DOES PERFORMANCE IMPROVE FOLLOWING MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK? A THEORETICAL MODEL, META‐ANALYSIS, AND REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

Abstract

We review evidence showing that multisource feedback ratings are related to other measures of leadership effectiveness and that different rater sources conceptualize performance in a similar manner. We then describe a meta‐analysis of 24 longitudinal studies showing that improvement in direct report, peer, and supervisor ratings over time is generally small. We present a theoretical framework and review empirical evidence suggesting performance improvement should be more likely for some feedback recipients than others. Specifically, improvement is most likely to occur when feedback indicates that change is necessary, recipients have a positive feedback orientation, perceive a need to change their behavior, react positively to the feedback, believe change is feasible, set appropriate goals to regulate their behavior, and take actions that lead to skill and performance improvement.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 599 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.