Accountability in 360 degree feedback - includes related article on getting feedback on 360-degree feedback

HR Magazine, May, 1998 by Leanne Atwater, David Waldman

Is it time to take the 360-degree feedback method to its next step?

An estimated 90 percent of Fortune 1000 firms use some form of multi-source assessment. These assessments are known as 360-degree feedback because managers are rated by a whole circle of people - including supervisors, subordinates, peers and even customers.

In the majority of organizations, 360-degree feedback is used developmentally: Ratings are collected anonymously and fed back to managers in the aggregate. Usually, only the managers being rated see the feedback. The ratings are not included in the managers' formal performance appraisal.

Increasingly, however, management is asking, "How do we hold individuals accountable for making improvements if they are the only ones who see the data? If the individual needs development and chooses to ignore the feedback, we can't remedy the situation." This is certainly a reasonable question, particularly when companies are spending a good deal of time and money on the 360-degree feedback process.

There are valid reasons for limiting the use of 360-degree feedback to developmental purposes and separating it from the formal appraisal process. First, researchers have demonstrated that when individuals believe the ratings will be used for performance appraisals, they may alter their ratings. Generally, the ratings are more favorable; but occasionally employees see this as a chance for retribution, so they lower their ratings.

Second, if the ratings are used as part of the individual's appraisal, game playing may occur. Supervisors may try to get higher ratings by catering to subordinates - at the expense of meeting organizational goals. Or supervisors may implicitly or explicitly indicate that "if you give me good ratings, I'll give you good ratings."

Third, in some companies, the idea of subordinate or peer ratings as part of one's appraisal is so taboo that many individuals boycott the process and refuse to participate. When participation rates decline, feedback becomes less useful for both development and evaluation.

So, how do companies make the most of the 360-degree feedback process? Are there ways to increase accountability? Are there conditions under which $60-degree feedback can be successfully included in the appraisal process?

Based on our research experience, as well as our experiences implementing 360-degree feedback in a number of organizations, the following recommendations are provided for companies that want to include 360-degree feedback in their performance-management system and add accountability to development.

TAKING THE FIRST STEP

During initiation, 360-degree feedback should be introduced solely for development. Ratings should be collected anonymously and provided confidentially only to the managers who were rated.

Beginning with a confidential process is important for several reasons.

First, in many organizations this inversion of the pyramid (followers rating leaders) is a novel idea. Supervisors and managers may fear that this inversion will threaten their power as "bosses." Individuals at all levels need time to adjust to the idea that managers will receive feedback from a number of individuals, including subordinates.

A number of companies, including McDonnell-Douglas, AT&T, Allied Signal, Dupont, Honeywell, Boeing and Intel, have successfully adapted their 360-degree feedback systems to provide evaluations. Each, however, began using the process strictly for development.

Second, many supervisors and managers have received formal feedback only from their superiors. They are skeptical about how they will be rated by others and whether the ratings will be valid. After experiencing the rating process, most managers recognize the value of the feedback and discover that it was not as negative as they might have feared. However, in every organization, a few managers are very surprised with the negative feedback they receive. For these managers, exposure to the feedback in a confidential manner gives them an opportunity to make changes without revealing their weaknesses to others.

THOUGHTFUL INTRODUCTION

The 360-degree feedback process needs to be thoughtfully and carefully introduced. Managers and employees need to understand the rules about anonymity and confidentiality, be fully informed about how the process works, and buy into the fact that the process is a helpful exercise. If individuals perceive that the process is intended to be potentially punitive, there will be resistance to its use.

Introductory sessions should be conducted with all employees who will be involved in the process. Ample time should be given for employees and managers to ask questions about the process, its implementation and the uses of the feedback. Introductory sessions can be conducted in groups, but they should include a thorough description of the process including its goals and who will see the data and reports.

Raters should then be trained about the process. Studies have shown that even a 30-minute training session instructing potential raters on how to avoid possible rating errors can be useful. For example, raters can be encouraged to avoid the "central tendency error" where only the middle values of the scale are used. The tendency of some to rate very leniently also can be curbed with a short training session. If open-ended comments will be included as part of the 360-degree process, rarer training becomes even more important.