360-Degree Feedback Practices:
Pure Blood or Wanna Be? - A Review
Fida Nirmala Nugraha
1
, Atya Nur Aisha
1
, and Litasari Widyastuti Suwarsono
1
1
Telkom University, Jl. Telekomunikasi No.1, Terusan Buah Batu, Bandung 40257, Indonesia
Keywords: 360-degree, performance appraisal
, subjectivity, cultural variables
Abstract: Performance appraisal is an important process for individuals as well as for organizations, and yet it is
challenging to find the appropriate tools due to many problems. Subjectivity was one of the problems faced
by organizations when it comes to apprise its employees. 360-degree feedback often served as the best
alternative to minimize the issue and still is not flawless. Specific preparations needed to perform feedback
appropriately, are easily overlooked. A review of 360-degree feedback practices in three organizations in
Bandung showed that applying proper 360-degree feedback was a long and complex road. The organizations
did not apply the entire procedure/steps as prescribed. Cultural variable (high power distance) and the
awareness of the role of the organization's culture were deem important to set up right prior to 360-degree
feedback deployment, so the intended goal of the assessment can be achieved.
1 INTRODUCTION
Performance appraisal is a process in which an
employee is assessed regarding his/her performance
compared to a set of standards. 360-degree feedback
started its popularity in 1990 (Hedge et al., 2001) as a
tool for leadership development (London and Beatty,
1993). Research regarding 360-degree feedback
dated from 1995 to 2014, as reviewed, showed the
attractiveness of the topic (Mohapatra, 2015). This
method had been used by many well- known
organizations (Luthans and Peterson, 2003) and is
still continue to used nowadays by various types of
organizations (Zand et al., 2017; Garg, 2019). Some
of the reasons why organizations chose to use 360-
degree feedback were hoping to improve the
organization, management, the leadership of its
employees, and for the evaluative purpose (Waldman
et al., 1998).
Aside from the benefit and good intentions of
performance appraisal, yet there are few problems
that arise (Beer, 1981, Prowse and Prowse, 2009).
One of them is subjectivity (Prowse and Prowse,
2009; Grund and Przemek, 2012). The problem needs
to be addressed seriously since it can lead to negative
perceptions that can outweigh the positive impact of
performance appraisal (Brett and Atwater, 2001).
360-degree feedback that presumed to be the answer
to the problem is not perfect either. There are
companies that used 360-degree feedback but did not
come up with the intended results (Rogers and
Rogers, 2002).
This study's aim is to give a review of the factors
that need to be considered in implementing 360-
degree feedback wholly.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
What is 360-degree feedback? 360-degree feedback
is ‘a systematic collection and feedback on
performance data on an individual or group derived
from a number of stakeholders in their performance’
(Ward, 2003). 360-degree feedback, also known as
multi-rater feedback, multi-rater assessment,
multisource feedback (Campbell, 2001), where it can
be used in an industrial setting (Bracken et al., 2001).
The popularity of 360-degree feedback is
indisputable. Many companies used this appraisal for
their employees (Antonioni, 1996; Lepsinger and
Lucia, 2009). Despite its popularity, there are things
to consider in order to conduct the ideal 360-degree
feedback that includes data sources and measurement
dimensions (London and Beatty, 1993), series of
steps (Antonioni, 1996, Edwards and Ewen, 1996),
and critical factors (Rogers and Rogers, 2002).
Nugraha, F., Aisha, A. and Suwarsono, L.
360-Degree Feedback Practices: Pure Blood or Wanna Be? - A Review.
DOI: 10.5220/0009959205190525
In Proceedings of the International Conference of Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management (ICBEEM 2019), pages 519-525
ISBN: 978-989-758-471-8
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
519

The importance of data sources and what are
being measured in 360-degree feedback highlighted
by London & Beatty (1993). London & Beatty offers
that different evaluators assess a different aspect of
data, even though they are assessing one particular
individual.
Figure 1. Leadership and Data Sources (Adapted from
London & Beatty, 1993, p. 355)
Antonioni (1996) proposed three steps of 360-
Degree Appraisal Process: Input, Process, and
Output. Each aspect to be considered, as included in
Table 1 as follows.
