A new road: traveling beyond 360-degree evaluation - includes related article on United Parcel Service's automated 360-degree feedback process - multirater reviews should be used to propel change and not merely to produce reports

HR Magazine, Sept, 1999 by Susan J. Wells

Multirater reviews should drive change - not just produce reports.

As 360-degree feedback programs mature, companies continue to struggle with the last turn of this full-circle assessment tool. While many firms get high marks for administering the programs, others get failing grades in using the feedback effectively, experts say.

"As the term 360 has become popularized, it's gone from a measure to a tool and has been applied to lots of different kinds of methods and situations," says Jane Wilson. She is the vice president of The Clark Wilson Group Inc., a Silver Spring, Md.-based publisher of 360-degree feedback surveys for HR professionals and an early pioneer in multirater assessments. "It's really led to overwhelming a lot of people. And, as a result, many companies simply don't devote the time and attention needed to follow up and give feedback."

Since they were conceived about 30 years ago, 360-degree systems have caught on at more companies as personal development tools, although their use for performance and compensation appraisals continues to draw criticism.

A 360-degree evaluation collects anonymous reviews about employees from peers, subordinates and supervisors and then compiles those reviews in a feedback report.

These evaluation systems are especially popular among firms with an eye to employee development. Companies that devote significant resources to training are more likely to use 360 more often, according to the 1999 State of the Industry Report from the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), which reviewed the training practices of more than 750 firms. Fifty-five firms described by ASTD as leading edge in their training approaches rely heavily on employee feedback, including 360-degree feedback and peer review, individual development plans and annual performance reviews. Seventy-five percent of these companies provided individual development plans, and 33 percent provided 360-degree feedback for most of their employees in 1998, compared to 50 percent and 10 percent in 1997, respectively, according to the Alexandria, Va.-based association.

Making Feedback Matter

In today's rush to adopt 360-degree programs, experts caution that some companies may put together hastily and poorly conceived efforts, which can sour employees on the peer review and feedback process - and render the whole exercise futile.

"A lot of company leaders will just Say, 'I want a 360. Now, go get me one.' It's not that simple," says Wilson. "It takes time to implement."

Some companies tend to take a similar approach to the feedback gathered from 360-degree assessments. "They'll present a feedback report and just say, 'Here are your results. Now, go have a happy life,'" says Kenneth M. Nowack, a research psychologist and founder of Organizational Performance Dimensions, a management consulting firm in Santa Monica, Calif., that specializes in 360-degree feedback systems.

The result: Many employees simply don't know what to do with the feedback they get or how to address the issues brought out in a feedback report. Linda Gartland, managing partner of Corporate Insights and Development, a strategic HR consulting firm in Atlanta, believes the problem stems largely from a shortfall in management training. Front-line managers and company leaders often don't know what to do with the results or what actions to suggest to employees, Gartland says.

Marnie Green, principal of Management Education Group, a Chandler, Ariz.-based training and consulting firm, agrees.

"There's often too much focus on getting the feedback and mining the data and too little focus on using the feedback for job-related or behavior change," she says. "Unless there's commitment throughout the company to do something concrete with the feedback and follow up on it, there's no completion of the loop and everything tends to get dropped."

That's where HR needs to step in and be a consultant to help management consider all the ways the company may want to use the feedback and define the roles of managers and participants, says Gartland. "HR is really trying to maintain the integrity of the process."

Gartland advises HR professionals to function almost as guidance counselors, preparing development guides that offer managers specific tips on how to encourage action from feedback. "They can be like little job aids or self-study guides for managers," she says.

HR can counsel managers to be specific when discussing how employees might learn from information gleaned during 360-degree reviews. For example, if the feedback shows the employee has a problem in being assertive, the employee's manager should give examples of the types of situations in which the employee needs to step forward.

In addition, HR can use these job aids to point managers to the appropriate training or available skill resources. This way, HR helps managers take on a bit more of a coaching role.

Green and Gartland believe that how feedback is delivered often has a lot to do with how it's received. Both stress the importance of advance training and communication about the feedback process.