Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

360º-Feedback-Verfahren als spezielle Variante der Mitarbeiterbefragung

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbuch Mitarbeiterbefragung

Zusammenfassung

360°‐Feedback‐Verfahren werden von Leitungsverantwortlichen initiiert und umfassen systematisch aufgebaute beschreibende oder bewertende Einschätzungen von Mitarbeitern. Am Verfahren nehmen mehrere zum Feedback‐Nehmer in unterschiedlichen organisationsstrukturell‐hierarchischen Beziehungen stehende Personengruppen teil. Die Ergebnisse von 360°‐Feedback‐Verfahren werden in der Praxis primär für Zwecke der Personalentwicklung eingesetzt. Eigene Untersuchungen zeigen, dass 360°‐ Feedback‐Verfahren sich von herkömmlichen Verfahren der Mitarbeiterbefragung stark unterscheiden, mit ihnen nicht konkurrieren, sondern eine ergänzende Funktion haben.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • 3D Group (2009): The 10 Most Common 360-Degree Feedback Practices in 2009, 3D Group Technical Report #8326E. Berkeley. Data Driven Decisions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonioni, D. (1994): The effects of feedback accountability on upward appraisal ratings, in: Personnel Psychology, 47, S. 349-356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonioni , D./ Park, H. (2001): The relationship between rater affect and three sources of 360-degree feedback ratings, in: Journal of Management, 27, S. 479-495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins , P.W./ Wood, R.E. (2002): Self- versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs, in: Personnel Psychology, 55, S. 871-904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwater , L.E./ Waldman, D.A./ Brett, J.F. (2002): Understanding and optimizing multisource feedback, in: Human Resource Management, 41, S. 193-208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, F.G. (2009): Grundlagen betrieblicher Leistungsbeurteilungen. Stuttgart, 5. Aufl.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beehr , T.A/ Ivanitskaya, L./ Hansen, C.P./ Erofeev, D./ Gudanowski, D.M. (2001): Evaluation of 360 degree feedback ratings: Relationships with each other and with performance and selection predictors, in: Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, S. 775-788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bono , J.E./ Gillbert, A.E. (2005): Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: The role of core self-evaluations, in: Personnel Psychology, 58, S. 171-203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracken , D.W./ Rose, D.S. (2011): When does 360-degree feedback create behavior change? And how would we know when it does? in: Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, S. 183-192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracken , D.W./ Timmreck, C.W./ Church, A.H. (2001a) (Hrsg.): The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken , D.W./ Timmreck, C.W./ Fleenor, J.W./ Summers, L. (2001b): 360 feedback from another angle, in: Human Resource Management, 40, S. 3-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett , J.F./ Atwater, L.E. (2001): 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, S. 930-942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutus , S./ Fleenor, J.W./ London, M. (1998): Elements of effective 360-degree feedback. in: Tornow , W.W./ London, M. (Hrsg.), Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco. S. 11-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brutus , S./ Fleenor, J.W./ McCauley, C.D. (1999): Demographic and personality predictors of congruence in multi-source ratings, in: Journal of Management Development, 18, S. 417-435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell , D.T./ Fiske, D.W. (1959): Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix, in: Psychological Bulletin, 56, S. 81-105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J.M. (1996): Analysis and design of multitrait-multirater performance appraisal studies, in: Journal of Management, 22, S. 139-162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway , J.M./ Huffcutt, A.I. (1997): Psychometric properties of multisource ratings: A meta-analysis of subordinate, supervisor, peer, and selfratings, in: Human Performance, 10, S. 331-360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig , S.B./ Hannum, K. (2006): 360-degree performance assessment, in: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58, S. 117-122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalessio , A.T./ Vasilopoulos, N.L. (2001): Multisource feedback reports. In: Bracken , D.W./ Timmreck, C.W./ Church, A.H. (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco. S. 181-203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deller , J./ Harstein, T./ Wallmichrath, K. (2006): Das Mitarbeiterfeedback als Instrument der Weiterentwicklung der Unternehmenskultur der Daimler-Chrysler Services AG. In: Domsch , M.E./ Ladwig, D.H. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Mitarbeiterbefragung. Berlin, 2. Aufl. S. 197-209.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNisi , A.S./ Kluger, A.N. (2000): Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved? In: Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), S. 129-139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domsch, M. (2005): Personal. In: Bitz, M. et al. (Hrsg.), Vahlens Kompendium der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Bd. 1. München, 5. Aufl. S. 385-447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domsch , M.E./ Ladwig, D.H. (2006): Mitarbeiterbefragungen – Stand und Entwicklung. In: Domsch , M.E./ Ladwig, D.H. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Mitarbeiterbefragung. Berlin, 2. Aufl. S. 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards , M.R./ Ewen, A.J. (1996): 360° Feedback. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards , M.R./ Ewen, A.J./ Vendantam, K. (2001): How do users react to multisource feedback? In: Bracken , D.W./ Timmreck, C.W./ Church, A.H. (Hrsg.), The Handbook of Multisource Feedback. San Francisco. S. 239-255.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, in: Leadership Quarterly, 9, S. 427-448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleenor , J.W./ Taylor, S./ Chappelow, C. (2008): Leveraging the Impact of 360-Degree Feedback. San Franciso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster , C.A./ Law, M.R. (2006): How many different perspectives provide a compass? Differentiating 360-degree feedback and multi-source feedback, in: International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, S. 288-291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser , C./ Zarkada-Fraser, A. (2001): Perceptual polarization of managerial performance from a human resource management perspective, in: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, S. 256-269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frieswick, K. (2001): Truth & consequences, in: CFO, 17 (7), S. 56-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garavan , T.N./ Morley, M./ Flynn, M. (1997): 360 degree feedback: Its role in employee development, in: Journal of Management Development, 16, S. 134-147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerpott, T.J. (1992): Gleichgestelltenbeurteilung: Eine Erweiterung traditioneller Personalbeurteilungseinsätze in Unternehmen. In: Selbach , R./ Pullig, K.-K. (Hrsg.), Handbuch Mitarbeiterbeurteilung. Wiesbaden. S. 211-254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerpott , T.J./ Domsch, M. (2004): Personalbeurteilung. In: Gaugler , E./ Oechsler, W./ Weber, W. (Hrsg.), Handwörterbuch des Personalwesens. Stuttgart. 3. Aufl. Sp. 1431-1441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghorpade, J. (2000): Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback, in: Academy of Management Executive, 14 (1), S. 140-150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greguras , G.J./ Robie, C. (1998): A new look at within-source interrater reliability of 360- degree feedback ratings, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, S. 960-968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guenole , N./ Cockerill, T./ Charmorro-Premuzic, N./ Smillie, L (2011): Evidence for the validity of 360 dimensions in the presence of rater-source factors, in: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, S. 203-218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris , M.M./ Schaubroeck, J. (1988): A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings, in: Personnel Psychology, 41, S. 43-62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidemeier , H./ Moser, K. (2009): Self-other agreement in job performance ratings: A metaanalytic test of a process model, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, S. 353-370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensel , R./ Meijers, F./ van der Leeden, R./ Kessels, J. (2010): 360 degree feedback: How many raters are needed for reliable ratings on the capabilty to develop competences, with personal qualities as developmental goals, in: International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, S. 2813-2830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman , B.J./ Lance, C.E./ Bynum, B./ Gentry, W.A. (2010): Rater source effects are alive and well after all, in: Personnel Psychology, 63, S. 119-151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman , B.J./ Woehr, D.J. (2009): Disentangling the meaning of multisource performance rating source and dimension factors, in: Personnel Psychology, 62, S. 735-765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, R. (1995): Ten reasons you should be using 360-degree feedback, in: HRMagazine, 40 (4), S. 82-85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holderegger , P./ Schmidt, R. (2001): Internetgestütztes 360°-Feedback mit Coaching, in: Personalführung, 34 (11), S. 44-48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilgen , D.R./ Fisher, C.D./ Taylor, M.S. (1979): Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organization, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, S. 349-371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irmler , M./ Eggelhöfer, S. (2009): 360-Grad-Feedback online bei einem großen Versicherungsunternehmen. In: Steiner, H. (Hrsg.), Online-Assessment. Heidelberg. S. 181-194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöns , I./ Mataja, K. (1998): Beteiligung an Vorgesetztenbeurteilungen – Ergebnisse zu Einflussfaktoren auf den Rücklauf bei schriftlichen Befragungen, in: Zeitschrift für Arbeitsund Organisationspsychologie, 42, S. 33-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson , J.W./ Ferstl, K.L. (1999): The effects of interrater and self-other agreement on performance improvement following upward feedback, in: Personnel Psychology, 52, S. 271-303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R.E. (1993): 360-degree feedback PLUS: Boosting the power of co-worker ratings for executives, in: Human Resource Management, 32, S. 299-314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaul , C./ Geßner, A. (1998): 360°-Feedback und Coaching für das Top-Management, in: Personalführung, 31 (2), S. 42-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh , M.J./ MacKinney, A.C./ Wolins, L. (1971): Issues in managerial performance: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of ratings, in: Psychological Bulletin, 75, S. 34-49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, in: Psychological Bulletin, 119, S. 254-284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, T. (2004): Leistungsbeurteilung in 25 Ländern – Kann ein 360-Grad-Feedback als Grundlage dienen? In: Hertel, G./Konradt, U. (Hrsg.), Human Resource Management im Inter- und Intranet. Göttingen. S. 204-219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lance , C.E./ Hoffman, B.J./ Gentry, W.A./ Baranik, L.E. (2008): Rater source factors represent important subsomponents of the criterion construct space, not rater bias, in: Human Resource Management Review, 38, S. 223-232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler, E.E. (1967): The multitrait-multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, S. 369-381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepsinger , R./ Lucia, A.D. (2009): The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback. San Francisco, 2. Aufl.

