In this paper, the 360-degree feedback concept in performance evaluation is examined. Compared with the traditional information feedback system featured a single source of information, 360-degree feedback system is highly credible and effective. Since with this evaluation system, staffs' performance can be fully assessed by all related evaluators, such as supervisors, subordinates, peers and themselves. However in practice, evaluators tend to overestimate themselves while underestimate others, or even there will be a strategic evaluation leading to a assessment deviation. Moreover, weights assigned to different evaluators in practice are always fixed, which makes it difficult to adjust all kinds of bias. To address this issue, the conventional 360-degree feedback method is improved. Firstly, a 360-degree sealed scoring evaluation model is constructed to obtain and combine information from multiple evaluators. To ensure a uniform scoring scale from different evaluators, a standardized parameter Kj* is introduced, which is entirely ignored in existing researches. Then, consistency indices are designed to depict the deviation degree between self-evaluation and peers-evaluation. Based on consistency analysis, a reasonable weight adjustment method is proposed, in which a smaller weight will be assigned to inconsistent scores. In fact, the weight adjusted method is a kind of mechanism design, which aims to bound strategic evaluation or reduce deviations caused by psychological factors. Finally, the approach is applied to rank employees' contribution, and its effectiveness is demonstrated by comparisons with conventional 360-degree method.
DING Tao, WU Hua-qing, LIANG Liang
. A Weight Adjustment Method in 360-degree Evaluation System[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2016
, 24(7)
: 149
-154
.
DOI: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2016.07.018
[1] London M, Beatty R W. 360-degree feedback as competitive advantage[J]. Human Resource Management, 1993, 32(2-3):353-372.
[2] Carless A S, Mann L, Wearin A J. Leadership, managerial performance and 360-degree feedback[J]. Applied Psychology:An international review, 1998, 47(4):481-496.
[3] Jussi O. Performance of virtual organizations[R].Working Paper, Tampere University of Technology, 2005.
[4] Kalpan R E. 360-degree feedback plus:Boosting the power of coworker ratings for executives[J]. Resource Management, 1993, 2(1):299-314.
[5] 陆昌勤, 方俐洛, 凌文辁. 360度反馈及其在人力资源管理中的效用[J]. 中国管理科学,2001, 9(3):74-80.
[6] Rynes S L, Gerhart B, Parks L. Personnel psychology:Performance evaluation and pay for performance[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2005, 56:571-600.
[7] 向健, 刘蓉晖, 赵红. 管理者人格特征对其360度评价结果的影响研究[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2014, 44(12):47-54.
[8] 王重鸣, 心理学研究方法[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.
[9] Yammarino F J, Atwater L E. Do managers see themselves as other see them? Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management[J].Organizational Dynamics, 1997, 25(4):35-44.
[10] Waldman D A, Atwater L E. Power of 360-degree feedback[M]. Houston Texas:Gulf Publishing Company, 1998.
[11] Bass B M. Reducing leniency in merit ratings[J]. Personnel Psychology, 1956, 9(3):359-369.
[12] Taylor S E, Brown J D. Illusion and well-being:A social psychological perspective no mental health[J]. Psychological Bulletin, 1988, 103(2):193-210.
[13] Farh J L, Werbel J D. Effects of purpose of the appraisal and expectation of validation on self-appraisal leniency[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71(3):527-529.
[14] 孙健. 360度绩效考评[M]. 北京:企业管理出版社, 2003.
[15] 沈超红, 郎晓新. 下属行为取向与上级评价关系之间的实证研究[J]. 湖南社会科学,2009, (5):126-129.
[16] 谢小云, 王重明. 自我评价绩效的因果模型与动态属性[J]. 管理世界,2006, (4):97-105.
