Advertisement

A follow-up study on vocational high school principals’ opinions about 360 degree evaluation feedback and their leadership effectiveness and behavior change

  • Tsai-Feng ChengEmail author
  • Huei-Chun Wu
Article

Abstract

This pilot study revealed that most vocational high school principals accept using 360 degree evaluation feedback as the mechanism for evaluating leadership effectiveness and as a reference for leadership behavior change intentions. However, whether this can cause behavior change or elevation of leadership effectiveness remains uncertain and must be tracked and verified. The current study continues previous research and has the following purposes: (1) to investigate the status quo of vocational high school principals’ leadership effectiveness and the differences before and after implementing 360 degree evaluation feedback, (2) to analyze the relationship between principals’ leadership behavior change intentions and their leadership effectiveness, and (3) to explore principals’ opinions regarding use of the 360 degree evaluation as a motive for leadership behavior change and their perceptions of the influence on leadership effectiveness. To achieve purposes (1) and (2), this study examines the 69 schools in the pilot study and uses a sample of 40 schools and 1030 people for the questionnaire survey. The interview survey is conducted on 12 principals of the 40 schools for research purpose. (3) This study gains significant findings: (1) Vocational high school principals emphasize rational goal leadership effectiveness. (2) Implementation of 360 degree evaluation benefits principals in improving leadership effectiveness. (3) Principals with high behavior change intentions have better leadership effectiveness. (4) Principals mostly possess positive and supportive attitudes toward using 360 degree evaluation feedback as an important source of leadership behavior change, and they have positive perceptions of its influence.

Keywords

360 degree feedback Leadership effectiveness Evaluation feedback Leadership behavior change intention Competing values framework 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is sponsored by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C.