Table 1: 360-Degree Appraisal Process: A Practitioner
Model (Adapted From Antonini, 1996 p.25)
Input Process Output
purpose of
appraisal:
developmental
vs. evaluating
the
appraisal form
written
feedback
appraiser
anonymity
selecting
peer appraisers
appraiser
training
training for
appraisees
training for
coaches
feedback
report
self-appraisal
reactions to
feedback
coaching
steps
targeting
improvement
action plans
reporting
results back to the
appraiser
specific
goals/action
just-in-time
training
mini-
assessment/follow
-up
recognition
for improvement
accountability
increase
awareness of
others
expectations
improveme
nt in appraisee
work
behaviors/perf
ormance
reduction
of
undiscussable
increase in
periodic 360-
degree
performance
reviews
manageme
nt learning
Edwards & Ewen (1996) shared some things to do
in conducting the 360-degree feedback: 1)
participative design, 2) user assessment, 3) assure
fairness, 4) accurate, 5) simple, 6) credible, 7) time-
efficient, 8) user training, 9) anonymity, 10)
automate, 11) safeguards, 12) managing expectations.
Six critical factors from best-practice companies
offered by Rogers & Rogers (2002) which includes:
1) use primarily for developmental of individuals, 2)
link and align with organizational strategy, 3) high
administrative control over all aspect of 360-degree
practices, 4) role model from senior management, 5)
highly trained internal coaches and 6) evaluate the
results.
All four previous studies mention the importance
of tool (measuring specific things (different data
sources (London & Beatty, 1993), appraisal form
(Antonini, 1996), accurate (Edwards & Ewen, 1996),
link and align with organizational strategies (Rogers
& Rogers, 2002). The importance of people who
assigned to give feedback and what performance
dimensions should be assessed ware also mentioned
(Morgeson et al., 2005).
3 METHOD
This study uses a cross-case analysis method that can
identify similarities and differences from various case
studies. The stages of the cross-case analysis
conducted refer to Khan & VanWynsberghe (2008),
beginning with (1) determining the case studies that
are relevant to the research objectives, (2)
determining the criteria that will be used to evaluate
the similarities and differences between cases, (3)
evaluating the conditions in each case, and (4) making
comparisons of findings between cases.
This research involved three organizations that
were purposively selected regarding the practice of
360-degree feedback all reside in the Bandung area.
Organizational characteristics of each organization
can be seen in Table 2. The next step is to determine
the evaluation criteria to be used. In this study, the
evaluation criteria were obtained based on the results
of literature studies, referring to four previous studies,
namely London and Beatty (1993), Antonioni (1996),
Edward and Ewen (1996), as well as Rogers and
Rogers (2002). After the evaluation criteria are
obtained, an evaluation process is implemented to
implement 360-degree feedback in each case. The
results of the evaluation in each case will then be
compared to draw conclusions between the cases.
ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management
520

Table 2: Organizational Characteristics of the Objects
Org.
chara
cterist
ics
Organization
1
Organization
2
Organiza
tion
3
Scope
oil & gas
drilling waste
treatment and
water
purification
services
private
educational
institution
constructi
on
services
and
network
infrastruct
ure
managem
ent
No. of
emplo
yee
70 > 100 > 100
Year
of est.
2011 2013 2012
The
subjec
t of
the
assess
ment
Operation and
Engineering
Division
(OED)
Information
System Unit
provisioni
ng
technician
s
4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 360-degree Feedback
Implementation
Details of the 360-degree feedback implementation
process in each organization as follow:
Organization 1 (Saputri et al., 2019): oil & gas
drilling waste treatment and water purification
services. Founded in 2011, with 70 employees
onboard. The company shift to 360-degree feedback
in the Operation and Engineering Division (OED).
Prior performance appraisal that used was rating scale
method to assess its employee based on 17 criteria
(knowledge, productivity, work quality, technical
skills, work consistency, work enthusiasm,
cooperation, attitude, initiative, creativity, work
relationship, punctuality, attendance, reliability,
communication, training evaluation, safety work
behavior implementation) where employees were
rated by his/her direct supervisor. There were no clear
explanations or behavioral indicators for each aspect,
even though they were ranged from D category (poor
= 1 point) to A category (very good = 4 points) scale
measurement that leads to ample room of
subjectivity.
