RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS
Nowack, K. (2010). Leveraging Multirater Feedback to Facilitate Successful Behavioral Change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61, 280-297. File
Ima Sims (2009). Unmal jefe puedellegar a matarde estres a sus empleados. La Contra de La Vanguardia Interview by Ima Sanchis following the Life09 I Congerso Internacional de Liderazgo Femenino, 16, 17 y 18 de Septiembre, Barcelona, Spain (Espanol). File
N.D. (2009). Social Stress: Bem−me−quer, mal−me−quer?. Vida Saudavel The article appeared in Vida Saudavel magazine in January 2009 based on an interview and lecture with Dr. Kenneth Nowack about his stress research and validation of the wellness and health assessment called StressScan (Portuguese). File
Nowack, K. (2009). Personal Success Scorecard. Personal Excellence Volume 12, No. 12. File
Nowack, K. (2009). The Neurobiology of Leadership: Why Women Lead Differently Than Men. ESCI-UPF Negocios Internacionales Paper presented at the Life09 I Congerso Internacional de Liderazgo Femenino, Barcelona, Spain. File
Nowack, K. & Pons, Baldiri (2009). A Comparison of Emotional Intelligence of Leaders in Spain and the US. . File
Agatha Gilmore (2008). Lifestyle Learning: Improve the Bottom Line with Behavioral Education. Chief Learning Officer pp. 22-27, Interview with Chief Research Officer Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D.
. File
Nowack, K. (2008). Los jefes son una de las principales causas de estres laboral. Aedipe Catalunya (Spanish) pp.20-22. File
Nowack, K. M. (2007). Predicting the Future Success of Talent. Talent Management 3 (2), p. 14. File
Nowack, K. (2007). Best Practices in Utilizing 360 Degree Feedback. . File
Nowack, K. (2007). It's Not How Smart You Are But How You Are Smart. Talent Management 3 (10) p. 10. File
Nowack, K. (2007). Strategic Talent Management Through Career Paths. Talent Management Magazine Volume 3 (4), p. 16. File
Nowack, K. (2007). Why 360-Degree Feedback Doesn't Work. Talent Management 3 (8), p. 12. File
Nowack. K. (2007). Using Assessments in Talent Coaching. Talent Management Volume 3, 12, p.16. File
Nowack, K. (2006). Employee Engagement, Job Satisfaction, Retention and Stress. . File
Nowack, K. (2006). Gender Differences in Leadership Practices. . File
Nowack, K. (2006). La movilidad laboral, un rasgo de la sociedad actual. El Global Los tiempos cambian y con ellos evoluciona la sociedad. Si hace anos primaba la estabilidad en el puesto de trabajo, ahora la tendencia apunta a la sustitucion de la estabilidad laboral por la seguridad en la contratacion. Esa es la idea principal en torno a la que ha girado la conferencia "Inteligencia emocional y estres en la vida laboral y personal" impartida por el asesor de recursos humanos Kenneth Nowack (Spanish). File
Nowack, K. (2005). Leadership, Emotional Intelligence and Employee Engagement: Creating a Psychologically Healthy Workplace. . File
Nowack, K. (2005). Longitudinal evaluation of a 360 degree feedback program: Implications for best practices. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, March 2005. File
Nowack, K. and Wimer, S. (2004). Organizational Stress Management: Survival Strategies. . File
Nowack, K. (2003). Executive Coaching: Fad or Future?. California Psychologist Vol. XXXVI, No. 4, 16-17. File
Nowack, K. (2002). Does 360 Degree Feedback Negatively Effect company performance: Feedback Varies With Your Point of View. HR Magazine Volume 47 (6). Text
Multi-rater feedback can raise more questions than it answers. How is an employee to react, for example, when his manager gives him negative ratings, while feedback from his direct reports and peers is laudatory? Research suggests that disagreement between rater groups is common—and that the resulting confusion creates challenges for employee development.
The strength of 360-degree feedback is that it reflects the varying perspectives of different rater groups. That’s also part of the problem. What one group views as effective behavior, another group may see as problematic.
And, each rater group brings natural biases to the table. For example, studies conducted by Organizational Performance Dimensions find that supervisor feedback tends to be based on bottom-line results (are tasks completed on time and well?), technical competence and whether an employee’s behavior draws complaints from colleagues or clients.
By contrast, direct reports base their reviews on factors such as willingness to involve the direct report in decisions, interest in a direct report’s professional development and trustworthiness.
Peers, who lack perspective on their colleagues' day-to-day performance, tend to focus on leadership potential. Their remarks often reflect opinions on whether the participant has the "right stuff" to motivate and create a compelling vision for others to follow.
None of these perspectives is wrong, and all of these insights can be valuable in creating a 360-degree view of performance. However, it’s important that the person being reviewed—and his supervisors—understand how the "filters" used by different groups affect how they rate performance.
Nowack, K. and Heller, B. (2001). Making Executive Coaching Work: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence. Training Magazine trainingmag.com. File
Nowack, K., Hartley, J. and Bradley, W. (1999). Evaluating results of your 360-degree feedback intervention. Training and Development 53, 48-53. File
Nowack, K. (1999). 360 Degree feedback. Intervention: 50 Performance Technology Tools San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, Inc., pp.34-46. Text
The major goal of 360-degree feedback interventions is to facilitate purposeful individual or team behavior change. Successful behavior change at the individual or team level requires three necessary conditions:
1. Awareness/Insight;
2. Motivation/Self-Efficacy; and
3. Ability.
When properly designed and implemented, multi-rater or 360-degree feedback interventions provide specific feedback to enhance self-insight and self-awareness necessary for any potential behavior change. However, without sufficient motivation and self-efficacy, most behavior change efforts are largely unsuccessful. Effective 360-degree feedback interventions enhance the motivation levels of individuals and teams to make constructive behavior changes to meet the needs of both internal and external stakeholders (e.g., customers, direct reports, team members, etc.).
Multi-rater or 360-degree feedback interventions involve the systematic collection of specific information from multiple sources to enhance awareness of individuals and teams. Most commonly, data and information are collected from multiple sources that have a relevant, and hopefully accurate, perspective to share using focus group, interview, or paper-and-pencil instruments. The data collected are commonly summarized quantitatively and/or qualitatively and shared with one or more members of the organization in an oral and/or written manner. The most common form of multi-rater or 360-degree feedback interventions today typically utilizes an off-the-shelf or in-house designed instrument measuring critical competencies required for competitive performance. Most feedback from these interventions is collected from multiple perspectives (e.g., one's supervisor, direct reports, peers, team members) and is summarized in the form of a written and/or computerized feedback report (often including graphic comparisons of self-other perceptions, written comments, and narrative information). The most common uses of multi-rater or 360-degree feedback interventions include: Executive/management coaching, training and development, career counseling, succession planning and development, training needs assessment, training evaluation, and performance appraisal and evaluation.
Despite the growing popularity of multi-rater of 360-degree feedback, a number of issues emerge in the use and implementation of such organizational interventions. These include such things as:
What competencies should be assessed and measured?
How many individuals ensure a reliable and valid set of observations about another individual?
Who should provide feedback?
How should raters be selected?
Should 360-degree feedback be used for development or appraisal purposes?
Should individuals providing feedback be identified?
The chapter includes a real-world case study and answers to the current issues and questions regarding best practices in the use of 360-degree feedback interventions. References are also provided for additional readings in the multi-rater or 360-degree feedback literature.
Wimer, S. and Nowack, K. (1998). Thirteen common mistakes in implementing multi-rater feedback systems. Training and Development 52, 69-80. File
Wimer, S. & Nowack, K. (1998). How to Benefit from 360 Degree Feedback. Executive Excellence . Text
In recent years "360-degree feedback" (multi-rater feedback) has become a popular tool for helping executives develop. How can you design and implement a 360-degree assessment and feedback intervention that will create maximum value for the individual and organization? This article discusses seven critical guidelines to help you get the most from any 360-degree assessment and feedback intervention.
The guidelines discussed include:
1. Defining and communicating a clear purpose
2. Starting at the top of the organization
3. Having an open mind to feedback and a willingness to change behavior
4. Conducting a pilot test in your organization
5. Communicate with all program participants and those involved in the 360-degree feedback process
6. Safeguarding confidentiality
7. Evaluating your 360-degree process.
Specific suggestions and strategies are presented and discussed.
Nowack, K. (1997). Congruence Between Self and Other Ratings and Assessment Center Performance. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality Volume 12, 145-166. File
Nowack, K. (1994). The secrets of succession: Emphasizing development in succession planning systems. Training and Development 48, 49-54. File
Nowack, K. (1993). 360 Degree feedback: The whole story. Training & Development Journal 47, 69-72. File
Nowack, K. (1993). Assessment Center Performance and Basic Skills. Paper Presented at the Eight Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA, April 1993. File
Nowack, K. (1992). Self-assessment and rater-assessment as a dimension of management development. Human Resources Development Quarterly 3, 141-155. File
Nowack, K. M. (1991). A Quantitative Approach to Training Needs Analysis. Training and Development Journal Volume 45, 69-73. File
Nowack, K (1988). Approaches to validating assessment centers. Performance & Instruction 27, 14-16. File
Performance View 360 is a comprehensive 360 degree feedback tool designed for non-supervisory and non-management personnel and can be used for all professional, technical, and administrative employees working either as an independent contributor or as part of a team within your organization.