Supplementary material

12564_2019_9608_MOESM1_ESM.docx (37 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 185–204.Google Scholar
  3. Alammar, L. (2015). The effective school: The role of the leaders in school effectiveness. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(6), 695–721.Google Scholar
  4. Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014). Self–other agreement in empowering leadership: Relationships with leader effectiveness and subordinates’ job satisfaction and turnover intention. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 784–800.Google Scholar
  5. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.Google Scholar
  6. Atwater, L. E., & Brett, J. F. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of reactions to developmental 360° feedback. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 532–548.Google Scholar
  7. Atwater, L. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (1997). Self-other rating agreement: A review and model. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 15, 121–174.Google Scholar
  8. Bergner, S., Davda, A., Culpin, V., & Rybnicek, R. (2016). Who overrates, who underrates? Personality and its link to self–other agreement of leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(3), 335–354.Google Scholar
  9. 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(2), 183–192.Google Scholar
  10. Braddy, P. W., Gooty, J., Fleenor, J. W., & Yammarino, F. J. (2014). Leader behaviors and career derailment potential: A multi-analytic method examination of rating source and self–other agreement. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 373–390.Google Scholar
  11. Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 930–942.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A., Inceoglu, I., & Lin, Y. (2017). Preventing rater biases in 360-degree feedback by forcing choice. Organizational Research Methods, 20(1), 121–148.Google Scholar
  13. Cacioppe, R., & Albrecht, S. (2000). Using 3608 feedback and the integral model to develop leadership and management skills. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(8), 390–404.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, T. F. (2012). A study on the senior high vocational school principals’ competing values leadership effectiveness indicators constructed and their relationships with behavior change intention based on 360 degree evaluation system, (NSC 98-2511-S-017- 002-MY3). Taiwan: National Science Council. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  15. Cheng, T. F., & Wu, H. C. (2009). A study of the relationships among evaluations of elementary school principals’ competing values leadership effectiveness, attitudes towards 360 degree feedback and their behavior change intentions. Educational Policy Forum, 12(2), 177–218. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  16. Cipolla, L. J. (2009). Building performance-based 360 degree assessments: From design to delivery. Edina: Beaver’s Pond Press.Google Scholar
  17. Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 133–156.Google Scholar
  18. Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  19. Deshpande, S., Bhanot, A., & Maknikar, S. (2015). Assessing the influence of a 360-degree marketing communications campaign with 360-degree feedback. Social Marketing Quarterly, 21(3), 142–151.Google Scholar
  20. Dobewall, H., Realo, A., Allik, J., Esko, T., & Metspalu, A. (2013). Self-other agreement in happiness and life-satisfaction: The role of personality traits. Social Indicators Research, 114(2), 479–492.Google Scholar
  21. Edwards, R. M., & Ewen, J. A. (1996). 360 feedback: The powerful new model for employee assessment and performance improvement. New York: AMACOM.Google Scholar
  22. Engin, K., Fatih, B., Nazim, C., & Mikail, Y. (2015). The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement: A meta-analysis study. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(1), 79–93.Google Scholar
  23. Fleenor, J., Taylor, S., & Chappelow, C. (2008). Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.Google Scholar
  24. Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent conditions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, relative deprivation and social justice: Theoretical, empirical, and policy, perspectives (pp. 39–68). New York: Pleumm Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gumustekin, G. E., Ozler, D. E. C., & Yilmaz, F. (2010). A research to determining the impact of 360 degree performance evaluation system on organizational commitment. Business and Economics Research Journal, 1(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  26. Hammerly, M. E., Harmon, L., & Schwaitzberg, S. D. (2014). Good to great: Using 360-degree feedback to improve physician emotional intelligence. Journal of Healthcare Management, 59(5), 354–366.Google Scholar
  27. Hirschmüller, S., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). The dual lens model: A comprehensive framework for understanding self–other agreement of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 335–353.Google Scholar
  28. Hooijberg, R., & Denison, D. R. (2002). What makes leaders effective? A stakeholder approach to leadership effectiveness. Resource document. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/WHAT-MAKES-LEADERS-EFFECTIVE-A-STAKEHOLDER-APPROACH-Hooijberg/9c1b8896fb06aad9990959aca4cf3989e0d91d8b. Accessed 10 October 2018.
  29. Karkoulian, S., Assaker, G., & Hallak, R. (2016). An empirical study of 360-degree feedback, organizational justice, and firm sustainability. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1862–1867.Google Scholar
  30. Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., Wu, B., & McKee-Ryan, F. M. (2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees’ response to performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1057–1069.Google Scholar
  31. Latham, P. G., & Wexley, N. K. (1994). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  32. Liviu, I., Emil, C., Irina, S., & Delia, B. (2009). The use of 360-degree feedback method. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 4(1), 300–306.Google Scholar
  33. London, M., & Beatty, R. W. (1993). 360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 32(2–3), 353–372.Google Scholar
  34. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal accomplishment, self-evaluations, and performance-related outcomes? Theory-based applications and directions for research. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 803–839.Google Scholar
  35. London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100.Google Scholar
  36. Lynch, G. J. (2001). Effective leadership behavior: Competing values and objective outcomes in selected municipal departments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, Albany.Google Scholar
  37. Markham, S. E., Markham, I. S., & Smith, J. W. (2015). At the crux of dyadic leadership: Self-other agreement of leaders and direct reports: Analyzing 360-degree feedback. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 958–977.Google Scholar
  38. Markham, S. E., Markham, I. S., & Smith, J. W. (2017). A review, analysis, and extension of peer-leader feedback agreement: Contrasting group aggregate agreement vs. self-other agreement using entity analytics and visualization. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 153–177.Google Scholar
  39. McKee, R. A., Lee, Y.-T., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Effects of personality and gender on self-other agreement in ratings of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 14790.Google Scholar
  40. Mishra, G. (2014). An exploratory study of the process and problems of 360-degree feedback in select IT companies. Compensation & Benefits Review, 46(2), 116–122.Google Scholar
  41. Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1995). Understanding performance appraisal: Social, organizational and goal-oriented perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. O’Keefe, P. (2018). What is a 360 leadership assessment? Resource document. EDGE Training System Inc. https://connect.edgetrainingsystems.com/blog/what-is-a-360-leadership-assessment. Accessed 10 October 2018.
  43. Orr, M. T., & Orphanos, S. (2011). How graduate-level preparation influences the effectiveness of school leaders: A comparison of the outcomes of exemplary and conventional leadership preparation programs for principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(1), 18–70.Google Scholar
  44. Quinn, R. E., & McGrath, M. R. (1985). The transformation of organizational cultures: A competing values perspective. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. L. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational culture (pp. 315–334). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363–377.Google Scholar
  46. Rosti, R. T., & Shipper, F. (1998). A study of the impact of training in a management development program based on 360 feedback. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13(1/2), 77–89.Google Scholar
  47. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behaviour relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1–36). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561–570.Google Scholar
  49. Tosti, D. T., & Addison, R. M. (2009). 360-degree feedback: Going around in circles? Performance Improvement, 48(3), 36–39.Google Scholar
  50. Trafimow, D., Sheeran, P., Conner, M., & Finlay, K. A. (2002). Evidence that perceived behavioural control is a multidimensional construct: Perceived control and perceived difficulty. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 101–121.Google Scholar
  51. Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2006). Turning visitors into customers: A usability-centric perspective on purchase behavior in electronic channels. Management Science, 52(3), 367–382.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Education Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Office of General Affairs/Department of Renal CareKaohsiung Medical UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations