Letters

HR Magazine, August, 2002

Cause and Effective Feedback

While I found the article in the June issue by Bruce Pfau and Ira Kay ("Does 360-Degree Feedback Negatively Affect Company Performance?") informative on several levels, I challenge the generalization that 360-degree feedback programs "were associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in shareholder value."

These programs don't cause a decrease in shareholder value. The people running the organizations do that. If the study revealed that shareholder value was lower in companies using this tool, perhaps the real message is that these companies need the most work toward improving their overall performance!

I agree that proper training on how to give feedback is extremely important, as well as consistent follow-up and direction toward improving the limited areas. These types of tools are extremely valuable when used properly, and when managers can be coached regularly on achieving better outcomes.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Carol McDonald

Beaverton, Ore.

The article by Pfau and Kay associated decreased stock value with 360-degree feedback, but it failed to establish whether one triggers the other. The article should have said that 360 is positively associated with organizations that wish to improve their performance.

My job puts me in constant touch with HR professionals who use 360. They tell me they see increases in productivity whenever they prepare responders and assessors carefully. Results are even more positive when they provide coaching after the 360-degree feedback.

Because 360-degree feedback raises the accepted standards, motivation and productivity ripple through the organization.

Of course, organizations that use 360 feedback thoughtlessly get less striking results. But the same could be said of other accepted tools--such as performance reviews, incentive plans and organizational redesign.

Timothy Bentley

COO

PanoramicFeedback.Com

Toronto

Technology Isn't the Only Answer

I am a strong advocate of using technology in the hiring and selection process. However I feel the May HR Technology column's ("Don't Overlook Recruiting Tools") over-emphasis on technology is misleading.

Resume screening technology and video-based testing are great means to identify the best candidates; however, a face-to-face interview is still a critical part of the staffing process. If technology could do it all, there would be no need for recruiters--we would simply give a test and then make an offer to the top score. But we are still hiring people to work for people, and people like to be treated as humans, not like numbers.

A thorough, thoughtful interview is and always will be a part of the hiring process. The key is to train our recruiters to use their skills to find the best employees.

Ronald M. Katz

New Rochelle, N.Y.

Always See for Yourself

I was very interested to read Paul Falcone's June Management Tools column, "A Talk for All Seasons." He covers situations that can be very difficult to handle, especially for new or inexperienced managers.

However I was surprised that he recommended addressing a person with body odor by saying, "A few of your co-workers came to me out of concern for you ..."

I would never recommend this approach to managers. Indicating that others have noticed such a situation and brought it to your attention could be very embarrassing to the individual, or could cause them to become aggressive.

I always recommend that managers investigate and experience a situation for themselves first. By depending upon others, you risk taking action on comments that are based on a personal grudge (when in fact no problem exists) or comments that are blown out of proportion. You just don't know until you investigate.

Moreover, by using "others" you are not taking responsibility for the situation and the individual. Rather, you are pointing "blame" at another group as the source of the problem.

In a situation where an employee has body odor, if the manager has found first-hand that a problem does exist, the manager could begin a conversation this way: "Joan, I want to talk to you about something that I have noticed and I don't know if you might also be aware of this or not there is an odor that is noticeable around your workspace. It's not very pleasant and I wondered if you were aware of it?"

Be open and non-accusatorial. This type of approach is far less likely to make the employee feel embarrassed or defensive.

Regan Lewis

Hatboro, Pa.

HR Magazine welcomes letters from readers. Submitted letters are subject to editing and are the property of the magazine. To submit a letter, visit our web site at www .shrm.org/brmagazine/contact or fax us at (703) 535-6489.