    Google Scholar 

  • London , M./ Smither, J.W. (1995): Can multiple-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluation, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research, in: Personnel Psychology, 48, S. 803-839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London , M./ Smither, J.W./ Adsit, D.J. (1997): Accountability: The Achilles-² heel of multisource feedback, in: Group & Organization Management, 22 (2), S. 162-184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London , M./ Wohlers, A.J./ Gallagher, P. (1990): A feedback approach to management development, in: Journal of Management Development, 9 (6), S. 17-31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mabey, C. (2001): Closing the circle: Participants views of a 360 degree feedback programme, in: Human Resource Management Journal, 11 (1), S. 41-53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer , T.J./ Mitchell, D.R./ Barbeite, F.G. (2002): Predictors of attitudes toward a 360- degree feedback system and involvement in post-feedback management development activity, in: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, S. 87-107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer , T.J./ Raju, N.S./ Collins, W.C. (1998): Peer and subordinate appraisal measurement equivalence, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, S. 693-702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDade , S./ Greenwood, C. (2003): Putting 360-degree feedback to the test, in: Strategic HR Review, 2 (3), S. 30-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgeson , F.P./ Mumford, T.V./ Campion, M.A. (2005): Using research and practice to address 27 questions about 360-degree feedback programs, in: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, S. 196-209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mount , M.K./ Judge, T.A./ Scullen, S.E./ Sytsma, M.R./ Hezlett, S.A. (1998): Trait, rater, and level effects in 360-degree performance ratings, in: Personnel Psychology, 51, S. 557-576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mount , M.K./ Scullen, S.E. (2001): Multisource feedback ratings: What do they really measure? In: London, M. (Hrsg.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations. Mahwah. S. 155-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, O. (1998): Ein starkes Stück, in: Manager Magazin, 28 (12), S. 310 - 313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberger, O. (2000): Das 360°-Feedback: Alles fragen? Alles sehen? Alles sagen? München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowack, K.M. (2009): Leveraging multirater feedback to faciliate successful behavioral change, in: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61, S. 280-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paradise-Tornow, C.A. (1998): The competitive advantage of customer involvement in 360- degree feedback. In: Tornow , W.W./ London, M. (Hrsg.), Maximizing the Value of 360- Degree Feedback. San Francisco. S. 101-119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfau , B./ Kay, I. (2002): Does 360-degree feedback negatively affect company performance? In: HR Magazine, 47 (6), S. 55-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poesch , A./ Klein, U. (2001): 360-Grad-Feedback für den Mittelstand, in: Personalwirtschaft1, 28 (12), S. 24-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers , E./ Rogers, C.W./ Metlay, W. (2002): Improving the payoff from 360-degree feedback, in: Human Resource Planning, 25 (3), S. 44-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, H.R. (1990): Interrater reliability of job performance ratings: Growth to asymptote level with increasing opportunity to observe, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, S. 322-327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runde , B./ Kirschbaum, D./ Wübbelmann, K. (2001): 360°-Feedback – Hinweise für ein bestpractice- Modell, in: Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 45, S. 146-157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherm, M. (1999): 360-Grad-Feedback: Das Multiratersystem „Benchmarks“ von Lombardo

