Impact of 360 Degree Feedback: A Follow-up study of Four Organizations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large number of organizations have been using 360 degree feedback in India as leadership development intervention. This paper is based on the feedback of 43 participants from four companies where the 360 Degree Feedback program was initiated. The study was done using a questionnaire method. The results indicated that there has been an overall positive impact reported of 360 Degree intervention on ones professional life after 360DF. More than 60% of the participants report that they visited 360DF data every quarter. 24 participants reported that about 50% of their action plans prepared at the end of the 360 intervention were implemented. At least 30% of the action plans were achieved by 6 of the participants and 2 participants reported achievement of all their action plans. The participants also reported that the RSDQ model based 360DF tool provided detailed insight covering various parameters of one’s role. The participants also recommend that with more periodic follow up and review sessions (every quarter) anchored by internal HR and more focus and seriousness among the participants to work on the action plans will result in using 360 DF for change and growth
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it