuente Feedback 360º. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 21: pp. 235-252.
Caetano, A. (2008). Avaliação de Desempenho: O essencial que avaliadores e avaliado precisam de saber. Lisboa, Livros Horizonte.
Craig, S., e Hannum, K. (2006). Research update: 360-degree performance assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58: pp. 117-124.
Felts, A. (1992). Organizational Communication: A Critical Perspective, Administration e Society, 23: pp. 494-513. DOI : 10.1177/009539979202300405 good / bad
Gagnon, E. (2000). How to Measure Work. Material Handling e Logistics, 55: pp. 71-77.
Gillespie, L., e Parry, R. (2006). Fuel for Litigation? Links between Procedural Justice and Multisource Feedback: JMI. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18: pp. 530-546.
Gomes, J., Cunha, M., Rego, A., Cunha, R., Cardoso, C., e Marques, C. (2008). Manual de Gestão de Pessoas e do Capital Humano. Lisboa, Edições Sílabo.
Heijden, B., e Nijhof A. (2004). The Value of Subjectivity: Problems and Prospects for 360-Degree Appraisal Systems, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15: pp. 493-511.
Hensel, R., Meijers, F., Leeden, R. e Kessels, J. (2010). 360- degree feedback: how many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capacity to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(15): pp. 2813-2830. DOI : 10.1080/09585192.2010.528664 good / bad
Kline, T., e Sulsky, L. (2009). Measurement and Assessment Issues in Performance Appraisal. Canadian Psychology, 50: pp. 161-171.
Kraut, R., Fish, R., Root, R. e Chalfonte, B. (1990). Informal Communication in Organizations: Form, Function and Technology, SAGE publications.
Krueger, R. A., e Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, SAGE.
Mamatoglu, 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: pp. 426-449. DOI : 10.1080/13594320802281094 good / bad
McCarthy, A., e Garavan, T. (2001). 360 [degrees] feedback process: performance, improvement and employee career development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25: pp. 5-32.
Miller, K. (2011). Organizational Communication: Aproaches and Processes, Boston, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Morgeson, F., Mumford, T., e Campion, M. (2005). Coming Full Circle: Using Research and Practice to Adress 27 Questions About 360-degree Feedback Programs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57: pp. 196-209. DOI : 10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.196 good / bad
Mucha, M. (2011). Performance Management Self Evaluation. Government Finance Review, 27: pp. 43-46.
Nowack, K. (2009). Leveraging Multirater Feedback to Facilitate Sucessful Behavioral Change. Consulting Psychology Journal, 61: pp. 280-297.
Oh, I., e Mount, G. (2011). Validity of Observer Ratings of the Five-Factor Model of Personality Traits: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: pp. 762-773.
Radnor, Z., e Barnes, D. (2007). Historical analysis of performance measurement and management in operations management. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56: pp. 384-396. DOI : 10.1108/17410400710757105 good / bad
Ruão, T. (1999). A Comunicação Organizacional e a Gestão de Recursos Humanos: Evolução e Atualidade, Cadernos do Noroeste, 12: pp. 179-194.
Schullery, N., Knudstrup, P., Schullery, S., e Pfaff, L. (2009, November). The Relationship Between Personality Type and 360-Degree Evaluation of Management Skills. Journal of Psychological Type, 69: pp. 141-155.
Seifert, C., McDonald, R., e Yukl, G. (2003). Effects of Multisource Feedback and a Feedback Facilitator on the Influence Behavior of Managers Toward Subordinates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: pp. 561-569. DOI : 10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.561 good / bad
Shaun, T., e Peter, W. (2004). The Use of 360 Degree Feedback Technique in the Evaluation of Management Development. Management Learning, 35(2): pp. 205-223.
Smither, J., London, M., Reilly, R., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y., e Kucine, I. (2004). Discussing multisource feedback with raters and performance improvement. Journal of Management Development, 23: pp. 456-468.
Smither, J., London, M., e Reilly, R. (2005). Does Performance Improve Following Multisource Feedback? A Theoretical Model, Meta-Analysis, and Review of Empirical Findings. Personnel Psychology, 58: pp. 33-66.
Tannenbaum, S. (2006). Applied performance measurement: Practical issues and challenges. In Bennett, W., Jr., Lance, C., & Woehr, D. (Ed.), Performance measurement: Current perspectives and future challenges. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: pp. 297-319.
Thomas, L. G. e D'Aveni, R. (2008). The changing nature of competition in the US manufacturing sector, 1950-2002. Strategic Organization [S.I.], 7(4), pp. 387-431. DOI : 10.1177/1476127009348561 good / bad
Tyssen A, Wald, A, e Spieth, P. (2013). The challenge of transactional and transformational leadership in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 78(1): pp. 86-97. DOI : 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.05.010 good / bad
Vala, J. (2005). A análise de conteúdo. In Silva, A. S., e Pinto, J. M, Metodologia das ciências sociais. Porto: Edições Afrontamento: pp. 101-128.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Comunicação Pública
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Os conteudos da Comunicação Publica estão licenciados com uma licença Creative Commons - Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