    Google Scholar 

  • und McCauley (1996), in: Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 43, S. 102-106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherm, M. (2005) (Hrsg.): 360-Grad-Beurteilungen. Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherm , M./ Sarges, W. (2002): 360°-Feedback. Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, D. (2008): Das 360-Grad-Feedback zur Unterstützung der Kompetenzerweiterung von Führungskräften, in: Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 15, S. 8-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert , C.F./ Yukl, G./ McDonald, R.A. (2003): Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback faciliator on the influence behavior of managers toward subordinates, in: Journal of Applied Pychology, 88, S. 561-569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smither , J.W./ London, M./ Flaut, R./ Vargas, Y./ Kuchine, I. (2003): Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study, in: Personnel Psychology, 56, S. 23-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, in: Personnel Psychology, 58, S. 33-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toegel , G./ Conger, J.A. (2003): 360-degree assessment: Time for reinvention, in: Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, S. 297-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tornow, W.W. (1993): Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a means or an end? In: Human Resource Management, 32, S. 221-229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tornow , W.W./ London, M. (1998) (Hrsg.): Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback. San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trost , A./ Bungart, W. (2004): Die Interraterreliabilität von Ergebnissen aus Mitarbeiterbefragungen, in: Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 48, S. 122-131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Velsor, E. (1998): Designing 360-degree feedback to enhance involvement, self-determination, and commitment. In: Tornow , W.W./ London, M. (Hrsg.), Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback, San Francisco. S. 149-195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman , D.A./ Atwater, L.E. (1998): The Power of 360° Feedback. Houston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman , D.A./ Atwater, L.E./ Antonioni, D. (1998): Has 360 degree feedback gone amok? In: Academy of Management Executive, 12 (2), S. 86-94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman , D.A./ Bowen, D.E. (1998): The acceptability of 360 degree appraisals: A customer-supplier relationship perspective, in: Human Resource Management, 37, S. 117-129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldmann, W.H. (2003): 360°-Beurteilung als Führungsaudit. München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker , A.G./ Smither, J.W. (1999): A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters, in: Personnel Psychology, 52, S. 393-423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, P. (1995): A 360-degree turn for the better, in: People Management, o.Jg. (2), S. 20-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woehr , D.J./ Sheehan, M.K./ Bennett, W. (2005): Assessing measurement equivalence across rating sources: A multitrait-multirater approach, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, S. 592-600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Unternehmens- und Technologieplanung, Mercator School of Management, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Lotharstr. 65, Duisburg, 47057, Deutschland

    Prof. Dr. Torsten J. Gerpott

Authors
  1. Prof. Dr. Torsten J. Gerpott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torsten J. Gerpott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Holstenhofweg 85, Hamburg, 22043, Germany

    Michel E. Domsch

  2. Gilcherweg 60 A, Hamburg, 22393, Germany

    Désirée Ladwig

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gerpott, T. (2013). 360º-Feedback-Verfahren als spezielle Variante der Mitarbeiterbefragung. In: Domsch, M., Ladwig, D. (eds) Handbuch Mitarbeiterbefragung. Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35295-9_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35295-9_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-35294-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-35295-9

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation