The dark side of 360-degree feedback: the popular HR intervention has an ugly side - Human Resources - peer input into performance appraisals

T+D, Sept, 2002 by Scott Wimer

During the past decade, 360-degree feedback has become one of the most popular human resource interventions. The power behind this process is that it's a sometimes rare opportunity for employees to receive honest feedback about how they're perceived by their peers. Most organizations use it for multisource feedback as part of their management development or performance appraisal processes, or on an ad hoc basis with individuals. The idea is that if employees are armed with better self-awareness, they can make important changes in their work behavior.

Yet, the honesty intrinsic to 360-degree feedback also makes it dangerous. Take this example:

Based on his strong technical background and track record as a successful manager, Ed was hired to manage a technical department at Allitech. After four years at Allitech, Ed's department had accomplished its objectives, and he received good performance reviews and bonuses each year. But after a major project, Ed's boss suggested that he participate in the 360-degree feedback program. Ed knew that while under stress, he had been a little hard on a few poorer performing workers. He still believed, however, that he had an excellent reputation and assumed his feedback would reflect that.

Ed was shocked when he read the feedback from the 19 of his staff members who filled out the questionnaire. It looked as if four or five respondents hated him, another four or five thought he was great, and the rest gave mixed reviews.

Ed couldn't believe he was no longer considered a good manager. He wondered whether he was being subjected to this process because his boss felt threatened by him or some of his more competitive colleagues were trying to undermine him. Ed also wondered whether the results would have been different if the other 12 members of his staff had filled out the surveys.

Although there was some truth to the feedback, the experience didn't settle well with Ed. The extent to which people were going after him seemed out of proportion. However, he agreed to work with a consultant to address some of the problems, which helped Ed come to a few realizations. For example, he learned that when he reprimanded a few workers, it affected the morale of the whole team. Still, he never felt the same at Allitech. He thought he'd been picked on and that the opinions of some immature people were given too much weight.

Ed left Allitech for another company. Other factors entered into that decision, but his experience with 360-degree feedback definitely played a big role.

When overloaded with work or life responsibilities, people are sometimes unable to rake in disturbing feedback and become defensive. If defensive behavior becomes a pattern, co-workers may find it uncomfortable to work with that employee. That's how someone can lose sight of how others really perceive him or her. That person may deflect responsibility for his or her actions, refuse to accept feedback, and become less effective.

So, how do you ensure that 360-degree feedback is a positive learning experience? How do you make sure your employees don't have the same experience as Ed?

Singled out

Basically, 360-degree feedback is used under one of two conditions: 1) the "no stigma" scenario in which everyone participates (everyone in the organization, in a particular department, or in a leadership development program) or 2) an individual seeks intensive personal development assistance or is singled out.

Ideally, the process maximizes a person's learning opportunities and the perceptions of others are managed with sensitivity. When employees excel in some areas but are weak in others, 360-degree feedback can help them realize their potential and prevent career derailment.

When only one person is going through the process, there's a potential for unpleasant results, especially if he's targeted by management as needing special development or corrective attention. The fact that the person is going through a feedback process may lead to the impression that she's considered a problem child or is on the way out of the company.

It's not always clear when the motivation to provide someone with such an intense learning experience is truly to help that person. At times, it can be a way of punishing or keeping in line. At worst, it can be a cowardly way to humiliate someone or undermine his or her career.

Sometimes, 360 feedback can be used as a substitute for managing a difficult person. Rather than take on the strenuous job of dealing with a problem employee, a manager will ask a consultant to gather data from the group. Group members may talk to each other about a co-worker's troubling behavior, but nobody wants to confront that individual. Instead, the person gets a feedback report containing a summary of the group's opinions or a set of anonymous verbatim comments.

People tend to feel freer to "go after someone" when acting as part of a like-minded group. And anonymity makes it easier to vent rather than be constructive. That doesn't mean feedback providers should water down their opinions, but they should be accurate and responsible, and avoid cheap shots.