The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback Allan H Church Full Chapter

The Handbook of Strategic 360
Feedback Allan H. Church

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-handbook-of-strategic-360-feedback-allan-h-chur
ch/
i
THE HANDBOOK OF STRATEGIC

360 FEEDBACK
ii
iii
THE HANDBOOK
OF STRATEGIC
360 FEEDBACK
Edited by
Allan H. Church
David W. Bracken
John W. Fleenor
and
Dale S. Rose
1
iv
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2019
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
CIP Data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–0–19–087986–0
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
v
CONTENTS
Foreword ix
Marshall Goldsmith
Contributors xi
1. Introduction and Overview to The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback 1

Allan H. Church, David W. Bracken, John W. Fleenor, and Dale S. Rose
2. What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? 11

David W. Bracken
SECTION I 360 FOR DECISION-MAKING

3. Best Practices When Using 360 Feedback for Performance Appraisal 19
Emily D. Campion, Michael C. Campion, and Michael A. Campion
4. Historical Challenges of Using 360 Feedback for Performance Evaluation 61

Manuel London and James W. Smither
5. Technological Innovations in the Use of 360 Feedback

for Performance Management 77
Steven T. Hunt, Joe Sherwood, and Lauren M. Bidwell
6. Strategic 360 Feedback for Talent Management 97

Allan H. Church
7. Using Stakeholder Input to Support Strategic Talent Development at

Board and Senior Executive Levels: A Practitioner’s Perspective 123
Paul Winum
v
vi
vi / / Contents
SECTION II 360 FOR DEVELOPMENT

8. Application of 360 Feedback for Leadership Development 135
Cynthia McCauley and Stéphane Brutus
9. Moving Beyond “The Great Debate”: Recasting Developmental

360 Feedback in Talent Management 149
Jason J. Dahling and Samantha L. Chau
10. Team Development With Strategic 360 Feedback: Learning

From Each Other 159
Allison Traylor and Eduardo Salas
11. From Insight to Successful Behavior Change: The Real Impact of

Development-Focused 360 Feedback 175
Kenneth M. Nowack
12. Integrating Personality Assessment With 360 Feedback in Leadership

Development and Coaching 193
Robert B. Kaiser and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic
13. Strategic 360 Feedback for Organization Development 213

Allan H. Church and W. Warner Burke
SECTION III 360 METHODOLOGY AND MEASUREMENT
14. Factors Affecting the Validity of Strategic 360 Feedback Processes 237
John W. Fleenor
15. Can We Improve Rater Performance? 255

David W. Bracken and Christopher T. Rotolo
16. Rater Congruency: Why Ratings of the Same Person Differ 291
Adrian Furnham
17. Is 360 Feedback a Predictor or Criterion Measure? 309

Elaine D. Pulakos and Dale S. Rose
vii
Contents // vii
SECTION IV ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATIONS
18. The Journey From Development to Appraisal: 360 Feedback

at General Mills 327
Tracy M. Maylett
19. Harnessing the Potential of 360 Feedback in Executive

Education Programming 343
Jay A. Conger
20. An Alternative Form of Feedback: Using Stakeholder Interviews

to Assess Reputation at Walmart 353
Lorraine Stomski
21. Mitigating Succession Risk in the C-Suite: A Case Study 361

Seymour Adler
22. Integrating Strategic 360 Feedback at a Financial Services Organization 373

William J. Shepherd
23. Leveraging Team 360 to Drive Business-Enhancing Change Across the

Enterprise at Whirlpool Corporation 385
Stefanie Mockler, Rich McGourty, and Keith Goudy
24. What Kind of Talent Do We Have Here? Using 360s to Establish

a Baseline Assessment of Talent 397
Christine Corbet Boyce and Beth Linderbaum
SECTION V CRITICAL AND EMERGING TOPICS
25. 360 Feedback Versus Alternative Forms of Feedback: Which Feedback

Methods Are Best Suited to Enable Change? 409
Dale S. Rose
26. Gender, Diversity, and 360 Feedback 427

Anna Marie Valerio and Katina Sawyer
vii
viii / / Contents
27. Using Analytics to Gain More Insights From 360 Feedback Data 447
Alexis A. Fink and Evan F. Sinar
28. The Ethical Context of 360 Feedback 461

William H. Macey and Karen M. Barbera
29. The Legal Environment for 360 Feedback 479

John C. Scott, Justin M. Scott, and Katey E. Foster
30. Using 360 Feedback to Shape a Profession: Lessons Learned Over

30 Years From the Human Resource Competency Study (HRCS) 503
Dave Ulrich
31. The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback: Themes, Prognostications,

and Sentiments 517
Allan H. Church, David W. Bracken, John W. Fleenor, and Dale S. Rose
About the Editors 531

Name Index 539
Subject Index 549
ix
FOREWORD
The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback is a compilation of essays about the various aspects
of feedback written by the top practitioners and academics in the field. You will not find
a more comprehensive volume about this subject, so I congratulate you for picking this
book and exploring this most important subject.
Many refer to me as one of the “pioneers of 360 Feedback,” which just means that
I have been studying the subject for a long time! In the years that I have been an executive
coach, I have found that the key issue to recognize in giving feedback to top performers
is that the “no-news-is-good-news” feedback approach is not an effective management
technique for handling your superstars. Too often, we assume that these individuals
know how much we value their contributions, and we take the lazy approach to providing
feedback: “You know you’re doing a good job.” Or worse: “Write your own performance
review, and I’ll sign it.” Sound familiar? Here are some quick tips to more effectively dis-
cuss performance—and motivate—your top talent:
1. Approach the discussion with the same preparation and attention to detail that
you focus on team members with problem or growth opportunities. If they truly
are valued by you and the organization, give them the thoughtfulness, respect, and
time that they deserve.
2. Recognize that the quickest way to encourage a top performer to start looking
for a job elsewhere is to tell them: “There is nothing that you need to work on.”
Based on our database of over 4 million leaders, the highest ranked behavior of our
top performers is a commitment to self-improvement. These people want—and
need—to learn and grow. Help them identify opportunities.
3. Specify the value that these performers bring to you and to the organization.
Express the cause and effect of their contributions/role in the organization and
the appreciation that you personally feel.
ix
x
x / / Foreword
4. Be as honest as possible about future opportunities within the organization. Do

not commit beyond your span of control. It is better to be candid and maintain
trust than to have these individuals base decisions on deals that you cannot keep.
5. Recognize that as their leader, you have the greatest ability to retain these human
assets. The number one factor that influences people’s intent to stay or leave a job
is their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their leader, so keep them challenged;
provide them with ongoing feedback; and recognize/express your appreciation
for their contributions. Most important, recognize that you will have the most im-
pact on their continued growth and satisfaction.
These are just a few of the things I have learned about feedback over the years. I hope they
are helpful to you.
In The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback, you are going to learn much more from
exceptional thought leaders on the subject, including Dave Ulrich, Cindy McCauley,
Manny London, and, of course, the editors Allan, David, John, and Dale.
I know you will enjoy this outstanding work about Strategic 360 Feedback, and that
applying what you learn here in your organization, with your teams and leaders, will take
you and your companies from where you are to where you want to be.
Life is good.
Marshall Goldsmith
xi
CONTRIBUTORS
Seymour Adler, PhD Emily D. Campion, PhD

Partner, Aon Hewitt Assistant Professor of Management
Old Dominion University
Karen M. Barbera, PhD Consultant, Campion Consulting Services
Head of Client Delivery
CultureIQ Michael A. Campion, PhD
Krannert Chair Professor of Management
Lauren M. Bidwell, PhD Purdue University
Research Scientist Consultant, Campion Consulting Services
Human Capital Management Research
SAP SuccessFactors Michael C. Campion, PhD
Vackar College of Business and
Christine Corbet Boyce, PhD Entrepreneurship
Vice President and Principal Consultant University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
Right Management, Manpower Group Consultant, Campion Consulting Services
David W. Bracken, PhD Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, PhD
Principal, DWBracken & Associates Chief Talent Scientist, Manpower Group
Professor, Academic Program Professor of Business Psychology
Coordinator University College of London
Keiser University Graduate Studies Visiting Professor, Columbia University
Stéphane Brutus, PhD Samantha L. Chau, PhD
RBC Professor of Motivation and Director
Employee Performance Talent Assessment, Performance, and
John Molson School of Business Succession Management
Concordia University Novo Nordisk Inc.
W. Warner Burke, PhD Allan H. Church, PhD
E. L. Thorndike Professor of Psychology Senior Vice President
and Education Global Talent Assessment and
Department of Organization and Development
Leadership PepsiCo.
Teachers College
Columbia University
xi
xii
xii / / Contributors
Jay A. Conger, DBA Manuel London, PhD

Henry R. Kravis Professor of Leadership Dean, College of Business
Studies SUNY Distinguished Professor of
Claremont McKenna College Management
Stony Brook University
Jason J. Dahling, PhD
Professor and Chair William H. Macey, PhD
Psychology Department Senior Research Fellow
The College of New Jersey CultureFactors Inc.
Alexis A. Fink, PhD Tracy M. Maylett, EdD
Senior Leader, Talent Management Chief Executive Officer, DecisionWise
Intel Faculty, Organizational Behavior/HR
Marriott School of Business
Katey E. Foster, PhD
Brigham Young University
Associate Director and Litigation
Associate Practice Leader Cynthia McCauley, PhD
APTMetrics Inc. Senior Fellow
Center for Creative Leadership
John W. Fleenor, PhD
Senior Researcher Rich McGourty, PhD
Center for Creative Leadership Senior Consultant
Vantage Leadership Consulting
Adrian Furnham, DSc, DLit, DPhil
Department of Leadership and Stefanie Mockler, MA
Organizational Behavior Consultant and Head of Client Insights
Norwegian Business School Vantage Leadership Consulting
Marshall Goldsmith, PhD Kenneth M. Nowack, PhD
Founder, Marshall Goldsmith Group Chief Research Officer and President
Professor, Management Practice Envisia Learning Inc.
Tuck School of Business (Dartmouth) Editor-in-Chief, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research
Keith Goudy, PhD
Managing Partner Elaine D. Pulakos, PhD
Vantage Leadership Consulting Chief Executive Officer
PDRI
Steven T. Hunt, PhD
Senior Vice President Dale S. Rose, PhD
Human Capital Management Research President
SAP SuccessFactors 3D Group
Robert B. Kaiser, PhD Christopher T. Rotolo, PhD
Kaiser Leadership Solutions Vice President
Editor-in-Chief, Consulting Psychology Global Talent Management and
Journal: Practice and Research Organization Development
PepsiCo
Beth Linderbaum, PhD
Vice President and Principal Consultant
Right Management, ManpowerGroup
xii
Contributors // xiii
Eduardo Salas, PhD James W. Smither, PhD

Allyn R. and Gladys M. Cline Professor Professor
and Chair Management and Leadership Department
Department of Psychological Sciences La Salle University
Rice University
Lorraine Stomski, PhD
Katina Sawyer, PhD Vice President, Global Learning &
Assistant Professor of Management Leadership
The George Washington University Walmart
John C. Scott, PhD Allison Traylor
Chief Operating Officer and Cofounder Doctoral Student
APT Metrics Rice University
Past Editor-in-Chief, Industrial and
Dave Ulrich
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives
Rensis Likert Professor of Business
on Science and Practice
Ross School of Business
Justin M. Scott, Esq. University of Michigan
Scott Employment Law Partner, The RBL Group
P.C.
Anna Marie Valerio, PhD
William J. Shepherd, PhD President
Director, Enterprise Learning and Executive Leadership Strategies
Development
Paul Winum, PhD
Wendy’s
Senior Partner
Joe Sherwood, MS RHR International LLP
Graduate Student
Portland State University
Evan F. Sinar, PhD
Chief Scientist and Vice President
DDI
xvi
1
/ // 1 / // INTRODUCTION AND

OVERVIEW TO THE HANDBOOK
OF STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK
ALLAN H. CHURCH, DAVID W. BRACKEN,

JOHN W. FLEENOR, AND DALE S. ROSE
Where would we be without feedback? It is a constant aspect of

our daily lives. We received feedback as children on how to behave, as students on what
we have learned, as friends and partners in our relationships, as parents on how we are
raising our children, and of course, as employees in the workplace. Whether it is feedback
on our performance via a formal appraisal process; from a career conversation regarding
our career prospects; or from our direct reports, peers, and others regarding our leader-
ship and management behaviors, there is no escaping the impact or role of this “gift,” as
some people like to call it, in our lives. It should come as no surprise then, that the act of
collecting and delivering feedback in organizational settings has evolved from a disjointed
set of informal conversations to a formal process that is a staple of human resource (HR)
and management practices in the workplace today. Although many terms have been used
since its inception in the early 1950s and surge in popularity in the 1990s in organization
development (OD) and industrial–organizational (I-O) psychology, today what we call
360 Feedback is one of the most standard and commonly used HR practices in organi-
zations to measure, develop, and drive change in employee behavior (Bracken, Rose, &
Church, 2016). Recent benchmark studies, for example, have reported that upward of
50% of all organizations have some form of 360 Feedback mechanism in place that is used
for talent management decision making purposes (e.g., 3D Group, 2016; United States
1
2
2 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback
Office of Personnel Management, 2012). The most recent overview of 360 Feedback in
the field, offered by Bracken et al. (2016), defines the process this way:
360 Feedback is a process for collecting , quantifying , and reporting co-

worker
observations about an individual (i.e., a ratee) that facilitates/enables the (1) evalu-
ation of rater perceptions of the degree to which specific behaviors are exhibited, and
the (2) analysis of meaningful comparisons of rater perceptions across multiple ratees
and between specific groups of raters for an individual ratee for the purpose of creating
sustainable individual, group and/or organizational change in behaviors valued by the
organization. (p. 764)
While the early stages of 360 Feedback, with a few notable exceptions, were pri-
marily focused on individual development coaching, leadership development, and or-
ganizational change efforts, today the process of collecting information on employee
behaviors from multiple sources (e.g., direct reports, peers, supervisors, customers) has
become an integral part of many HR and talent management processes, as well as use
for decision-making purposes. These include areas such as performance management,
succession planning, high-potential identification, and internal placement and promo-
tion decisions. A recent benchmark study of top companies reported that 70% used 360
Feedback as the number one tool, along with personality measures and interviews, as
a means for both assessing and developing their high-potential individuals and senior
executives (Church & Rotolo, 2013). While there was considerable debate on the effi-
cacy of data from 360 Feedback processes in these types of applications at the turn of
the millennium (e.g., Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001; London, 2001), Bracken
et al. (2016) noted the debate is over. 360 Feedback is no longer a fad or phenomenon
but instead a theoretically grounded, highly researched, and well-established practice
area that has been shown to have a significant impact on individual, group (team), and
organizational performance.
Almost 20 years ago, Bracken et al. (2001) edited the Handbook of Multisource
Feedback, which was the first attempt to bring the best and latest thinking on the topic of
360 Feedback together into a single volume for practitioners and researchers in the field.
The title itself reflects the changing nature of the term during that time period. For many
years, that edition served as the “manual” for designing, implementing, and evaluating
360 Feedback systems in organizational settings. While several important review articles
have appeared since in the academic literature clarifying the definition and intent of the
approach, discussing major themes in practice, and offering key learnings to date (e.g.,
Bracken et al., 2016; Nowack & Mashihi, 2012), nothing with the same breadth or depth
3
Introduction and Overview // 3
has been offered that has matched the original handbook. Given the myriad changes in
the business environment (e.g., globalization, new forms of organizations and the nature
of work, generational differences and value structures), new capabilities that technology
offers in this area (e.g., digital processes and Big Data applications), and the increasing
pressures on organizations to address existing and emerging talent demands (Boudreau,
Jesuthasan, & Creelman, 2015; Church & Burke, 2017; McDonnell, 2011; Meister &
Willyerd, 2010; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2013), we felt it was time to revisit the “state
of the science and practice” of 360 Feedback with a new definitive handbook on this
important topic.
As a result, we decided to close that gap. What you have in your hands is the Strategic
Handbook of 360 Feedback. This volume represents a significant leap forward in our col-
lective understanding of the systematic process of collecting behavioral data from mul-
tiple sources in the workplace and using the resulting feedback to enhance individual
development, inform talent decision-making, identify actionable organizational insights,
and drive organizational change. In preparing this handbook, we have once again turned
to both deep experts and leading edge researchers and practitioners who are engaged
in the art and science of 360 Feedback today across a multitude of applications and or-
ganizational contexts. Prominent academics and scientist–practitioners, including Adler,
Barbera, Bracken, Brutus, Burke, Campion, Chamorro-Premuzic, Church, Conger, Fink,
Fleenor, Furnham, Hunt, Kaiser, London, Macey, McCauley, Nowack, Pulakos, Rose,
Rotolo, Salas, Scott, Shephard, Sinar, Smither, Stomski, Ulrich, Valerio, and Winum,
among others, have offered entirely new discussions, reviews, and applications on the use
of 360 Feedback in organizations today. More than just views of experts, we wanted this
book to be practical. We wanted to provide ideas, perspectives, and guidance that any or-
ganization could readily apply. To this end, the single largest section presents seven case
studies describing the ways 360 Feedback is used by some of the largest, most successful
companies of our time, including PepsiCo, Whirlpool, General Mills, and Walmart, along
with a handful from other industries that chose to remain anonymous (which seems ap-
propriate for a volume on 360 Feedback). Thus, this book represents a truly important
collection of the latest thinking and best practice knowledge available anywhere on the
subject.
What makes the handbook unique, however, is our emphasis on the strategic intent
and focus of many 360 Feedback processes. Until now, the vast majority of the litera-
ture has centered on the “what” and “how” of these data-driven processes. Our goal
was to go beyond the basics this time and focus on how 360 Feedback can and should
be used at the individual, group, and organization levels to support the strategic goals
of the business. While the fundamentals are clearly important, and we do offer some
4
guidance on those where appropriate, we would also direct the reader back to the orig-
inal Handbook of Multisource Feedback for tactical guidance that has withstood the test
of time. For this handbook, we offer a higher level perspective linked to the systems
level of an organization, yet one grounded in practical realities with critical discussions,
case studies, deeper application examples, and the latest emerging topics and research
to assist the reader in implementing the best and most effective 360 Feedback systems
they can.
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
In designing the flow and contents for the handbook, we decided to structure the book
based on three major sections that we felt would appeal to the variety of readers (and
those designing, implementing, and researching 360 Feedback systems today). After an
overview of 360 as a strategic process, the contents are presented in the major sections
discussed next.
Section I: 360 for Decision-Making
Chapters in Section I focus on the design considerations, implications, and best practices
(e.g., the latest technology) for using 360 Feedback in processes impacting employee
outcomes, such as performance management, talent management, individual assessment,
and high-potential identification and in senior executive succession contexts. Given these
areas reflect the evolution of the practice from development to decision-making, we high-
light them first to emphasize the shift in their importance in organizations. As organiza-
tions seek to qualify the value of 360 Feedback and utilize the results obtained, these are
some of the hot topics for many companies today.
Section II: 360 for Development
Chapters in Section II reflect the more deeply rooted and commonly used applications of
360 Feedback, including leadership development, team development, linking with per-
sonality data for enhancing impact, OD, and individual behavior change. In addition, new
applications, such as using these types of processes for building functional capabilities, are
also discussed. While many practitioners will be familiar with some of these approaches,
the content presented here represents new thinking and perspectives for consideration.
With 20 additional years of experience in these areas, it is clear the field has learned a
5
great deal about what makes developmental 360 Feedback efforts work (and not work)
in a variety of settings.
Section III: 360 Methodology and Measurement
Given the importance of ensuring strategic 360 Feedback applications are actually meas-
uring what they purport to measure, the chapters in Section III focus on helping both
practitioners and researchers understand the underlying mechanics of how the process
works and the levers needed for success. The emphasis here is on critical measurement
topics, such as the best ways to improve rater performance (i.e., enhance the quality and
distribution of ratings), understand rating congruence between different sources and
what to do about it, whether 360 is a predictor or a criterion measure, and the factors to
consider for impacting the validity of these systems.
Section IV: Organization Applications
With a firm understanding of the different types of practices and measurement

components involved, Section IV focuses on more specific case study applications in
organizational settings. Chapters here focus on the use of 360 Feedback in a variety of
contexts for both development and decision-making and reflect a number of different
and somewhat intriguing approaches. While some of the topics are similar (though dif-
ferent cases) from those in previous sections, such as performance management, leader-
ship development, talent assessment, and succession, others present unique approaches,
including an emphasis on reputation, working with the board of directors, and team
interventions.
Section V: Critical and Emerging Topics
The final section of the book focuses on critical and emerging topics for the field.
Interestingly, while some of these are consistent with concepts that were identified as
early trends in 2000 (e.g., ethics issues, gender and diversity considerations, and legal
implications, particularly when using 360 Feedback for decision-making), others repre-
sent entirely new areas that are emerging today (e.g., new perspectives using data ana-
lytics, alternate forms of feedback, used of 360 to influence the HR profession itself, etc.).
The fact that we identified both ongoing critical issues and new emerging trends speaks
to the ubiquitous nature of 360 Feedback as an integral HR process.
6
KEY THEMES IDENTIFIED
In collecting, writing, and reviewing the other 30 chapters included in this volume, we
have been struck by a number of themes that kept emerging almost regardless of the topic
areas discussed. These are summarized as follows:
1. Purpose Matters: One of the central considerations in any strategic 360 Feedback
system is the purpose of the process or program. If one were to read through
the contents of this handbook end to end it, might be apparent that some of the
recommendations and best practices offered seem to contradict each other in cer-
tain areas. Although we would argue that all strategic 360 Feedback efforts should
be linked to the goals, values, mission, or vision of the business; be integrated with
other HR systems; have solid measurement properties; and be inclusive of the
target audience, the way in which decisions are made regarding these factors will be
influenced by the overall purpose of the process. For example, a 360 Feedback pro-
cess designed to drive large-scale organizational change may be focused on an ideal
or future state set of cultural imperatives, while one directed at individual develop-
ment might be based on enhancing, via a highly facilitated coaching and develop-
ment program, specific leadership competencies needed for individual effectiveness.
A performance management–based 360 Feedback program will likely have a dif-
ferent set of process rules, timing requirements, and measurement standards for
validation than one focused on group dynamics or team interventions. If the em-
phasis is on high-potential identification or C-suite succession, the process might
be highly selective and perhaps less transparent with respect to certain outputs (e.g.,
fit to senior profile indices or resulting “high-potential” designation based on the
data) versus one focused on enhancing a wide range of managerial skills around
collaboration that is not linked to compensation or promotions. The key, then, as
in any data-driven consulting effort, when designing a new 360 Feedback system
(Bracken et al., 2016; Church & Waclawski, 2001) is to contract (or determine)
the true purpose of the process up front before heading into the rest of the design
and implementation stages. Moreover, it is equally critical to fully understand the
purpose, both stated and real—sometimes they may not be the same—when con-
sidering revisions or enhancements to an existing ongoing application.
2. Feedback Is No Longer for Development Only: Although this was already a key
premise going into the structure of the handbook (as noted previously) and the se-
lection of chapter topics based on prior arguments we have made elsewhere (e.g.,
Bracken & Church, 2013; Bracken et al., 2016), many of the authors echoed our
7
conviction even in sections not intended for that part of the discussion. Although
we would all agree that 360 Feedback is a key process aimed at developing
individuals (and groups and organizations), we were struck by how many of our
colleagues highlighted the ways in which these processes and the data gathered as a
result can be used to inform or make decisions in organizations today. While some
still support the development-only model, and in targeted circumstances such as
pure leadership capability-building programs, culture change efforts, or targeted
coaching interventions, the general trend appears to be toward using the data in
ways that add value to the individual and the business. The last is key, of course,
to our definition of whether a given 360 Feedback process is strategic in nature
so it makes sense. Still, it appears as though the future some of us discussed in
the original handbook (Bracken et al., 2001) is now the present. 360 Feedback is
the most commonly used tool for identifying high-potential individuals, assessing
senior executives for succession-planning efforts (e.g., Church & Rotolo, 2013;
Silzer & Church, 2010), and increasingly finding its way into more robust perfor-
mance management systems. The key, of course, which is highlighted in many of
the chapters here, is to ensure the purpose and design elements are done the right
way. It is not simply a case of using the same old 360 Feedback tools an organiza-
tion has in place (or introducing some standard tool off the shelf) and changing
the primary intent. That would result in serious risk to the organization and poten-
tial chaos among the employee population. Rather, we see organizations moving
toward designing and implementing 360 Feedback systems that are focused on
transparency of purpose, use sound measurement properties, are linked to the
strategic direction of the business, and are empirically validated to ensure the
results are predicting the right types of expected outcomes.
At this point, it is not about whether we should or should not use 360 data for
these more strategic types of decision-making applications, but rather how best to
do so. As the legal landscape continues to increase in complexity, including new
data privacy regulations as well as adhering to the standard Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in the United States, it is para-
mount that organizations follow the recommendations for practice included in this
volume to ensure they are taking the steps required to utilize their 360 Feedback
systems to the best possible advantage (and least possible risk). This means
ensuring that practitioners trained in I-O psychology and related disciplines are
involved in the design and validation process along the way.
3. The Technology of 360 Feedback Is Both an Art and a Science: Although much of
the content of this handbook focuses on the science of 360 Feedback systems,
8
we believe it is also important to recognize that creating effective strategic 360

processes is an art form as well. Just because people can do something (e.g., create
and launch their own tools online) does not mean it is always a good idea. While
technology has enabled a significantly broader access to 360 Feedback tools than
ever before (some of us even remember doing these processes using optical scan
forms and paper-based methods) and to all types of professionals, including those
in HR and even line managers, there is no guarantee that it will be done well. In
fact, we have seen many examples where well-intentioned leaders have created
their own 360 processes using poorly written items, lopsided scales, and risky ad-
ministration and reporting designs. While at first this might seem empowering
to them and encouraging to those of us who have deep experience in the process
(after all, it does speak to the perceived value of the methodology and the data),
the risk associated with these rogue implementations is significant. Biased data,
breaches in confidentiality, and inappropriate insights can lead to bad talent man-
agement decisions and larger negative consequences in the organization in terms
of declines in employee engagement, trust in the company, and belief in the in-
tegrity of its leadership (not to mention legal exposure and poor business perfor-
mance if the wrong leader is placed in a role based on a poor measure). Moreover,
blind reliance on the science itself is no better. The emerging practice areas of
Big Data and talent analytics suffers from a similar argument in that without the
appropriate strategic oversight and context on the part of those developing the
insights, the resulting information delivered may be entirely off base or suspect
from a moral and ethical level (Church & Burke, 2017). The more we rely on ar-
tificial intelligence and machine learning to drive our efforts in organizations, the
more potential we have for these issues here as well. How do machines know what
the right type of linkage or relationship is to focus on when the people designing
and managing them do not? Thus, the art of 360 Feedback lies within (a) the
content that is to be measured (i.e., the identification and drafting of unique
competencies and behaviors); (b) the design and implementation decisions with
appropriate trade-offs regarding what will and will not work in a given organiza-
tional setting; (c) the determination of the appropriate and impactful insights for
both individuals and organizations for development and decision-making; and
(d) methods to ensure that all those actions were performed as recommended,
with adjustment and consequences for deviations by any user. The science of 360
Feedback (i.e., ensuring the right levels of transparency, confidentiality, validity,
and accountability are present), on the other hand, has key elements that must be
met every time a new process is launched. In thinking about the chapter contents
9
we selected for the handbook and those we did not pursue, this point has become
even more salient for us. We firmly believe that the practice of 360 Feedback needs
to be grounded in the appropriate philosophical, theoretical, and methodological
models to ensure lasting success for both development and decision-making in
talent management–related applications.
4. 360 Feedback Is Here to Stay: Years ago, there were many debates in the field con-
cerning whether 360 Feedback was simply a fad or a truly important and lasting in-
tervention for individuals and organizations. While some practitioners suggested
it would one day fade into the distance, benchmark data cited previously as well as
our work on the handbook have shown this not to be the case at all. If anything,
360 Feedback as a process is more vibrant and integrated than ever before. It is
one of the core tools that organizations rely on for helping their employees grow
and develop, as well as informing talent management and performance-based
outcomes. Even though not every application described in this book follows our
formal definition of 360 Feedback, we are excited to see that the basic concepts
come to life in such comprehensive and innovative ways—from individuals to
teams to the organization as a system, to the board of directors. Collecting behav-
iorally based ratings and observations (e.g., write-in comments) from a variety of
others in an organization and using that data for meeting individual growth and
organizational talent needs is a vital component of the way organizations do busi-
ness. Moreover, even if (or when) the robots take over for much of the work that
leaders, managers, and HR do in organizations today, the ability to interpret and
contextualize (and provide one-to-one feedback directly to clients) results and
insights from 360 Feedback processes will remain in the hands of “human” trained
professionals (Dotlich, 2018). There is a future yet for all of us.
CONCLUSION
In closing, the purpose of The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback is to highlight the very
latest theory, research, and practice regarding the state of the field in a comprehensive
yet approachable manner. In this volume, you will find recommendations, best practices,
case examples, and key questions to consider for almost any type of 360 Feedback appli-
cation currently imaginable. The key to all of it is ensuring the work we do around the
process is purposeful and strategic in nature. We hope the book meets expectations and
helps others in organizations, whether they are I-O psychologists, OD practitioners, HR
business partners, learning and development professionals, or leaders and managers in
the business, achieve these lofty goals.
10
REFERENCES
Boudreau, J. W., Jesuthasan, R., & Creelman, D. (2015). Lead the work: Navigating a world beyond employment.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “new” performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on
the unrealized potential of 360 degree feedback. People & Strategy, 36(2), 34–40.
Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360 degree feedback.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(4), 761–794.
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Four trends shaping the future of organizations and organization de-
velopment. OD Practitioner, 49(3), 14–22.
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2013). How are top companies assessing their high-potentials and senior
executives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
65(3), 199–223.
Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (2001). A five phase framework for designing a successful multirater feedback
system. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(2), 82–95.
Dotlich, D. (2018). In first person: The future of C-suite potential in the age of robotics. People & Strategy,
41(1), 48–49.
London, M. (2001). The great debate: Should multisource feedback be used for administration or devel-
opment only? In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource
feedback (pp. 368–388). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
McDonnell, A. (2011). Still fighting the “war for talent”? Bridging the science versus practice gap. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 26, 169–173. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9220-y
Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2010 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop, and keep
tomorrow’s employees today. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Nowack, K. M., & Mashihi, S. (2012). Evidence-based answers to 15 questions about leveraging 360-degree
feedback. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(5), 157–182.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2010). Identifying and assessing high potential talent: Current organizational
practices. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative
(pp. 213–279; SIOP Professional Practice Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3D Group. (2016). Current practices in 360 degree feedback (5th ed.). Emeryville, CA: 3D Group.
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Executive development best practices guide.
Washington, DC: Author.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2013). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers,
Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
1
/ // 2 / // WHAT IS “STRATEGIC

360 FEEDBACK”?
DAVID W. BRACKEN
A bevy of associates and I (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, Pollman, &

McCauley, 1997; Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor,
& Summers, 2001) have diagnosed the application of 360 Feedback for solely develop-
mental purposes versus use in decisions about employees. Some have argued that the
distinction between “development only” and “decision-making” is either not fruitful
(Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005) or an artificial one (Bracken & Church, 2013). But,
the discussion has not gone away, and drawing attention to the requirements for de-
sign, implementation, and use of data provided by a 360 process when used as an as-
sessment can be useful (Bracken & Timmreck, 2001; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, &
Summers, 2001).
There is no source that I can point to where the phrase “Strategic 360 Feedback” is
used in the literature, though some vendors have integrated the phrase into their mar-
keting. Dale Rose and I have been using the name “Strategic 360 Forum” for about
6 years in conjunction with a consortium of 360 users where the primary criterion for
membership was the use of the tool for decision-making (i.e., integration into human re-
source (HR) systems). This book puts a stake in the ground regarding what Strategic 360
Feedback means, much as we have made a definitive statement about what 360 Feedback
is and is not (Bracken, Rose, & Church, 2016).
This chapter integrates the discussions with Chapter 3 by Campion, Campion, and
Campion, and I encourage the reader to be familiar with that content. In Box 3.1, the first
major heading is Strategic Considerations, and I quote many of their propositions and use
11
12
them to make some assertions regarding their relevance to a Strategic 360 Feedback pro-
cess (though my assertions may not match those of the Campions were they given the
luxury and space to do so in their own chapter).
The definition of Strategic 360 Feedback that we present here contains very little that
has not been said before. Bernardin (1986) was perhaps the earliest proponent of using
feedback in performance appraisals. We point to London, Smither, and Adsit’s (1997)
“Accountability” article as the most comprehensive statement of the potential of the pro-
cess to improve decisions in talent management systems when used correctly, including
applying the concept of accountability to focal leaders, raters, and the organization. This
handbook attempts to move the field ahead by collecting best practices and experiences
where many of those ideas have been applied in the interim 30+ years.
WHAT IS STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK?
When this handbook was conceptualized and came into being with the invitations to
our contributors, we created an operational definition of strategic as it is applied to 360
Feedback processes. Our expectation was that those who were invited would make their
decision regarding whether to accept based on whether their experiences and expertise
were consistent with the book’s purpose, as well as providing guidance about how their
content should explicitly acknowledge those ties.
Here is our four-point definition of Strategic 360 Feedback:
1. The content must be derived from the organization’s strategy and values, which
are unique to that organization. Campion et al. (Chapter 3) stated this require-
ment as, “The process and performance indicators (items) rated should be linked
to the organizational strategy and aligned with business goals and objectives” (p.
22). The content is sometimes derived from the organization’s values, where they
can be explicit (the ones that hang on the wall) or implicit (which some people
call “culture”).
Campion et al. (Chapter 3) take this requirement a step further by applying it not
only to the content but also to the entire process: “The concept of using 360 Feedback
should be consistent with the culture of the organization to ensure readiness and fit (e.g.,
open communication, open to feedback, peer review valued, not overly hierarchical,
learning and development oriented, low fear of reprisal, etc.)” (p. 21).
This practice is a bit tricky because 360 Feedback can help create a climate via both
the behaviors exhibited by leaders in support of the process and aligned behavior change
13
What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? // 13
that occurs because of feedback. This view of culture is consistent with my definition of
organizational culture, adapted from the book Execution (Bossidy & Charan, 2002), as
the behaviors that leaders exhibit, encourage, and tolerate. The behaviors of leadership and
focal leaders (if they are different) are both under scrutiny by the followership before,
during, and especially after the 360 process is conducted. This, in turn, leads to another
related best practice from the Campions in Chapter 3: “The process should be developed
with the input of subject matter experts (e.g., incumbents, managers, users of the system,
etc.) to ensure that it meets their needs and expectations, and that they will be committed
to its implementation” (p. 22). This specific practice expands alignment to all facets of
the process, starting with purpose. The health of a 360 system is highly dependent on its
formal and informal support by all stakeholders, even though each stakeholder group has
different priorities and definitions of success (Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers,
2001). If any of those groups is not committed to its success, it is likely that the process
will not survive beyond its first round of feedback collection.
2. The process must be designed and implemented in such a way that the results are
sufficiently reliable and valid that we can use them to make decisions about the
leaders (as in Point 3). This is not an easy goal to achieve, as discussed by Fleenor
in Chapter 14 and Bracken and Rotolo in Chapter 15. Despite the challenges in
establishing both reliability and validity in 360 processes, benchmark studies con-
tinue to indicate that 360s are the most commonly used form of assessment in
both public and private sectors (Church & Rotolo, 2013; United States Office of
Personnel Management, 2012).
When 360 Feedback processes are used for decision-making, the knee-jerk reaction of
some practitioners is to treat them as “tests,” subject to psychometric scrutiny that often
includes demands for criterion-related validity studies. This topic is further explored by
Pulakos and Rose in Chapter 17, where they present the case for the use of 360 data as
both predictor and criterion (performance) measures.
3. The results of Strategic 360s are integrated with important talent management
and development processes, such as leadership development and training, per-
formance management, staffing (internal movement), succession planning, and
high-potential processes. Referring again to Chapter 3, the Campions state, “The
process should be integrated with other human resource (HR) systems, such as
compensation or promotion” (p. 21). Integration with HR processes is clearly a
type of decision-making. Allan and I (Bracken & Church, 2013) contended that
14
even supposedly “development-only” processes that result in decisions regarding

training and other developmental experiences are decisions that often have sub-
stantial effects on the careers of the focal leaders. Under the umbrella of “talent
management,” almost any decision could be improved by multisource input.
Because 360 Feedback processes are systems whose validity is affected by all aspects of
implementation (Bracken & Rose, 2011; Bracken & Rotolo, 2018), we need to repeat the
London et al. (1997) mantra that integration into HR/talent management systems also
creates and requires accountability. While we usually think of accountability as referring
primarily to the focal leader, London et al. (1997) forced us to examine the signs that the
organization supports the system by its actions and decisions. As another best practice
proposed by Campion et al. (Chapter 3), “The process should have the support of top man-
agement” (p. XX). This best practice may be the sine qua non of Strategic 360 Feedback.
By definition, if it is not supported by senior management, it is no longer “strategic.”
4. Participation must be inclusive, that is, a census of the leaders/managers in the

organizational unit (e.g., total company, division, location, function, level). This
practice is not included in the Campion et al. (Chapter 3) list of best practices but
was initially proposed by Bracken and Rose (2011). We say “leaders/managers”
because a true 360 requires that direct reports are a rater group. One reason for
this requirement is that, if the data are to be used to make personnel decisions, it
usually requires comparing individuals, which in turn requires that everyone has
the same data available. This requirement also enables us to use Strategic 360s to
create organizational change, as in “large scale change occurs when a lot of people
change just a little” (Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001, p. 1).
Some of our contributors present case studies where the focal leader is just that (i.e.,
a single person). If all the other requirements are met (alignment, reliability/validity,
used for decision-making), then we would support the position that there is no need
for comparisons, and the decision will be made on some other metric(s). If there are
other focal leaders being considered as part of the decision (e.g., promotion), then those
leaders should participate as well.
USES FOR STRATEGIC 360 FEEDBACK
A 360 Feedback system is likely to be considered strategic if it is designed to serve one or

more of the following uses:
15
What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? // 15
• Creates sustainable change in behaviors valued by an organization (i.e., those

aligned with values, competencies, or strategies)
• Creates behavior change in key leader(s) whose actions carry significant influence
through decision-making and modeling
• Informs decisions integral to organization-wide talent management processes (e.g.,
pay, promotions, development, training, staffing) or corporate strategy (pursue
growth, focus on operational efficiencies, consolidate operations)
• Informs decisions (selection, development, retention, assignments) of key
subpopulations (e.g., high potentials, succession plans)
• Supports the creation and maintenance of a feedback culture that creates awareness
coupled with accountability for change
QUALIFIERS
Let me hasten to say that (a) all 360s, strategic or not, should have a development focus,
and (b) none of this minimizes the value of 360 processes that are used in support of the
development of leaders, one at a time. There is no question that innumerable leaders have
benefitted from the awareness created by feedback, often also supported by a coach who
helps not only by managing the use of the feedback but also by creating accountability
for the constructive use of the feedback. We are not proposing, by any stretch, that those
types of 360 Feedback processes need to change.
We do request, however, that practitioners who are from that school be open to
the proposal that there are uses of this powerful tool that can be of benefit outside the
development-only, one-person-at-a-time world. I had a short debate on LinkedIn with a
development-only proponent that ended abruptly when he exclaimed, “It should be used
only for development. Full stop.” (He is British.) For him, there was no use in further
discussion. On the contrary, we hope that a book like this demonstrates that there can be
productive, parallel (sometimes intersecting) universes of applications for 360 Feedback.
REFERENCES
Bernardin, J. H. (1986). Subordinate appraisal: A valuable source of information about managers. Human
Resource Management, 25(3), 421–439.
Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. New York, NY: Crown
Business.
Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “new” performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on
the unrealized potential of 360 degree feedback. People & Strategy, 36(2), 34–40.
Bracken, D. W., Dalton, M. A., Jako, R. A., McCauley, C. D., & Pollman, V. A. (1997). Should 360-degree feed-
back be used only for developmental purposes? Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
16
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 Business and Psychology, 26, 183–192.
Bracken, D. W., Rose, D. S., & Church, A. H. (2016). The evolution and devolution of 360° feedback.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(4), 761–794. doi:10.1017/
iop.2016.93
Bracken, D. W., & Timmreck, C. W. (2001). Guidelines for multisource feedback when used for decision
making. In D. W. Bracken, C. W. Timmreck, & A. H. Church (Eds.), The handbook of multisource feedback
(pp. 495–510). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. /
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., Fleenor, J. W., & Summers, L. (2001). 360 feedback from another angle.
Human Resource Management, 40(1), 3–20.
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2013). How are top companies assessing their high potentials and senior
executives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal, Practice and Research,
65(3), 199–223.
London, M., Smither, J. W., & Adsit, D. J. (1997). Accountability: The Achilles’ heel of multisource feedback.
Group & Organization Management, 22(2), 162–184.
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.
United States Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Executive development best practices guide.
Washington, DC: Author.
17
/ // // // // // // // // // SE C T I O N I / // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // //
360 FOR DECISION-MAKING

18
19
/ // 3 / // BEST PRACTICES WHEN

USING 360 FEEDBACK
FOR PERFORMANCE
APPRAISAL
EMILY D. CAMPION, MICHAEL C. CAMPION,

AND MICHAEL A. CAMPION
The 360 Feedback process was originally created for the sole
purposes of managerial development (Hazucha, Hezlett, & Schneider, 1993). Defined
as the solicitation of anonymous performance ratings of one individual from multiple
sources (e.g., peers, subordinates, bosses, and customers), 360 Feedback (360s) is capable
of examining the breadth and depth of a worker’s capabilities within his or her assigned
roles. More recently, organizations have implemented this powerful tool as a perfor-
mance management (PM) mechanism. However, some scholars warn against using 360s
for anything more than development, citing the system’s poor criterion-related validity,
misalignment between the goals of PM and the characteristics of 360 Feedback (DeNisi
& Kluger, 2000), potential social costs of inviting others into a high-stakes decision
(Funderburg & Levy, 1997), and the risk of ineffectively using and communicating the
information gathered about an employee (Tornow, 1993). It is not surprising, though,
that managers would be inclined to use 360s to gain a clearer picture of their employees’
performance when making pay or promotion decisions, and there is no doubt managers
will continue to do so despite the warnings of researchers. Therefore, in an effort to re-
spond to this need and extend Campion, Campion, and Campion’s (2015) article on
19
20
20 / / 3 6 0 for D ecision-Making
why organizations should be using 360s for PM, in this chapter we provide a “how-to” re-
source by reviewing the literature on 360s and presenting a list of 56 research-supported
best practices to effectively use them for PM.
DESIGN OF REVIEW AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
We conducted an exhaustive review of the research and professional literature accumulated

to date on the topic of 360s using PsycINFO, Business Source Premiere databases, and
Google Scholar. Our search yielded 221 articles or book chapters on this topic. This
chapter includes the professional literature because not all topics have been subjected to
research analysis, and professional practice has valuable insight that is not represented in
the current body of research literature. The result is a list of 56 best practices explaining
how to conduct and use 360s for the purposes of PM.
We define best practices as recommendations deriving from research findings,
recommendations from professionals, or clear inferences from the literature regarding
how to incorporate 360s into PM systems in organizations. It is important to note that
these are not minimum expectations or required industry standards, but instead are ideal
standards that well-run organizations might aspire to achieve. It is not expected that an
organization will meet all of these best practices, and it does not mean that failing to
meet a best practice indicates a fault with the organization’s process. Sometimes, best
practices are not applicable in a given context, not necessary, too expensive, or otherwise
discretionary. These best practices are divided in terms of major topic areas (e.g., strategic
considerations, item content, rating scales, administration, etc.). The best practices are
identified and summarized in Box 3.1, which also presents all the supporting citations in
order to illustrate the magnitude of support and to direct interested readers and future
researchers to the source documents.
BEST PRACTICES FOR USING 360S FOR PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Box 3.1 lists 56 best practices for implementing 360s for PM. For ease of under-
standing, the practices are grouped into nine categories: strategic considerations,
items, scales, raters, administrations, training/instruction, interpretation of feed-
back, development, and review. In the sections that follow, we define and address the
importance of each category, briefly discuss practices illustrative of each category,
and propose future work needed to further elaborate on the practices within each
category.
21
BOX 3.1
BEST PRACTICES FOR USING 360 FEEDBACK FOR PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT
BEST PRACTICE IN 360 FEEDBACK
Strategic Considerations
1. The process should be integrated with other human resource (HR) systems,
such as compensation or promotion.
Antonioni (1996); Atwater, Brett, and Charles (2007); Atwater and Waldman (1998);
Atwater, Waldman, and Brett (2002); Bancroft et al. (1993); Bernardin (1986); Bernardin
and Beatty (1987); Bernardin, Dehmus, and Redmon (1993); Bozeman (1997); Bracken
(1994); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken, Timmreck,
Fleenor, and Summers (2001); Brutus and Derayeh (2002); Carson (2006); Church and
Bracken (1997); Church and Waclawski (2001); Fleenor, Taylor, and Chappelow (2008);
Ghorpade (2000); Gillespie (2005); Heidemeier and Moser (2009); Herold and Fields
(2004); R. Hoffman (1995); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997);
London and Beatty (1993); London, Smither, and Adsit (1997); London, Wohlers, and
Gallagher (1990); McCarthy and Garavan (2007); McEvoy and Buller (1987); Metcalfe
(1998); Morgan, Cannan, and Cullinane (2005); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Peiperl
(2001); Rogers, Rogers, and Metlay (2002); 3D Group (2013); Toegel and Conger
(2003); Tornow (1993a); Tyson and Ward (2004); van Hooft, Flier, and Minne (2006);
Vinson (1996); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Waldman, Atwater, and Antonioni
(1998); Wimer and Nowack (1998)
2. The concept of using 360 Feedback should be consistent with the culture of
the organization to ensure readiness and fit (e.g., open communication, open to
feedback, peer review valued, not overly hierarchical, learning and development
oriented, low fear of reprisal, etc.).
Atwater et al. (2002, 2007); Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bancroft et al. (1993);
Bracken (1994); Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, Pollman, and Hollenbeck (1997);
Carson (2006); Church and Waclawski (2001); Conway, Lombardo, and Sanders
(2001); Drew (2009); Fleenor, Smither, Atwater, Braddy, and Sturm (2010); Fleenor
et al. (2008); Funderburg and Levy (1997); Furnham and Stringfield (1994); Gillespie
(2005); Heidemeier and Moser (2009); Hezlett (2008); R. Hoffman (1995); Lepsinger
and Lucia (1997); London and Beatty (1993); London and Smither (2002); London
et al. (1990); Metcalfe (1998); Morgan et al. (2005); Ng, Koh, Ang, Kennedy, and
Chan (2011); Peiperl (2001); Robertson (2008); Salam, Cox, and Sims (1997); Seifert,
Yukl, and McDonald (2003); Smither, London, and Reilly (2005); Waldman (1997);
Waldman and Bowen (1998); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Wimer (2002); Wimer
and Nowack (1998)
2
3. The process should be developed with the input of subject matter experts
(e.g., incumbents, managers, users of the system, etc.) to ensure that it
meets their needs and expectations, and that they will be committed to its
implementation.
Antonioni (1996); Bancroft et al. (1993); Bernardin et al. (1993); Bracken (1994);
Bracken and Rose (2011); Church and Waclawski (2001); Drew (2009); Gillespie
(2005); Heslin and Latham (2004); R. Hoffman (1995); Johnson and Ferstl (1999);
Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and Beatty (1993); London et al. (1990, 1997);
McEvoy and Buller (1987); Salam et al. (1997); Smither (2008); Smither et al. (1995);
3D Group (2013); Toegel and Conger (2003); van der Heijden and Nijhof (2004);
Waldman (1997); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Waldman et al. (1998); Walker and
Smither (1999); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Wimer and Nowack (1998); Woehr,
Sheehan, and Bennett (2005)
4.The purpose, policies, procedures, uses of the data, and other aspects of the pro-
cess should be clearly defined and communicated to managers and employees.
Atwater et al. (2007); Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bernardin (1986); Bernardin and
Beatty (1987); Bernardin, Konopaske, and Hagan (2012); Bracken (1994); Bracken and
Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus et al. (2006); Church and Bracken
(1997); Church and Waclawski (2001); Fleenor et al. (2008); Garbett, Hardy, Manley,
Titchen, and McCormack (2007); R. Hoffman (1995); Kanouse (1998); London and
Beatty (1993); Maylett (2009); McCarthy and Garavan (2001, 2007); Metcalfe (1998);
Morgan et al. (2005); Peiperl (2001); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Redman and Snape
(1992); Robertson (2008); Smith and Fortunato (2008); Testa (2002); 3D Group (2013);
Waldman and Atwater (2001); Waldman et al. (1998); Westerman and Rosse (1997);
Wimer (2002); Wimer and Nowack (1998)
5. The process and performance indicators (items) rated should be linked to the
organizational strategy and aligned with business goals and objectives.
Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus and Derayeh (2002);
Carson (2006); Church and Waclawski (2001); Drew (2009); Fleenor et al. (2008);
Hezlett (2008); R. Hoffman (1995); Kanouse (1998); London and Beatty (1993); London
et al. (1990); Maylett (2009); Morgan et al. (2005); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Rogers
et al. (2002); Smither et al. (1995); Waldman et al. (1998)
6. The performance expectations (including the performance indicators) should

be clearly communicated and agreed on with employees at the beginning of
the evaluation period.
Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Church and Waclawski (2001); Dominick, Reilly, and
McGourty (1997); Fleenor et al. (2008); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and
Beatty (1993); London and Smither (1995); London et al. (1990, 1997); Nowack
and Mashihi (2012); Reilly, Smither, and Vasilopoulos (1996); Tornow (1993a);
Williams and Johnson (2000)
23
Best Practices for Performance Appraisal // 23
7. The process should have the support of top management.

Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (1997, 2001); Church (1995); Church
and Waclawski (2001); Fleenor et al. (2008); Kanouse (1998); McCarthy and Garavan
(2001); McCauley and Moxley (1996); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Rogers et al. (2002);
Waldman et al. (1998)
Items
8. The items rated should be highly job related (based on a job analysis or other
evidence, or related to generic job requirements applicable to the jobs, such as
leadership) so that they will be valid.
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Atwater, Ostroff, Yammarino, and Fleenor
(1998); Atwater, Roush, and Fischthal (1995); Bailey and Austin (2006); Bailey and
Fletcher (2002); Bancroft et al. (1993); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin et al.
(2012); Bracken (1994); Bracken et al. (1997, 2001); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken
and Timmreck (1999); Carson (2006); Church (1995); Conway (1996); Dai, De Meuse,
and Peterson (2010); Fleenor et al. (2008); Flint (1999); Furnham and Stringfield
(1994); Garbett et al. (2007); Gillespie (2005); Herold and Fields (2004); Heslin and
Latham (2004); R. Hoffman (1995); B. J. Hoffman et al. (2012); B. J. Hoffman and
Woehr (2009); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Kaiser and Craig (2005); Lepsinger and
Lucia (1997); London and Beatty (1993); London and Smither (1995); London et al.
(1990); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Manning, Pogson, and Morrison (2009); Maylett
(2009); McCarthy and Garavan (2007); McEvoy and Buller (1987); Morgan et al.
(2005); Mount, Judge, Scullen, Sytsma, and Hezlett (1998); Reilly et al. (1996); Salam
et al. (1997); Smither (2008); Smither et al. (1995); Testa (2002); 3D Group (2013);
Toegel and Conger (2003); van Hooft et al. (2006); Viswesvaran, Schmidt, and Ones
(2002); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Waldman et al. (1998); Walker and Smither
(1999); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Wimer and Nowack (1998); Woehr et al. (2005);
Yammarino and Atwater (1997); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
9. The items should use the language of the organization (or written by those
with organizational knowledge).
Bailey and Austin (2006); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken et al. (2001); Fleenor et al.
(2008); Garbett et al. (2007); Gillespie (2005); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Kaiser and
Craig (2005); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and Beatty (1993); Maylett (2009);
3D Group (2013); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Walker and Smither (1999); Wimer
and Nowack (1998); Yammarino and Atwater (1997)
10. The items should be behavior (observable) to the extent possible, and they
should be specific rather than general.
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Atwater et al. (1995); Atwater and Van
Fleet (1997); Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bailey and Austin (2006); Bernardin (1986);
Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin et al. (1993); Bracken (1994); Bracken and Rose
(2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Brutus and Facteau (2003); Church (1995); Fleenor
24
et al. (2008); Garbett et al. (2007); Ghorpade (2000); Gillespie (2005); Heidemeier and
Moser (2009); Herold and Fields (2004); Heslin and Latham (2004); B. J. Hoffman et al.
(2012); Jelley and Goffin (2001); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Kaiser and Craig (2005);
London and Beatty (1993); London and Smither (1995); London et al. (1997); Luthans
and Peterson (2003); McCarthy and Garavan (2007); Nowack and Mashihi (2012);
Redman and Snape (1992); Rogers et al. (2002); Salam et al. (1997); Toegel and Conger
(2003); Viswesvaran et al. (2002); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Walker and Smither
(1999); Woehr et al. (2005); Yammarino and Atwater (1997); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
11. A broad range of items should be considered, including citizenship-related

performance.
Antonioni (1996); Atwater and Van Fleet (1997); Bracken (1994); Funderburg and
Levy (1997); Garbett et al. (2007); Heidemeier and Moser (2009); Heslin and Latham
(2004); London and Beatty (1993); Luthans and Peterson (2003); McCarthy and
Garavan (2007); Smither et al. (1995); Thomason, Weeks, Bernardin, and Kane (2011);
3D Group (2013); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Waldman et al. (1998); Waldman and
Bowen (1998); Walker and Smither (1999)
12. The behavior reflected by the items should be under the control of the em-
ployee and amenable to change (i.e., actionable).
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Bracken (1994); Bracken and Timmreck
(1999); Fleenor et al. (2008); Garbett et al. (2007); London and Beatty (1993); Luthans
and Peterson (2003); McCarthy and Garavan (2007); Smither, London, and Reilly
(2005); Smither et al. (1995); Tornow (1993a); Vecchio and Anderson (2009)
13. The items should be clear and understandable to everyone involved (e.g.,
raters, ratees, managers, etc.).
Antonioni (1996); Bracken (1994); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus and Facteau (2003);
Church (1995); Fleenor et al. (2008); Garbett et al. (2007); Gillespie (2005); Herold
and Fields (2004); Kaiser and Craig (2005); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and
Smither (1995); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Smither
et al. (1995); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Wohlers and London (1989)
14. The items should generate reliable data (e.g., sufficient number of
items, sound statistical properties, such as internal consistency, good factor
structure, etc.).
Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Fleenor et al. (2008); Fletcher, Baldry, and Cunningham-
Snell (1998); Penny (2003); Yammarino (2003)
Scales
15. The rating scale should be clear that performance is being evaluated.
Antonioni (1996); Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bracken (1994); Bracken and
Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Dai et al. (2010); DeNisi and Kluger
(2000); Farh, Cannella, and Bedeian (1991); Fleenor et al. (2008); Greguras, Robie,
25
Schleicher, and Goff (2003); Harris, Smith, and Champagne (1995); Heidemeier and
Moser (2009); Kanouse (1998); Maylett (2009); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Peiperl
(2001); Toegel and Conger (2003); van der Heijden and Nijhof (2004); Waldman
et al. (1998); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Wimer and Nowack (1998)
16. The rating scales (e.g., types, levels, etc.) should be tailored to distinguish
between levels of performance.
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Bailey and Fletcher (2002); Bernardin et al.
(1993); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001);
Carson (2006); Dai et al. (2010); Eichinger and Lombardo (2004); Furnham and Stringfield
(1994); Gillespie (2005); Herold and Fields (2004); B. J. Hoffman et al. (2012); Jelley
and Goffin (2001); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); London and Beatty (1993); London et al.
(1990); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Maylett (2009); Mount et al. (1998); Nowack and
Mashihi (2012); Peiperl (2001); Salam et al. (1997); Smither et al. (1995); 3D Group
(2013); van Hooft et al. (2006); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Woehr et al. (2005)
17. The rating scale should be clear and understandable to everyone involved
(e.g., raters, ratees, managers, etc.).
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Bailey and Fletcher (2002); Bernardin
et al. (1993); Bracken (1994); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999);
Bracken et al. (2001); Carson (2006); Craig and Hannum (2006); Dai et al. (2010);
Fleenor et al. (2010); Furnham and Stringfield (1994); Gillespie (2005); Herold and
Fields (2004); B. J. Hoffman et al. (2012); Jelley and Goffin (2001); Johnson and Ferstl
(1999); London and Beatty (1993); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Maylett (2009);
Mount et al. (1998); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Peiperl (2001); Salam et al. (1997);
Smither et al. (1995); 3D Group (2013); van Hooft et al. (2006); Waldman and Atwater
(2001); Woehr et al. (2005)
18. Narrative comments should also be collected.

Antonioni (1996); Bailey and Austin (2006); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bracken
(1994); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Carson (2006);
Fleenor et al. (2008, 2010); Garbett et al. (2007); Gillespie (2005); Johnson and
Ferstl (1999); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London et al. (1990); McEvoy and Buller
(1987); Ng et al. (2011); Nowack (2009); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Peiperl (2001);
Pollack and Pollack (1996); Smither and Walker (2004); Smither et al. (1995); 3D
Group (2013); Tornow (1993a); Vinson (1996); Waldman et al. (1998); Yukl and
Lepsinger (1995)
Raters
19. Multiple rating sources (e.g., peers, subordinates, managers, customers)
should be included, as appropriate.
Albright and Levy (1995); Atkins and Wood (2002); Atwater et al. (1995, 1998, 2002,
2007); Bailey and Austin (2006); Bailey and Fletcher (2002); Bancroft et al. (1993);
26
Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin et al. (1993, 2012); Bracken (1994); Bracken
and Rose (2011); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus et al. (2006); Carson (2006); Church and
Bracken (1997); Conway et al. (2001); Craig and Hannum (2006); DeNisi and Kluger
(2000); J. D. Facteau and Craig (2001); Farh et al. (1991); Fleenor et al. (2008); Fletcher
and Baldry (2000); Furnham and Stringfield (1994); Garbett et al. (2007); Gillespie
(2005); Greguras, Ford, and Brutus (2003); Greguras, Robie, et al. (2003); Greller
and Herold (1975); Guenole, Cockerill, Chamorro-Premuzic, and Smillie (2011); Harris
and Schaubroeck (1988); Heidemeier and Moser (2009); B. J. Hoffman, Bynum, and
Gentry (2010); B. J. Hoffman and Woehr (2009); R. Hoffman (1995); Holzbach (1978);
Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Lance, Hoffman, Gentry, and Baranik (2008); LeBreton,
Burgess, Kaiser, Atchley, and James (2003); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and
Smither (1995); London et al. (1990); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Manning et al.
(2009); McCauley and Moxley (1996); Metcalfe (1998); Mount, Barrick, and Strauss
(1994); Mount et al. (1998); Ng et al. (2011); Nowack (2009); Nowack and Mashihi
(2012); Peiperl (2001); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Sala and Dwight (2002); Salam et al.
(1997); Seifert and Yukl (2010); Siegel (1982); Smither, Brett, and Atwater (2008);
Stone and Stone (1984); Testa (2002); 3D Group (2013); Toegel and Conger (2003);
Tornow (1993a); van der Heijden and Nijhof (2004); Vecchio and Anderson (2009);
Vinson (1996); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Wohlers and London (1989); Yammarino
(2003); Yammarino and Atwater (1993); Yammarino and Atwater (1997); Yukl and
Lepsinger (1995)
20. Self-ratings should also be included.

Albright and Levy (1995); Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Atwater et al.
(1995, 1998, 2002, 2007); Atwater and Van Fleet (1997); Atwater and Waldman (1998);
Bailey and Austin (2006); Bailey and Fletcher (2002); Bernardin et al. (1993); Campbell
and Lee (1988); Cheung (1999); Church (1995); Fleenor et al. (2008, 2010); Fletcher
and Baldry (2000); Flint (1999); Furnham and Stringfield (1994); Goffin and Anderson
(2007); Harris and Schaubroeck (1988); Heidemeier and Moser (2009); R. Hoffman
(1995); Holzbach (1978); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Lane and Herriot (1990); London
and Beatty (1993); London and Smither (1995); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Metcalfe
(1998); Morgan et al. (2005); Mount et al. (1994); Nowack (1992, 2009); Nowack and
Mashihi (2012); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Reilly et al. (1996); Sala and Dwight (2002);
Salam et al. (1997); Seifert and Yukl (2010); Shrauger and Kelly (1988); Shrauger and
Terbovic (1976); Smither (2008); Smither, London, and Reilly (2005); Smither, London,
and Richmond (2005); Smither et al. (1995); 3D Group (2013); Toegel and Conger
(2003); Tornow (1993a); van der Heijden and Nijhof (2004); Vecchio and Anderson
(2009); Van Velsor, Taylor, and Leslie (1993); Williams and Johnson (2000); Williams
and Levy (1992); Wimer and Nowack (1998); Wohlers and London (1989); Wohlers,
Hall, and London (1993); Yammarino and Atwater (1993); Yammarino and Atwater
(1997); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
27
21. Raters should be anonymous, but ratings may sometimes be nonanonymous,

depending on the purpose of the process (e.g., when it is important to know
that the feedback is from specific sources).
Antonioni (1994, 1996); Atwater et al. (2002, 2007); Atwater and Waldman (1998);
Bancroft et al. (1993); Bernardin (1986); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bracken (1994);
Bracken et al. (1997, 2001); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Carson (2006); Church
and Bracken (1997); Eichinger and Lombardo (2004); Fleenor et al. (2008); Garbett
et al. (2007); Herold and Fields (2004); Heslin and Latham (2004); Kanouse (1998);
Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and Beatty (1993); London et al. (1990, 1997);
Luthans and Peterson (2003); McCarthy and Garavan (2007); Metcalfe (1998);
Redman and Snape (1992); Robertson (2008); Rogers et al. (2002); Smither (2008);
3D Group (2013); van der Heijden and Nijhof (2004); Vinson (1996); Waldman et al.
(1998); Waldman and Bowen (1998); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Wimer (2002);
Yammarino and Atwater (1997)
22. Sufficiently large samples of raters (with high enough response rates)
should be obtained for each source to ensure anonymity of raters and interrater
reliability.
Antonioni (1996); Atwater et al. (1995, 1998, 2007); Atwater and Waldman (1998);
Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin et al. (2012); Bozeman (1997); Bracken (1994);
Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Carson
(2006); Church (1995); Church and Bracken (1997); Church, Rogelberg, and Waclawski
(2000); Church and Waclawski (2001); Conway (1996); Conway et al. (2001); Dai et al.
(2010); Fleenor et al. (2008); Fletcher et al. (1998); Greguras, Robie, et al. (2003); Hensel,
Meijers, Leeden, and Kessels (2010); Hezlett (2008); Jellema, Visscher, and Scheerens
(2006); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and Beatty
(1993); London and Smither (1995); London and Wohlers (1991); London et al. (1990);
Luthans and Peterson (2003); Maylett (2009); Metcalfe (1998); Mount et al. (1998);
Nowack (2009); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Redman and
Snape (1992); Robertson (2008); Scullen (1997); Seifert and Yukl (2010); Smither et al.
(1995); Testa (2002); 3D Group (2013); Tornow (1993b); van Hooft et al. (2006); Vinson
(1996); Waldman et al. (1998); Waldman and Bowen (1998); Westerman and Rosse
(1997); Wimer and Nowack (1998); Yammarino (2003); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
23. Selection of raters within source should consider the opportunity to ob-
serve performance, skill in evaluating performance, credibility, motivation to
provide accurate judgments of performance, and the avoidance of biasing
factors or gaming the system (e.g., friendships, competitors for promotion, spe-
cial interests, unexpected events, etc.).
Albright and Levy (1995); Antonioni (1996); Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bernardin
(1986); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin et al. (1993, 2012); Bracken (1994);
Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Carson
28
(2006); Cederblom and Lounsbury (1980); Church (1995); Conway (1996); Conway
et al. (2001); Eichinger and Lombardo (2004); Fleenor et al. (2008, 2010); Flint (1999);
Garbett et al. (2007); Ghorpade (2000); Hannum (2007); B. J. Hoffman et al.and (2010);
Jellema et al. (2006); Johnson and Ferstl (1999); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); Lewin
and Zwany (1976); Maylett (2009); McCarthy and Garavan (2001); Metcalfe (1998);
Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Redman and Snape (1992); Rogers et al. (2002); Sala and
Dwight (2002); Smith and Fortunato (2008); Smither et al. (1995); Tornow (1993a); van
Hooft et al. (2006); Vinson (1996); Waldman and Bowen (1998); Westerman and Rosse
(1997); Wimer (2002); Woehr et al. (2005); Yammarino (2003); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
24. Selection of raters should follow a standardized process that is similar for
everyone (with minimal potential for biased selection).
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Bernardin et al. (2012); Bracken (1994);
Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus
et al. (2006); Fleenor et al. (2010); Fox, Ben-Nahum, and Yinon (1989); Garbett et al.
(2007); Gillespie (2005); Jellema et al. (2006); Lewin and Zwany (1976); London et al.
(1990); McCarthy and Garavan (2007); McEvoy and Buller (1987); Metcalfe (1998); Mount
et al. (1998); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Robertson (2008); Rogers et al. (2002); Seifert
and Yukl (2010); 3D Group (2013); Wimer and Nowack (1998); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
25. Ratees should have input, but there should also be oversight in the selec-
tion of raters (e.g., by manager, HR, etc.) to ensure consistency and following
the correct procedures.
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin
et al. (2012); Bracken (1994); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999);
Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus and Derayeh (2002); Carson (2006); Fleenor et al. (2008,
2010); Flint (1999); Gillespie (2005); Lewin and Zwany (1976); Maylett (2009); Nowack
(2009); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Redman and Snape (1992); Rogers et al. (2002);
Seifert and Yukl (2010); 3D Group (2013); Toegel and Conger (2003)
26. When necessary, there should be statistical adjustments or other control

for outliers and average score differences by various factors (e.g., rating source,
organizational unit, etc.).
Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bracken and Timmreck
(1999); Ghorpade (2000); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); McEvoy and Buller (1987); Ng
et al. (2011); Nowack and Mashihi (2012)
Administration
27. Standardized procedures should be used for administration to help ensure
reliability.
Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001);
Church and Bracken (1997); Craig and Hannum (2006); Fleenor et al. (2008); Gillespie
(2005); Heslin and Latham (2004); R. Hoffman (1995); Johnson and Ferstl (1999);
29
Kanouse (1998); London and Beatty (1993); London et al. (1990); McEvoy and Buller
(1987); Tornow (1993a)
28. The 360 process should be conducted routinely, usually on an annual basis,
and near in time to when the data are used for personnel decisions (e.g., pay
increases).
Antonioni (1996); Atwater et al. (2007); Bancroft et al. (1993); Bracken (1994); Bracken
and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus and
Derayeh (2002); Brutus et al. (2006); Carson (2006); DeNisi and Kluger (2000);
London and Beatty (1993); London and Smither (1995); London et al. (1990, 1997);
McEvoy and Buller (1987); Nowack (2009); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Reilly et al.
(1996); Seifert and Yukl (2010); Smither (2008); Smither et al. (1995); 3D Group (2013);
Wimer and Nowack (1998)
29. There should be a follow-up, such as a midyear or other intermediate review

to ensure progress is being made and to provide guidance.
Antonioni (1996); Atwater et al. (2007); Bracken (1994); Bracken and Timmreck (1999);
Church (1995); Church and Waclawski (2001); Fleenor et al. (2008); London and Beatty
(1993); London et al. (1990); McEvoy and Buller (1987); Nowack (2009); Reilly et al.
(1996); Smither (2008); Smither et al. (2008); 3D Group (2013); Walker and Smither
(1999); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Wimer (2002); Wimer and Nowack (1998); Yukl
and Lepsinger (1995)
30. Administration and use of the process should be monitored by HR.

Bernardin (1986); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Fleenor et al. (2008); Ghorpade (2000);
31. The feedback and all related data should be kept confidential.
Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Church (1995); Church and Waclawski (2001); Fleenor
et al. (2008); Ghorpade (2000); McCarthy and Garavan (2001); Pollack and Pollack
(1996); Testa (2002); Wimer (2002); Wimer and Nowack (1998)
32. The process should not be unduly burdensome in terms of time, costs,
and so on.
Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Bracken et al. (2001); Brutus and Derayah (2002);
Fleenor et al. (2008); Westerman and Rosse (1997)
Training/Instruction
33. Raters should be trained or well instructed.
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Atwater et al. (2002, 2007); Atwater
and Waldman (1998); Bernardin (1986); Bracken (1994); Bracken et al. (1997, 2001);
Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck (1999); Carson (2006); Church and
Bracken (1997); Diefendorff, Silverman, and Greguras (2005); Fleenor et al. (2008,
2010); Ghorpade (2000); Gillespie (2005); Guenole et al. (2011); Heslin and Latham
(2004); Hezlett (2008); R. Hoffman (1995); Kanouse (1998); Lepsinger and Lucia
30
(1997); London and Beatty (1993); London et al. (1997); McCarthy and Garavan
(2007); Ng et al. (2011); Nowack (1992); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); Peiperl (2001);
Pollack and Pollack (1996); Redman and Snape (1992); Robert and Shipper (1998);
Rogers et al. (2002); 3D Group (2013); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Waldman et al.
(1998); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Yammarino and Atwater (1997); Yukl and
Lepsinger (1995)
34. Employees receiving the feedback should be trained or well instructed.

Antonioni (1996); Atwater et al. (2002, 2007); Atwater and Waldman (1998); Bancroft
et al. (1993); Bracken (1994); Bracken et al. (1997, 2001); Bracken and Timmreck
(1999); Church and Bracken (1997); Fleenor et al. (2008); R. Hoffman (1995); Kanouse
(1998); London and Beatty (1993); London et al. (1990, 1997); Luthans and Peterson
(2003); McCarthy and Garavan (2001); Metcalfe (1998); Peiperl (2001); Pollack and
Pollack (1996); Robert and Shipper (1998); Rogers et al. (2002); Seifert et al. (2003);
Smither (2008); Smither, London, and Reilly (2005); 3D Group (2013); Toegel and
Conger (2003); Tornow (1993b); Tyson and Ward (2004); van der Heijden and Nijhof
(2004); Waldman and Atwater (2001); Westerman and Rosse (1997);Yammarino and
Atwater (1997); Yukl and Lepsinger (1995)
35. Managers using the 360 results should be trained or well instructed.
Antonioni (1996); Atwater et al. (2002); Bracken (1994); Bracken et al. (1997); Bracken
and Timmreck (1999); Carson (2006); Fleenor et al. (2008); R. Hoffman (1995); London
and Beatty (1993); London et al. (1997); Nowack and Mashihi (2012); O’Reilly and
Furth (1994); Peiperl (2001); Rogers et al. (2002); 3D Group (2013); Wimer (2002);
Yammarino and Atwater (1997)
Interpretation of Feedback
36. Feedback should be detailed (including statistics showing central tendency
and dispersion), and there should be standardized guidance on interpreting the
feedback (e.g., instructions, graphics, etc.).
Antonioni (1996); Atkins and Wood (2002); Atwater and Brett (2006); Atwater et al.
(2007); Bernardin (1986); Bernardin and Beatty (1987); Bernardin et al. (1993); Bracken
(1994); Bracken et al. (1997, 2001); Bracken and Rose (2011); Bracken and Timmreck
(1999); Brutus et al. (2006); Church and Waclawski (2001); DeNisi and Kluger (2000);
Fleenor et al. (2008, 2010); Gillespie (2005); Hezlett (2008); Johnson and Ferstl
(1999); Lepsinger and Lucia (1997); London and Beatty (1993); London and Smither
(1995); London et al. (1990); Luthans and Peterson (2003); Maylett (2009); McEvoy
and Buller (1987); Morgan et al. (2005); Mount et al. (1998); Nowack (2009); Nowack
and Mashihi (2012); Pollack and Pollack (1996); Reilly et al. (1996); Robertson (2008);
Seifert et al. (2003); Smither (2008); 3D Group (2013); Vinson (1996); Waldman and
Atwater (2001); Westerman and Rosse (1997); Yammarino and Atwater (1997); Yukl
and Lepsinger (1995)
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
for the hot southern blood, raised to boiling-point by long-pent-up
passion, burst beyond Pedro's control.
With one flashing movement and a yell of fury, he plunged his knife
up to the hilt in the mate's breast.
With a deep groan, Barker fell back against the mast, bleeding
profusely.
Ben, catching the stricken man in his arms, vainly tried to staunch
the wound; but it was all up with the second mate, who was too far
gone even for speech.
As Ben held him there was a gurgle in his throat, and a stream of
bright lung blood poured from his mouth.
"You've been an' gone an' done it this time," said the ex-miner to
Pedro.
"Me keela lo gringo brute. Carrajo, esta bueno!" remarked the South
American coolly, with a self-satisfied air.
"It's some obvious you've coppered his play," said Broncho.
"I allows he's done jumped this earthly game for good," he added,
turning to Jack and indicating Barker, who already had the death-
rattle in his throat.
"Yes, I'm afraid he's pelili[4]; these buckos are always looking for it,
and they generally get it in the end," answered Jack quietly. "I heard
him call Pedro by a name yesterday which it's suicidal to use to any
of the Latin races, and one I've frequently seen cause gun-play in
the West, as no doubt you have too."
There was a hush on the yard as they watched the dying man, who
was already unconscious.
It was not a pleasant sight, but was viewed by Jack, Broncho, and
Ben Sluice with calm eyes and level pulses. All three had been
familiar with death in many strange and horrible forms, and their
senses were blunted to the keenness of the horror.
But Curly, only a boy in years, hung over the yardarm white and sick
and shaking, whilst Sam, the coloured man, drew back frightened
and nerveless.
The dago, however, stared indifferently, as cool and unmoved as a
Sioux Indian.
Suddenly death came! There was a spasmodic twitching of the
limbs, a sudden gush of blood from the mouth, nose, and ears, the
pupils of the eyes grew glassy, their whites showed, the head
dropped back heavily on Ben's shoulder, and the complexion took on
that strange appearance of wax as the bucko's spirit fled.
Shifting sail is a busy bit of work. The bosun and his men on the fore,
with their backs turned, were busy stretching their sail to a chorus, all
in ignorance of the tragedy which had just occurred; whilst Black
Davis, with the rest of the hands, was in the sail-locker, putting away
the unbent sails.
At this moment he appeared on deck, followed by a line of men
shouldering a main course, which looked for all the world like a huge
white serpent, coming along the deck on six pairs of legs.
It was a delicious day. The north-east trade wind was light, and the
Higgins was sneaking along over the deep blue of the Pacific, doing
hardly six knots.
The bright sun shone upon the gleaming cotton canvas, giving it the
dazzling appearance of snow.
As the mate stepped forward of the mainmast, he glanced casually
up at the men at work above.
The first thing to catch his eye was the red stain of blood on the
bellying breast of the topsail, and then he noticed that the men on
the yard seemed to be all crowded into the bunt.
"Brazen sarpints! What the tarnation hell air yew doin' up thar?" he
roared.
"Second mate's got badly stuck, sir," replied Jack.
"Who stuck him?"
"Dat er dago, Pedro, sah," shouted Sam, who was not a special
friend of the little Chilian.
Black Davis had seen many a fatality of this sort, and to his credit it
may be said that, whatever the emergency, it always found him
ready.
"Bosun!" he roared, "git down off thet yard an' fetch a pair er
handcuffs!"
The whole ship was now awake to the fact that a tragedy had
occurred.
The old man appeared through the companion-way with his
Winchester crooked under his arm, and going to the rail of the poop,
sang out to know if the second mate was badly hurt.
"He's done cashed in his checks, sir!" Ben Sluice roared back.
"Better send up a bosun's chair to get the body down on deck, sir,"
sang out Jack.
"All right, all right, not so durned full o' talk up thar," growled the old
man.
An atmosphere of excitement began to pervade the ship, and all
work was dropped. Those who were up the fore scrambled quickly to
the deck, and began feverishly to discuss the matter with Black
Davis's gang, in charge of the main course.
Black Davis, swinging himself on to the rail, slowly started the ascent
of the main rigging.
"'Oo did they say stuck 'im?" asked the cockney.
"Yew bet it's thet dago cuss Pedro done carved him up. I see'd the
devil stickin' out a foot outen them black eyes er his; I've just been
waitin' ter see him get his claws into one of 'em," replied Hank, taking
a mighty bite out of a plug of tobacco, which he proceeded to chew
vigorously.
"Gee-up! gee-up! Pedro kill-um one piecee boss number two velly
muchee chop-chop! Me heap flaid—no likee funee business; plenty
muchee solly!" ejaculated Lung, looking out through his galley door.
"You thinks as 'ow it's goin' to raise trouble, does ye, ye bloomin'
h'opium-slave?" remarked Hollins, with the insolent tone of one
addressing an inferior being.
"And I ain't so sure the chink ain't right neither," put in Hank.
"Der teufel ish dode, und it serves him recht; he was lookin' for it,"
grunted Muller, the German.
"You're right, Dutchy. He were playing for a show-down an' the dago
plumb euchred him," remarked the gambler, Studpoker Bob. "An' if
thet other golderned bucko don't mind his little game some, he'll find
himself up against the iron likewise," he continued in a lower tone,
with an upward glance full of sinister meaning.
"I reckon he ain't easily gallied,[5]" said Hank. "It'll take a man with a
mighty stiff backbone to heave that beggar to, an' you may lay to
that."
"Begorr, but there's men in this foc's'le would be after batin' the eye-
teeth out of him," burst in the eager Paddy.
"Not in the port foc's'le, son; yew bet he's got us all skeert."
"Be me sowl, but he ain't goin' to come it over us starbowlines none,
or he'll get the divil's own larrupin'," said Pat fiercely.
"Who's goin' to do ther larrupin'?" inquired Hank scornfully.
"I'm due to get square with that ladybuck myself, bad luck to him."
"Holy Gee! but he'd fair eat yew, Pat, an' ask for more."
"Faith, an' would he thin. Well, he wouldn't be atin' of Jack Derringer
none so aisy, anyhow. Be the Powers! but Jack could knock his d
——d head off."
FOOTNOTES:
[4] Kaffir word meaning "finished," "done."
[5] Whaling term meaning "scared."
CHAPTER IV
"BARBARISM"
The bosun now appeared with the handcuffs, and they were
speedily sent aloft with a bosun's chair. And now every eye was
turned on the topsail yard to see Black Davis put the handcuffs on
his prisoner.
To go up on to that yard, with a raging dago waiting to knife you as
you stepped on to the footrope, required nerve, and the mate knew
that he was in a ticklish position, and that he could expect no help
from the other men on the yard.
Yet there was no hesitation about Black Davis; the man was so
made constitutionally that he really did not know what fear was.
"Git the dago's knife an' sling it overboard," he sang out to Broncho,
as he climbed out of the top.
At this Pedro bared his teeth like a tiger at bay, and turned upon the
cowpuncher with knife ready.
"He shore has me treed," said Broncho to Jack. "I ain't organisin' to
bluff that bowie o' his, or he has me p'inting out on the heavenly trail
too prompt for words."
It was evident that Broncho was helpless against the desperate
southerner, and was more than likely to get killed in his turn if he
made the slightest attempt to wrest Pedro's knife from him.
"The dago has me out-held, sir; he's due to cut me open a whole lot
if I makes a move," called Broncho to the mate.
At this, Black Davis, who was half-way up the topmast rigging, pulled
out his gun, and pointing it at Pedro, sang out:
"Heave thet knife overboard, or I'll fill yew full of holes, yew dogasted
West Coast beachcomber."
Quick as a flash Pedro turned and launched his knife full at the mate.
It stuck quivering and shaking between the strands of the wire
shroud, which, as Black Davis leant forward, was touching the top
button of his waistcoat.
It was a close call!
Pedro, helpless without his weapon, snarled round like a wild beast;
then, with wonderful agility, drew himself up on to the yard, and
stepping on Broncho's hand, before any one could divine his
intention, he sprang into the rigging on the opposite side to Black
Davis, and in a moment was up over the crosstrees and running up
the ratlines to the topgallant yard.
"Come de-own outer that!" roared the enraged and baffled mate.
"Come down, or I'll perforate yew."
The Chilian gave a wild laugh as he reached over before swinging
himself on to the topgallant yard.
The bosun sprang into the rigging and hurried aloft to support his
superior officer.
Meanwhile, the old man looked on impatiently from the poop,
fingering his rifle nervously, evidently debating what to do.
Then up went his Winchester. There was a heavy report, and the
wretched Pedro, straddled with one foot on the ratlines and one on
the footrope, spun suddenly round, threw up his hands, and
dropped.
Just below him were the crosstrees, and on to these he fell, and,
held there, lay senseless with head and feet dangling.
For a moment there was a deadly silence over the ship; then a low,
menacing growl of rage rose from the crowd of men on the
maindeck.
"Silence there, yew mutinous dogs! Silence, or, sure as my name's
Bob Riley, I'll pump some lead into yew!" roared the old man,
bringing the gun up to his shoulder again.
As he spoke the canvas began to shake; the helmsman had let the
ship run up into the wind. Little wonder if, in the excitement of the
moment, Angelino could find no time for glancing at the compass.
In a moment the ship was all aback.
"Darn my dogbasted skin!" raged the old man, turning upon the
unfortunate Portuguee. "Hard up thet wheel! Quick, yew infernal
lunkhead!"
Then, rushing to the rail, he roared:
"Down from aloft there. On ter the foc's'le head, some er yew. Don'
stand gazin' round, yew moon-struck, mongrel crowd o' Bowery
slush! Clap on to them weather jib sheets! Let go to loo'ard! Neow,
then, round with them fore-yards—round with 'em!"
For a few minutes terrific confusion reigned. Excited men ran hither
and thither, braces were thrown off the pins, and a medley of cries
resounded over the ship, half drowned in the thunderous clatter of
the flapping canvas.
Jack, Broncho, Sam, and Curly came sliding down backstays,
leaving Bedrock Ben still with the dead man in his arms.
By this time the old man was half mad with fury, and dancing a
regular war-jig aft. Words poured in a torrent from his mouth, cut off,
distorted, and half senseless as they burst from his stuttering lips.
Certainly the facts of the case were enough to try the temper of any
man as full of bile and ginger as a down-east skipper. His ship
aback; a crew of lunatics running wildly about the deck, letting go
sheets, lifts, spilling-lines, anything in their craziness; two dead men
aloft, and with them his only remaining officers; last, but not least,
two half-bent fair-weather topsails flogging angrily in the
strengthening breeze, with every chance of splitting from top to
bottom.
"Carpenter!" he yelled. "Carpenter, get them headsheets over! Sakes
alive—bust me purple—what er mess! Hyeh, y' ravin' idiots, what y'
doin'? Get on ter thet fore-brace. Come down, bosun. Jeerusalem,
look at them t'p'sls! Hell an' damnation, who let go that sheet?
Carpenter, ye mouldy wood-sawyer, can't yew thump 'em? Beat 'em,
kill 'em, jump on 'em, man. Wal, I swow! What the blazin' flames o'
hell d'yew think y' doin', yew bean-swillin', lop-eared Dutch swab
——" and so he raged on.
What with the old man's scathing remarks and his own confused
brain, the carpenter got in such a flurry that he hardly knew what he
was doing.
Slowly things were straightened out, with the headsheets over to
windward. On the advent of Jack and his gang from aloft, the
foreyard was swung, and gradually the ship began to pay off under
the influence of the backed headyards.
With the appearance of the huge bosun, calm and collected in the
midst of the chaos, something like order began to prevail on deck.
The Higgins was got on to her course, the yards trimmed, and whilst
some of the hands were sent aloft to finish bending the two topsails,
Ben Sluice and the body of the second mate were lowered to the
deck in the bosun's chair.
The captain's bullet proved to have only grazed the forehead of the
dago and stunned him, upon discovering which the mate had the
senseless man roughly lowered down in a running bowline from the
gantline block.
As Black Davis reached the deck, the old man, who was still fuming
like a smouldering volcano, turned upon him with a withering glare.
"Hm, mister mate, an' a nice bunglin' yew made of it up aloft, lettin' a
miserable little deck-swab of er Chilanean make a fool er yew like
that. Ain't yew ever put the bracelets on a man before? Y'll have ter
hustle round considerable mor'n this, or yew won't suit Cappen Bob
Riley"; and with a final snort the irate skipper disappeared down the
companion.
Mr. Bucko Davis turned back to his work in no very sweet frame of
mind.
The body of the second mate had been placed on the main-hatch,
and alongside it was laid the senseless form of Pedro.
"Hyeh, boy!" growled the mate to the kid, who was at work outside
the galley, peeling potatoes for the cabin dinner. "Git er bucket er
water an' see if yew can't wake thet dago up."
The boy drew a bucket over the side, and then, with shaking hands,
tilted it gently over the face of the South American; but with his big
brown eyes dilating with fright, the kid went very gingerly to work.
"Thet won't do, thet won't do," grunted Black Davis. "Give it ter me!
Can't yew throw water yet?"
Seizing the bucket, with a true bosun's swing the mate hove the
water over the unconscious man, with such skill that not one square
inch of him from head to heel escaped the deluge.
"More water! more water! Neow then, jump around lively," called the
angry demon impatiently.
With the sousing the mate gave him, Pedro could only do one of two
things, either lie there and be drowned or come to his senses.
This latter he proceeded to do whilst the kid was drawing a fourth
bucketful.
"Thought thet'd rouse the skunk," commented Black Davis; then,
grabbing hold of the wretched man by the scruff of his neck, he
dragged him off the hatch, and, dropping him on the deck, gave him
three terrific kicks over the ribs.
"P'raps thet'll learn yew who's mate o' this ship, yew knifing beast;
ther's one fer the second mate an' two fer me, 'count of all the
trouble y've given me."
The miserable Pedro now broke out into low moans.
"Hm! Just like er dago! Cuts er man up an' then whines," went on the
bucko, as he picked up the handcuffs off the hatch; then for a
moment he stood hesitating, evidently turning something over in his
mind.
Meanwhile the bosun had all hands busily engaged bending the
main course. As the sail was stretched and the rovings passed, a
subdued muttering went on, which in the present ugly humour of the
men the bosun wisely took no notice of.
Presently there was a hail from the deck.
"Bosun, send me down er couple er them jailbirds o' yours."
A low, sibilant hiss of deadly venom ran along the yard at the sound
of the mate's voice.
"Hm!" thought the bosun as he listened, "there's some of 'em pretty
near ready for a word spelt with a big M."
He scanned the men on the yard for a moment in silence, and then
carefully picked out two harmless ones.
"Pinto an' you, Green, get down on deck an' see what the mate
wants."
With ludicrous haste these two worthies hurried down the ratlines, for
they knew by experience what it meant to keep Black Davis waiting.
"Neow, yew two," said the mate, "skip forrard, an' if yew ain't got thet
bosun's locker cleared out in two jiffs, thar'll be all-fired trouble."
They dashed off like a pair of frightened colts, and in record time
reappeared with the statement that the locker was entirely bare.
"Left no blocks an' marlin-spikes behind, have yew?" asked the mate
suspiciously.
"No, sir," came the reply in a hasty duet.
"Wall, I guess yew know what'll happen if yew have," he said with
meaning.
"Neow, pick up the body of the second mate, take it forrard, an' lay it
on the shelf," he went on.
"Aye, aye, sir!" came the hurried duet again.
As the two men rolled staggering off with the heavy form of the dead
bucko, Black Davis turned to the dago on the deck.
"Know what I'm goin' ter do with yew, Mister Mate-killer? No? Wall,
y'll soon find out. I reckon I'll have yew some tamed before I done
with yew! Neow then, up yew git."
Except for a deep groan Pedro took no notice. At this the mate
seized him by his shirt-collar and dragged him on to his feet.
For a moment the poor wretch swayed tottering, and then, with a
great effort, collected his strength and retained his equilibrium.
"Oh, yew can stand, hey? Wall, neow, suppose yew walk forrard into
thet bosun's locker."
Unsteadily Pedro lurched forward, dragging himself along slowly,
followed by the bucko dangling the handcuffs.
The bosun's locker was small, and there was hardly room for the
mate and his victim besides the dead man on the shelf; and as Black
Davis entered, the miserable Chilian backed up against the bulkhead
in doubt as to what was going to happen next.
"Hold out y'r hand," commanded the mate; and as Pedro obeyed, he
snapped the handcuff on it; the other he slowly clasped upon the
wrist of the dead bucko, whilst Pinto and Jimmy Green, standing
hesitating what to do, watched him with eyes of horror from the
doorway.
"I'll just see how yew like a night o' that, chained to a stiff of y'r own
killing," said the demon, with a fiendish chuckle. "Wall, yew've got
better company than yew ever had before. A pleasant night to yew!"
and he retired, locking the door after him.
The bosun was now put at the head of the starboard watch, and the
routine of the ship once more continued on its normal course.
Shifting sail was again in full swing, but the men worked listlessly in
deadly silence; there was no chantying on the gantline, and they
pulled and hauled without even the usual hee-hawing.
The bosun tried again and again to instil some life into the work, but
in vain; all hands went at it steadily, but without a sound.
It is a very bad sign when a ship's crew work in silence, and even the
mate ceased his hazing as he noticed the sullen humour of the men.
You can bully and ill-treat a deep-sea crew as much as you like up to
a certain point; but there is a limit mark, and if you step beyond that
you begin playing pitch-and-toss with your own life.
The sea is not to blame for every missing ship. A steady-going,
harmless man can be turned by continual brutality and ill-treatment
into a desperate, iron-nerved assassin, and a good crew can be
brought to such a condition that one accidental spark will set them
afire; then, rendered half madmen, half fiends, they turn the ship into
a shambles.
There is only one thing that protects the lives of American buckos,
and that is that nowadays deep-water ships go to sea with such a
mixed lot of nationalities in their foc's'les that they are totally unable
to act together. The after-gang realise this fully, and work upon it,
skilfully playing the men off against each other.
Whilst the ship's company were seething with passions which
threatened to boil over at any moment, no sound came from the
bosun's locker, where Pedro crouched alone with his victim.
At meal-times his food was passed in to him, in the presence of the
mate; then the key was turned again, and he was left to brood anew
with the blood-stained corpse attached to him like a Siamese twin.
At eight bells, 4 p.m., the decks were cleared up and the watches set
once more.
At knock-off time all hands assembled on the foc's'le head, and a
babble of wild, angry voices arose, in which the shrill squeal of
Angelino, the Portuguee, Pedro's chum, mixed discordantly with the
deep gutturals of the negro, the jerky sh's of the German, the twangy
nasal accents of the Americans, and the misplaced h's of the
cockney.
Grimy fists were waved and shaken furiously aft, and the venomous
oratory of the long, vicious gambler, Studpoker Bob, was received
with deep roars of approval.
Jack, Broncho, and Curly seated themselves apart from the
wrangling crowd, and lit their pipes.
Curly, young, soft, and impressionable, was very indignant at the
mate's callousness.
"It's enough to send Pedro off his head, chained in there all alone
with that fearful corpse. It makes me creep to think of it. I shouldn't
be surprised to hear screams from that bosun's locker before
morning."
But Jack was not of his opinion.
"The dago's too near an animal for that. His nature's coarse-fibred,
and though his blood is hot and excitable, his nerves are dull and
only respond to the emotions of a brute."
"Which I concurs with them views entire," remarked Broncho. "I
allows that dago's mighty familiar with corpses, an' no longer
regyards them with respec'. That ain't no amature work, the way he
uses his bowie; he weren't doin' no bluffin' on a four-card flush; the
way he manip'lates his weepon shows he knows his game."
"Anyhow, it's a brutal shame, and from the way some of the men are
talking I reckon Black Davis had better look out for squalls," cried
Curly hotly.
"I don't think Davis is afraid of any man forrard; they talk too much.
Listen to 'em now. He knows not one of them dare face him alone,"
said Jack.
"Still, I've seen marlin-spikes dropped from aloft, and on a dark night
accidents easily happen," went on the ex-apprentice stubbornly.
"You bet, son, that ole pole-cat's got his ha'r-trigger fixed; he's plumb
loaded with what you-alls call nerve, an' is due to make a mighty
fervent play, however the kyards stacks up."
As Broncho spoke, the cockney's voice, loud and harsh, broke in
upon them as he harangued his audience:
"H'it's a bloomin' shyme, byes, that's wot h'I calls it——" and the rest
of his speech was drowned in the deep tones of the foc's'le bell, as
the silent and suppressed kid, whose duty it was to keep time,
sneaked up and struck eight bells.
CHAPTER V
"IN THE WATCHES OF THE NIGHT"
The starboard watch got slowly to their feet and tramped aft.
"Relieve the wheel and look-out!" called the mate.
It was Jack's wheel, and he was pleased, for he delighted in his night
wheels, when, steering mechanically, like the born helmsman that he
was, he allowed himself to get wrapped up in his thoughts.
The tropical nights always had the effect of stirring up half-forgotten
memories in the breast of the rolling-stone, and after noting all his
favourites gleaming above, he gradually lost himself in deep reverie.
The myriads of stars, studded like diamonds on the indigo robe of
the heavens; the clear-cut moon, with its sparkling path of silver
threads; the creamy wake, swirling astern in one blaze of
phosphorus; the sharp outlines of spars, sails, and cordage, looking
as if fashioned in ebony; the dreamy hum and soft caress of the
gentle trade wind,—all these appealed intimately to the soul of the
rover.
Forgotten were the stirring events of the day; he dreamed and
dreamed in a paradise of his own, the beauty of the night recalling
other such nights to him.
Once more he is mate of the rakish island schooner, lying lazily at

anchor in some atoll lagoon, a bevy of flower-decked South Sea
maidens dancing wildly on the maindeck to the soft tones of a guitar,
the bright moon glistening on the swarthy faces of the Kanaka crew,
seated round in squatting posture. The wild cries of the dancers are
half-drowned in the deep boom of the distant surf and the rustling of
the cocoa-palms rocked by the caressing breath of the steady-
blowing zephyr.
Slowly the scene changes, the noise of wind and surf are hushed,
the fairy dancers fade away, his luxurious hammock sinks to earth.
He is alone, stretched at full length on the bare ground, a single
blanket covering him; by his side is a trusty large-bore rifle, and at
his feet a glowing camp-fire; whilst around him, blocking out all but
the sky, there stretches a thick entanglement of mimosa thorn.
Suddenly the silence is broken.
A deep, echoing roar rises on the night, swells and ceases, then
breaks forth again, evidently nearer. He clutches his weapon.
His quick ear notes the uneasy whinny of his horse and the restless
movement of the cattle. The king of beasts is looking for his dinner.
As he listens, the guttural notes of his Kaffir boy under the waggon
whisper anxiously:
"Hark, Baas! Lapa! lapa! (There! there!)"
Again the scene fades, and he finds himself crouching in the smoky
entrance of a teepee. Before him stretches the prairie, like a great,
still ocean. In the foreground twisting lines of bent, naked forms hop
and spring in fantastic figures, the moonlight glancing on their
painted bodies. A discordant tomtom-beating mingles with wild
whoops.
Gradually the ghost-dance grows quicker and quicker, the whooping
redoubles, the dreary chant of a group of squaws swells in volume;
then——
Tink-tink! Tink-tink! Clear and sweet came the notes of the bell.
"'Ere, wake up, governor. You looks loike a bloke h'I once see'd a-
walkin' in 'is sleep. Wot's the course?"
Jack started violently. It was the cockney come to relieve the wheel.
"South-a-half-west!" stammered the rover.
"South-a-'alf-west!" repeated Hollins, and Jack retreated forward.
And what were the thoughts of the murderer during that long night,
as, hunched up with his back against the bulkhead and one
nerveless hand held to the corpse, he crouched awaiting the dawn.
Was he thinking of life or of death, of the future or of the past?
Not he! His brain was vacant and his mind a blank; only his mouth
was full, as he chewed steadily all through the long, long night.
Jack curled himself down under the lee of the main fife-rail, and,
when the watch changed, returned there, preferring the open sky
above him on such a perfect night to the frousy bad air of the foc's'le.
Just as he was falling asleep, he noticed the small figure of the kid
squeezing itself in behind the pump wheels.
The first hour of the middle watch passed without incident. Black
Davis paced moodily to windward on the poop, the helmsman
nodded sleepily over the wheel, and the look-out, trusting to luck in
not being found out, was taking a nap on the foc's'le head.
Of the whole ship's company, perhaps the ragged urchin time-
keeping was the only one thoroughly awake besides the mate.
But two bells had not been struck five minutes before every sleeper
was aroused into wakefulness.
Suddenly a long, deep, wailing groan reverberated through the ship.
Dusky forms crouching under the lee of the bulwarks roused
themselves, sat up, and looked round inquiringly.
The mate stopped in his walk and listened, the look-out sprang
startled to his feet, and a hoarse murmur of gruff whispers broke out.
Again came the deep, mournful groan. It seemed to come from
somewhere about the midshiphouse.
"What's thet noise forrard?" called the mate.
"Some one a-groanin' in the midshiphouse, sir!" hailed back the look-
out.
The men nudged each other significantly.
"Poor Pedro!" came a loud voice from somewhere forward.
The mate frowned but said nothing, and the explanation evidently
satisfied him, for he resumed his tramp.
Again the groan broke the stillness of the night.
There was something uncanny about the dismal sound. Full of
superstition, like all deep-water Jacks, the men did not like it; several
of the watch sprang to their feet, and there was a deep hissing of
awe-filled voices amongst the dark groups of clustering men.
Suddenly a voice called from forward:
"It ain't the dago, sir; he says it weren't him."
"Who's that speaking?" roared the mate.
"Green, sir!"
"Come aft, yew; what yew doin' forrard in yer watch on deck?"
The man came running aft at a heavy, ungainly trot.
"Wall?" snapped the bucko venomously.
"Hearin' them groans, sir, I went an' listened at the door of the
bosun's locker."
"Yes; wall? Go on, go on!" broke in the mate impatiently.
"I listens a while, sir, an' hears nothin'; then there comes a groan
again, wery image o' Mister Barker's voice."
There was a renewed nudging and whispering amongst the group of
men listening.
"Told ye so!" growled one. "Just wot I said!"
"By golly! dem is ghost groans, dis chile tell dat easy. No libing coon
eber make dem noises, not on your life," grunted the coloured man,
his voice shaking with fright.
"Silence there!" thundered the mate. "Go on, Green, spit it out 'fore
y'r throat gits sore," he continued.
"Then I asks Pedro, sir, if it was 'im, an' he sez he ain't opened his
mouth all night."
"All right, yew kin go," muttered Black Davis. "It's thet softy of a
carpenter been eatin' too much!" he went on half to himself, half
aloud.
Suddenly, right over his head called a voice:
"I'm comin' fer yew, Davis, I'm comin' fer yew!" Then, after a short
interval, "I'm burning! I'm burning! I'm burning!"
The effect on the superstitious men was stupendous. The voice was
the late second mate's to the life, and seemed to come from the
mizzen-top.
Sam, the oracle on ghosts, threw himself to the deck, groaning in
absurd terror.
"De ship am doomed! De ship am doomed!" he shrieked.
Angelino crossed himself nervously, and a shiver ran through the
quaking crowd.
But there is not much superstition in a Yankee bucko, and Black
Davis, tilting back his head, hailed the mizzen-top with a roar loud
enough to wake the dead.
"Who's thet skylarkin' up thar? Come down, yew ratty hoodlum, or I'll
break yew all ter pieces."
Dead silence!
"Up the mizzen riggin', some er yew swine, an' fetch him outer that!"
roared the angry mate.
Not a man stirred.
Suddenly the tall form of the bosun appeared on the edge of the
group of frightened men, awakened out of his light sleep by the
commotion.
"What's up now?" he asked, as he shouldered his way through the
men.
"Hell is up an' fizzlin'," burst out the exasperated mate. "Some d——
d scowbanker monkeyin' aloft has got this crowd o' softies scared;
but he ain't scared Black Davis—oh no! not by the Holy Pope—an' I
pities him when he comes down."
"Jump aloft, bosun," he continued, "and see if yew kin rake him out
by his eye-teeth; he's somewhere up the mizzen."
"Aye, aye, sir," replied the bosun in his deep voice, and turning, he
swung himself over the rail into the rigging and went up the ratlines.
All heads turned upwards, anxiously watching him.
"He's a dead man," quavered one.
"Shut up, yew brayin' booby!" grunted the mate.
Up went the intrepid bosun. They watched him clamber out on the
futtock shrouds and haul himself into the top; for a moment he
disappeared behind the mast, and then reappeared, and with one
hand on the topmast rigging, leant over the edge of the top and
shouted down:
"There ain't nobody up here, sir. Are you sure you heard a voice?"
"Didn't I done tole you?" jerked Sam, his teeth rattling.
"Heard er voice!" howled the mate. "W'y, the swab called me by me
name."
"It were Mister Barker's voice!" put in some one in an undertone.
"It were de voice ob de debble!" declared the darkey. "By gorry, dis
bleedin' hooker am doomed!"
"Hell!" roared the mate. "If thet coffee-coloured Jamaica slush-bucket
shoots off his bazoo again, I'll jump down an' whang his hide off."

The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback Allan H Church Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback Allan H Church Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Handbook of Strategic 360

Feedback Allan H. Church

THE HANDBOOK OF STRATEGIC

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

CIP Data is on file at the Library of Congress

1. Introduction and Overview to The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback 1

2. What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? 11

SECTION I 360 FOR DECISION-​MAKING

4. Historical Challenges of Using 360 Feedback for Performance Evaluation 61

5. Technological Innovations in the Use of 360 Feedback

6. Strategic 360 Feedback for Talent Management 97

7. Using Stakeholder Input to Support Strategic Talent Development at

SECTION II 360 FOR DEVELOPMENT

9. Moving Beyond “The Great Debate”: Recasting Developmental

10. Team Development With Strategic 360 Feedback: Learning

11. From Insight to Successful Behavior Change: The Real Impact of

12. Integrating Personality Assessment With 360 Feedback in Leadership

13. Strategic 360 Feedback for Organization Development 213

SECTION III 360 METHODOLOGY AND MEASUREMENT

15. Can We Improve Rater Performance? 255

17. Is 360 Feedback a Predictor or Criterion Measure? 309

Contents //​ vii

SECTION IV ORGANIZATIONAL APPLICATIONS

18. The Journey From Development to Appraisal: 360 Feedback

19. Harnessing the Potential of 360 Feedback in Executive

20. An Alternative Form of Feedback: Using Stakeholder Interviews

21. Mitigating Succession Risk in the C-​Suite: A Case Study 361

22. Integrating Strategic 360 Feedback at a Financial Services Organization 373

23. Leveraging Team 360 to Drive Business-​Enhancing Change Across the

24. What Kind of Talent Do We Have Here? Using 360s to Establish

SECTION V CRITICAL AND EMERGING TOPICS

25. 360 Feedback Versus Alternative Forms of Feedback: Which Feedback

26. Gender, Diversity, and 360 Feedback 427

28. The Ethical Context of 360 Feedback 461

29. The Legal Environment for 360 Feedback 479

30. Using 360 Feedback to Shape a Profession: Lessons Learned Over

31. The Handbook of Strategic 360 Feedback: Themes, Prognostications,

About the Editors 531

4. Be as honest as possible about future opportunities within the organization. Do

Seymour Adler, PhD Emily D. Campion, PhD

Jay A. Conger, DBA Manuel London, PhD

Contributors //​ xiii

Eduardo Salas, PhD James W. Smither, PhD

/ /​/ ​ 1 / /​/​ INTRODUCTION AND

ALLAN H. CHURCH, DAVID W. BRACKEN,

Where would we be without feedback? It is a constant aspect of

2 / / ​ H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

360 Feedback is a process for collecting , quantifying , and reporting co-​

Introduction and Overview //​ 3

4 / / ​ H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

Section I: 360 for Decision-​Making

Section II: 360 for Development

Introduction and Overview //​ 5

Section III: 360 Methodology and Measurement

Section IV: Organization Applications

With a firm understanding of the different types of practices and measurement

Section V: Critical and Emerging Topics

6 / / ​ H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

KEY THEMES IDENTIFIED

SECTION I 360 FOR DECISION-MAKING

Contents // vii

21. Mitigating Succession Risk in the C-Suite: A Case Study 361

23. Leveraging Team 360 to Drive Business-Enhancing Change Across the

Contributors // xiii

/ // 1 / // INTRODUCTION AND

2 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

360 Feedback is a process for collecting , quantifying , and reporting co-

Introduction and Overview // 3

4 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

Section I: 360 for Decision-Making

Introduction and Overview // 5

6 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

Introduction and Overview // 7

8 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

Introduction and Overview // 9

10 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

/ // 2 / // WHAT IS “STRATEGIC

12 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? // 13

14 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

even supposedly “development-only” processes that result in decisions regarding

4. Participation must be inclusive, that is, a census of the leaders/managers in the

What Is “Strategic 360 Feedback”? // 15

16 / / H andbook of S trategic 36 0 Feedback

360 FOR DECISION-MAKING

/ // 3 / // BEST PRACTICES WHEN

Best Practices for Performance Appraisal // 23

11. A broad range of items should be considered, including citizenship-related

Best Practices for Performance Appraisal // 25

20. Self-ratings should also be included.

Best Practices for Performance Appraisal // 27

Best Practices for Performance Appraisal // 29

29. There should be a follow-up, such as a midyear or other intermediate review