This research outlines a conceptual framework and data analysis process to examine multisource feedback (MSF) rater group differences from a leadership assessment survey, after testing the measures for equivalence. MSF gathers and compares ratings from supervisors, peer, followers and self and is the predominant leadership assessment tool in the United States. The results of MSF determine significant professional outcomes such as leadership development opportunities, promotions and compensation. An underlying belief behind the extensive use of MSF is that each rater group has a different set of implicit leadership theories (ILTs) they use when assessing the leader, and therefore each group is able to contribute unique insight. If this is true, research findings would find rater group consistency in leadership assessment outcomes, but they do not. A review of group comparison research reveals that most empirical MSF studies fail to perform preliminary data exploration, employ consistent models or adequately test for measurement equivalence (ME); yet industry standards strongly suggest exploratory methods whenever data sets undergo changes, and misspecified models cause biased results. Finally, ME testing is critical to ascertain if rater groups have similar conceptualizations of the factors and items in an MSF survey. If conceptual ME is not established, substantive group comparisons cannot be made. This study draws on the extant MSF, ILT and ME literature and analyzes rater group data from a large, application-based MSF leadership database. After exploring the data and running the requisite MI tests, I found that the measures upheld measurement invariance and were suitable for group comparison. Additional MI tests for substantive hypotheses support found that significant mean differences did exist among certain rater groups and dimensions, but only direct report and peer groups were consistently significantly different in all four dimensions (analytical, interpersonal, courageous and leadership effectiveness). Additionally, the interpersonal dimension was the most highly correlated with leadership effectiveness in all five rater groups. The overall findings of this study address the importance of MSF data exploration, offer alternative explanations to the disparate leadership MSF research findings to date and question the application use of MSF tools in their current form.

Academic research in 360-degree feedback continues to be dominated by a positivist approach with analyses of the feedback ratings. In contrast, this qualitative study explores how people make sense of 360, across the chain of meaning making involving not only raters and feedback recipients but also HR managers, facilitators and external consultants. Two corporate case studies in the pharmaceutical sector show how 360 evolves as a social process and carries a variety of meanings in different organisations and management contexts. Quasi-scientific rituals are revealed, demonstrating the existence of pseudo-anonymity and of complex use of numerical ratings and narrative comments. Woven alongside these corporate case studies is an autoethnography, which examines emotional and cognitive responses to two rounds of 360 asking for feedback on coaching performance. The autoethnographic thread allows insights into the dynamic relationship between academic and practitioner perspectives, as the researcher moves between both worlds. This PhD makes three contributions: the conceptualisation of 360 as a social process; the questioning of taken-for-granted customs within 360; and a methodological contribution to the development of autoethnographic practice.

No description available.

Application of multisource feedback (MSF) increased dramatically and became widespread globally in the past two decades, but there was little conceptual work regarding self-other agreement and few empirical studies investigated self-other agreement in other cultural settings. This study developed a new conceptual framework of self-other agreement and used three samples to illustrate how national culture affected self-other agreement. These three samples included 428 participants from China, 818 participants from the US, and 871 participants from globally dispersed teams (GDTs). An EQS procedure and a polynomial regression procedure were used to examine whether the covariance matrices were equal across samples and whether the relationships between self-other agreement and performance would be different across cultures, respectively. The results indicated MSF could be applied to China and GDTs, but the pattern of relationships between self-other agreement and performance was different across samples, suggesting that the results found in the U.S. sample were the exception rather than rule. Demographics also affected self-other agreement disparately across perspectives and cultures, indicating self-concept was susceptible to cultural influences. The proposed framework only received partial support but showed great promise to guide future studies. This study contributed to the literature by: (a) developing a new framework of self-other agreement that could be used to study various contextual factors; (b) examining the relationship between self-other agreement and performance in three vastly different samples; (c) providing some important insights about consensus between raters and self-other agreement; (d) offering some practical guidelines regarding how to apply MSF to other cultures more effectively.

Submitted by Joana Azevedo (joanad@id.uff.br) on 2017-06-30T19:18:04Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERT DENISE DEL PELOSO DE CASTRO.pdf: 2022904 bytes, checksum: 83c61e2187f8465afb598f3b867b9017 (MD5) / Rejected by Biblioteca da Escola de Engenharia (bee@ndc.uff.br), reason: Olá, Joana! O depósito desta dissertação está todo corrigido. Porém, preciso confirmar com você se realmente é "acesso restrito". Após confirmação, reenvie novamente para eu validar e publicizar. Atenciosamente, Catarina Ribeiro Bibliotecária BEE - Ramal 5992/5993/5994 on 2017-07-06T15:54:56Z (GMT) / Submitted by Joana Azevedo (joanad@id.uff.br) on 2017-07-06T18:53:12Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERT DENISE DEL PELOSO DE CASTRO.pdf: 2022904 bytes, checksum: 83c61e2187f8465afb598f3b867b9017 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Biblioteca da Escola de Engenharia (bee@ndc.uff.br) on 2017-07-07T16:27:15Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERT DENISE DEL PELOSO DE CASTRO.pdf: 2022904 bytes, checksum: 83c61e2187f8465afb598f3b867b9017 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-07T16:27:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERT DENISE DEL PELOSO DE CASTRO.pdf: 2022904 bytes, checksum: 83c61e2187f8465afb598f3b867b9017 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-10-27 / A implementação da avaliação por múltiplas fontes, realizada pela administração pública federal, introduziu mudanças significativas na avaliação de desempenho no setor público, ao se considerar que novos avaliadores foram inseridos no processo (pares, subordinados e o próprio servidor). O objetivo deste trabalho foi analisar a percepção dos gestores de avaliação de uma autarquia federal acerca dessa nova sistemática implementada, utilizando-se um estudo de caso e a aplicação de um questionário eletrônico semiestruturado. A amostra de gestores foi selecionada por acessibilidade e tipicidade. Os resultados apontam que a maioria dos respondentes concorda, de forma plena ou parcial, que a avaliação realizada nestes moldes é mais precisa e justa, que fornece feedback aos envolvidos e que as habilidades de liderança são relevantes para que a sistemática alcance os resultados esperados. Em relação ao grau de importância das competências demandadas neste modelo de avaliação, os respondentes indicam o comprometimento, a comunicação e a avaliação da equipe de forma justa e imparcial. Os desafios envolvidos na implementação da metodologia no setor público estão relacionados a aspectos comportamentais, como a seriedade e imparcialidade no processo e as especificidades relacionadas à estrutura e à cultura da administração pública que, segundo os gestores, são fatores restritivos ao êxito da nova sistemática. / The implementation of the multisource feedback by the federal public administration has introduced significant changes in performance appraisal in the public sector, considering that new evaluators were included in the process (peers, subordinates and the server himself). The objective of this study was to analyze the perception of evaluation managers of a federal autarchy on the new system implemented, using a case study and application of a semi-structured electronic questionnaire. The sample was selected by accessibility and typicality. The results show that most respondents agree in full or in part, the evaluation carried out in this way, it is more accurate and fair, provides feedback to involved and the leadership skills are relevant to the systematic achieve the expected results. Regarding the degree of importance of competences demanded in this evaluation model, respondents indicate the commitment, communication and fairly and impartially evaluation of staff. The challenges involved in implementation of the methodology in the public sector are related to behavioral aspects such as the seriousness and impartiality in the process and the specificities related to the structure and culture of public administration according to the managers are restrictive factors to the success of the new system.

Dans un monde où les résidents sont continuellement évalués par les médecins, ce projet de recherche explore la perception de résidents en médecine d'urgence suite à l'obtention d'une rétroaction multisources provenant de médecins enseignants, d'infirmiers avec qui ils ont travaillé et de patients qu'ils ont soignés. Dans une urgence d'un centre universitaire tertiaire, dix résidents ont pris part à un processus de rétroaction multisources. Trois mois après cette intervention, ils ont participé à des entrevues semi-structurées visant à explorer leur perception de ce processus de rétroaction. Une analyse qualitative a permis de constater la valeur que peut avoir cette procédure pour la formation des résidents. Étant donné que les médecins qui enseignent à l'urgence offrent des rétroactions portant majoritairement sur l'expertise médicale, la rétroaction multisources permet d'offrir de la rétroaction sur un plus grand nombre de compétences (gestion, communication, collaboration, professionnalisme). La majorité des résidents affirment avoir modifié certains comportements ou façons de faire après l'obtention de cette rétroaction. L'information provenant des infirmiers et des patients s’avère être crédible, pertinente, mais surtout, les résidents jugent utile d'obtenir cette information dans leur formation en médecine d'urgence. / In a world where residents are continuously assessed by physicians, this present study explored residents’ perceptions of multisource feedback provided by their teaching physicians, nurses with whom they have worked, and patients they have treated. In the emergency department of a tertiary-care university hospital, ten emergency medicine residents participated in a multisource feedback intervention. Three months later, they participated in semi-structured group and individual interviews on their perception of the intervention. The qualitative analysis of these interviews shows the evident potential of using multisource feedback in resident formation. While physicians focused primarily on medical expertise, nurses and patients addressed many others competencies (management, communication, collaboration, professionalism). Residents concluded that obtaining feedback from nurses and patients was acceptable and useful in their training. Residents received information they found helpful, and the great majority of them reported having modified certain behaviours after obtaining this feedback. Multisource feedback appeared as an acceptable, credible and useful option for the assessment of medical competencies other than medical expertise in emergency residents.

No description available.