The 360-degree were hope to shade light for a
more objective tool where everyone involved had a
clear understanding and bases on why an employee
was given a specific score. There were changes in the
aspects that were assessed and how they were
assessed. The discussion was done with the Manager
of Human Resource Department to find out what
things that contribute to the success of OED's staff
engineers based on job descriptions resulted in 3
areas: personality, knowledge, and workplace
criteria. Of the three there are 18 sub-criteria:
Interpersonal skills, communication, professionalism,
initiative, adaptability & flexibility, reliability, self-
development, sains & technology, analytical &
critical thinking, computer 101, teamwork, planning
& organizing, problem-solving, working with
technology, scheduling & coordination, operation &
maintenance, quality control, safety behavior &
environmental awareness. Each criterion followed by
the descriptions of the concepts. Evaluator then
assigned a certain point within 1 (upgraded needed)
to 5 (extraordinary) point. Evaluators aside form self-
assessment by the employee, are the supervisor and 2
of his/her peers. All the respondents agreed the
proposed criteria of performance appraisal are far
clearer on descriptions and standards. As promising
as it was, the new performance criteria were not yet
to be deployed any time soon. It took careful
consideration regarding the organization's conditions.
Different appraisal score affected to different
financial compensation received.
Organization 2 (Yudithama et al., 2017): a private
educational institution. The study conducted at
Information System Unit, particularly managers
(Operation Service & Information System Manager,
Infrastructure & Content Managers, and Research &
System Information Development Manager). The
360-degree feedback was proposed to reduce the
subjectivity level of the prior method. In the previous
method, the employee evaluated by his/her supervisor
and supervisor's supervisor, then the average score
was sent to the Human Resources Department as
his/her final appraisal score. Integrity, innovation,
contribution, and attitude were the aspect being
assessed without any descriptions or behavioral
indicators of each. Everyone who evaluates an
employee on those aspects could have a different
definition of the aspects. They simply assigned scores
1 to 5 without objective or the same guidance to do
so. No wonder the score did not reflect the employee's
actual performance and raise the issue of the
subjectivity.
The aspects of 360-degree feedback that were
proposed as follows leadership, team player, self-
management, communication, strategic thinking,
organizational skills, decision making, expertise, and
360-Degree Feedback Practices: Pure Blood or Wanna Be? - A Review
521

adaptability. The aspects were derived from the job
descriptions of Managers. They then assessed by
his/her supervisor, two peers, and three subordinates
aside from his/her self. Evaluators and employees
agreed that the proposed criteria were clearer than the
existing criteria, yet the possibility of deployment
was still in question, for it took top-down instructions
to do so. Employee grouped into categories that
reflect the score he/she was assigned by all
evaluators. This result used as the basis of the
financial compensation of that employee.
Organization 3 (Safira et al., 2019): main business
on construction services and network infrastructure
management. The assessment was for the
provisioning technicians. The technicians were
assessed using 360-degree feedback on the following
competencies: character (integrity, enthusiasm,
totality), competency (skill, problem-solving,
improvement), collaboration (teamwork, sharing
knowledge), and contribution (target achievement).
Evaluators are the technician's supervisor,
supervisor's supervisor, self, peer, and subordinate,
who assigned scores 1 to 5 on each aspect. There are
no behavioral indicators on the competencies. The
technician then categorized using forced distribution
so that there are those who fall into very good, good,
fair, poor, very poor categories. Unclear bases and
subjectivity were the issues that felt by technicians
since there is no information regarding why they were
assigned a specific score on a certain aspect. The
proposed aspect referred to Spencer & Spencer's
competencies (Spencer and Spencer, 1993) and job
descriptions of provisioning technician: achievement
orientation, organizational commitment, expertise,
conceptual thinking, initiative, and teamwork. Each
followed by definition and behavioral indicators. Two
site managers, 1 team leader, and 4 technicians that
were interviewed regarding the proposed criteria said
that it was more objective to assigned scores
accordingly, even though more time consuming (took
about 15 minutes to assessed 1 technician).
Application of the proposed criteria is still a long way
home, for it needs strategic decision-maker approval
despite its benefit.
4.2 360-degree Feedback Item
Evaluation
To evaluate the implementation of 360-degree
feedback in the three organizations, we develop an
item evaluation based on several works of literature
such as London and Beatty (1993), Antonioni (1996),
Edward, and Ewen (1996), as well as Rogers and
Rogers (2002). The resume of item evaluation can be
seen in Table 3.
Table 3: Item Evaluation of 360-Degree Feedback Process
No Item Evaluation
Researcher (s)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1 different data sources v v
2 different aspects v v
3
goal: developmental
vs. administrative
v
4 appraisal form v
5 written feedback v
6 appraiser anonymity v v
7
selecting peer
appraiser
v
8 appraiser training v v
9 training for appraises v v
10 training for coaches v v v
11 feedback report v
12 self-appraisal v
13 reactions to feedback v
14 coaching steps v
15 targeting improvement v v v
16 action plans v
17
reporting results back
to the appraiser
v
18 specific goals/action v
19 just-in-time training v
20
mini-
assessment/follow-up
v
21
recognition for
improvement
v
22 accountability v v
23
increase awareness of
others expectations
v v
24
improvement in
appraise work
behaviors/performance
v
25
reduction of un-
discussable
v
26
increase in periodic
360-degree
performance reviews
v
27 management learning v v
28
link and align with
organizational strategy
v
29 automate v
30 assure fairness v
31 simple v
32 time-efficient v
Note: (1) = London & Beaty (1993), (2) = Antonioni (1996), (3)
= Edwards & Ewen (1996), (4) = Rogers & Rogers (2002).
360-degree feedback case studies evaluation
According to the item evaluation in Table 2, we
conducted the evaluation process of 360-degree
feedback implementation in those three
ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management
522

organizations. The results of the evaluation process
can be seen in Table 4. In those cases that we studied,
the evaluators assessed a similar aspect of a certain
employee. This was not fit to London and Beatty's
(1993) rule, where different evaluator evaluates the
different aspects of the employee being assessed. This
situation can lead to inappropriate information for not
all evaluators familiar with how the employee's doing
on those aspects. If the evaluator did not have sound
knowledge regarding the person he/she assessed or
what is being expected of him/her (in line with his/her
job descriptions), the score is assigned to that person
most likely would not reflect the actual situation. The
good thing is that evaluators involved in the process
were chosen from the immediate circle of the person
being assessed (referring to the organizational
structure: superordinate, peer (s), self, and
subordinate (s)). This activity reflects the
participative design principle had taken into account
(Edwards and Ewen, 1996).
Table 4: Evaluation Results of Three Organizations on 360-
Degree Feedback Steps
No Item
Evaluation
Org
1
Org
2
Org
3
Note
1 different
data sources
x x x
2 different
aspects
v v v
3 goal:
development
al (dev) vs
administrati
ve (adm)
adm adm adm
4 appraisal
form
v v v
5 written
feedback
x x x
6 appraiser
anonymity
x x x
7 selecting
peer
appraiser
v v v
8 appraiser
training
x x x
9 training for
appraisees
x x x
10 training for
coaches
x x x
11
feedback
report
v v v
not
for
indivi
dual
12 self-
appraisal
v v v
13 reactions to
feedback
x x x
No Item
Evaluation
Org
1
Org
2
Org
3
Note
14 coaching
steps
x x x
15 targeting
improvemen
t
x x x
16 action plans x x x
17 reporting
results back
to the
appraiser
x x x
18 specific
goals/action
x x x
19 just-in-time
training
x x x
20 mini-
assessment/f
ollow-up
x x x
21 recognition
for
improvemen
t
x x x
22 accountabilit
y
v v v
23 Increase
awareness of
other's
expectations
n.a. n.a. n.a.
24 Improvemen
t in
appraisee
work
behaviors/pe
rformance
n.a. n.a. n.a.
25 Reduction of
undiscussabl
e
n.a. n.a. n.a.
26 increase in
periodic
360-degree
performance
reviews
n.a. n.a. n.a.
27 Management
learning
n.a. n.a. n.a.
28
link and
align with
organization
al strategy
x x x
for a
specifi
c
target
of
emplo
yees
29 automate x x x
30
assure
fairness
v v v
in
terms
of
that,
there
are
360-Degree Feedback Practices: Pure Blood or Wanna Be? - A Review
523

No Item
Evaluation
Org
1
Org
2
Org
3
Note
behavi
oral
indica
tors
31 simple v v v
32 time-
efficient
v v v
From Antonioni's (1996) perspectives, all
organizations did not exactly follow the input-
process-output sequence. Even though all
organizations did not explicitly state the purpose of
the appraisals, it can be said that the purpose was
administrative. It means that if the organization does
not have the appropriate culture to support that
purpose, the intended result will not be achieved
(Rogers and Rogers, 2002). To support the fully
functional 360-degree feedback, the organization
needs to be less autocratic, so the upward feedback
process can be done (Edwards and Ewen, 1996).
Culture cannot be overlooked for it influences the
360-degree feedback assessment, especially in this
case, is power distance (Peretz and Fried, 2012). High
power distance in Indonesia sets the expectation that
subordinates are not freely expressed anything to
supervisors or someone on a higher level. In fact, in
high power distance culture, there is a tendency to
give higher ratings to supervisors than to subordinates
(Rowson, 1998). If this cultural barrier is not set right
prior to the deployment of 360-degree feedback, role
model from senior management as prescribed are not
visible (Rogers and Rogers, 2002). Despite all that,
this does not mean that using 360-degree for
administrative purposes is not possible since the trend
to that side does increase (Toegel and Conger, 2003,
London and Smither, 1995).
Training for the evaluators is another thing that
did not do in those organizations. It brings even more
value to the importance of the criteria and behavioral
indicators used in the 360-degree feedback. Coaching
was another thing that did not deploy in all
organizations being studied. Not to mention just-in-
time training or most of the activities in the process
section. Again, this is not an ideal practice prescribed
by Antonioni (1996).
4.3 Cross Case 360-degree Feedback
Evaluation
According to the evaluation results in all
organizations based on 32 item evaluation in 360-
degree feedback, most of the item evaluations are not
done yet by the organizations. The result based on
item evaluation from the four researchers can be seen
in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Percentage of Item Evaluation Fulfillment in All
Organizations
Figure 2 showed where the organizations stand
compared to the number of things that prescribed in
applying 360-degree feedback. The graphic showed
that things were not done by all organizations,
outnumbered the things that had been done in order
to be able to apply 360-degree feedback properly.
360-degree feedback practices of all three
organizations were not yet met the required aspects
form any of the four researchers referred.
Even though the three organizations that were the
object of implementation had different business
scopes, all three turned out to have similarities in the
process of implementing 360-degree feedback.
Generalization of these findings is still limited to the
scope of profit-oriented organizations. While for
organizations with a non-profit orientation such as
NGOs and the public sector, there may still be
differences.
Future studies can be directed to evaluate the
implementation of 360-degree feedback in non-profit
oriented organizations. Non-profit oriented
organizations have different cultural characteristics
compared to profit-oriented organizations.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Practices of 360-degree feedback in the area of
organizations being studied are still at the early stage
that comes from the increasing awareness that clear
50.0%
23.1%
36.4%
20.0%
50.0%
57.7%
54.5%
60.0%
0%
19.2%
9.1%
20.0%
London &
Beatty (1993)
Antonioni
(1996)
Edwards &
Ewen (1996)
Rogers &
Rogers (2002)
Item evaluation done by the organizations
Item evaluation that are not dot done yet by the
organizations
n.a. item evaluation
ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management
524

and objective tools used in performance appraisal are
deemed important. It was not surprising that the
organizations did not see the whole picture of 360-
degree feedback, to name a few: awareness and
complete knowledge of the method.
REFERENCES
ANTONIONI, D. 1996. Designing an Effective 360 Degree
Appraisal Feedback Process. Organizational Dynamics,
25, 24-38.
BEER, M. 1981. Performance Appraisal: Dilemma and
Possibilities. Organizational Dynamics, 9, 24-36.
BRACKEN, D. W., TIMMRECK, C. W. & CHURCH, A.
H. 2001. History and Development of Multisource
Feedback as a Methodology. In: BRACKEN, D. W.,
TIMMRECK, C. W. & CHURCH, A. H. (eds.) The
Handbook of Multisource Feedback: The
Comprehensive Resource for Designing and
Implementing MSF Process. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
BRETT, J. F. & ATWATER, L. E. 2001. 360o Feedback:
Accuracy, Reactions, adn Perceptions of Usefulness.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 930-942.
CAMPBELL, D. 2001. The Handbook of Multisource
Feedback. In: BRACKEN, D. W., TIMMRECK, C. W.
& CHURCH, A. H. (eds.) The Comprehensive Resouce
for Designing and Implementing MSF Processes. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
EDWARDS, M. R. & EWEN, A. J. 1996. 360 Degree
Feedback: Royal Fail or Hoy Grail? Career
Development International, 1, 28-31.
GARG, S. 2019. An Empirical Study on Relevance of 360
Degree Performance Evaluation Practice with Special
Reference to Delhi-NCR Private Banking Sector. The
Journal of Indian Management, 8, 32-36.
GRUND, C. & PRZEMEK, J. 2012. Subjective
Performance Appraisal and Inequality Aversion.
Applied Economics, 44, 2149-2155.
HEDGE, J. W., BORMAN, W. C. & BIRKELAND, S. A.
2001. History and Development of Multisource
Feedback as a Methodology. In: BRACKEN, D. W.,
TIMMRECK, C. W. & CHURCH, A. H. (eds.) The
Handbook of Multisource Feedback: The
Comprehensive Resource for Designing and
Implementing MSF ProcessesJo. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
LEPSINGER, R. & LUCIA, A. D. 2009. The Art and
Science of 360-Degree Feedback. Second Edition ed.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LONDON, M. & BEATTY, R. W. 1993. 360-Degree
Feedback as a Competitive Advantage. Human
Resource Management, 32, 353-372.
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,
803-839.
LUTHANS, F. & PETERSON, S. J. 2003. 360-Degree
Feedback With Systematic Coaching: Empirical
Analysis Suggests A Winning Combination. Human
Resource Management, 42, 243-256.
MOHAPATRA, M. 2015. 360 Degree Feedback: A Review
of Literature. IJRSI, II, 112-116.
MORGESON, F. P., MUMFORD, T. V. & CAMPION, M.
A. 2005. Coming Full Circle: Using Research and
Practice to Address 27 Questions About 360-Degree
Feedback Programs. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 57, 196-209.
PERETZ, H. & FRIED, Y. 2012. National Cultures,
Performance Appraisal Practives, and Organizational
Absenteeism and Turnover: A Study Across 21
Countries. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 448-459.
PROWSE, P. & PROWSE, J. 2009. The Dilemma of
Perfomance Appraisal. Measuring Business
Excellence, 13, 69-77.
ROGERS, E. & ROGERS, C. W. 2002. Improving the
Payoff form 360-Degree Feedback. Human resource
Planning, 25, 44-54.
ROWSON, A.-M. 1998. Using 360-Degree Feedback
Instruments up, down, and around the world:
Implications for Global Implementation and Use of
Multi-Rater Feedback. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 6, 45-48.
TOEGEL, G. & CONGER, J. A. 2003. 360-Degree
Assessment: Time for Reinvention. Academy of
Management, 2, 297-311.
WALDMAN, D. A., ATWATER, L. E. & ANTONIONI,
D. 1998. Has 360 Degree Feedback Gone Amok? .
Academy of Management Executive, 12, 86-94.
WARD, P. 2003. 360-Degree Feedback, London, CIPD.
ZAND, H. L., ASADEIAN, S. & KOSHKI, N. 2017.
Assessment of Managers' Performance and Its
Relationship with Job Stress through 360 Degree
Feedback Method. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal
of Business and Management Review, 6, 27-32.
360-Degree Feedback Practices: Pure Blood or Wanna Be? - A Review
525