Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback

By J. Ghorpade. 2000

115 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/17280be5a1bfb87fbf03197eb1aa44f554279bfa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Ryan S. O’Leary
2. Ginka Toegel
3. Jay A Conger
4. E. Pulakos

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

1. Ryan S. O’Leary
2. Ginka Toegel
3. Jay A Conger
4. E. Pulakos

Citations in the corpus

• Why Is Performance Management Broken? (2011, background): “) to protect the anonymity of individual raters and increase the reliability and accuracy of the feedback obtained (Ghorpade, 2000; Waldman & Atwater, 1998).”
• 360-Degree Assessment: Time for Reinvention (2003, background): “In addition, for each item requiring a quantitative ranking on the questionnaire, space should be provided for qualitative comments that explain and justify the numerical evaluation (Ghorpade, 2000).”