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

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

At first, we were shocked that this supervisor was still employed. However, we realized that the managers were unaware of how poorly this manager had been rated by others. They knew their rating of this individual was low, but they did not know their feelings were shared by all. In this case, ratings were being done for the first time and were confidential; the manager himself was the only one who ever knew how poorly he was rated by all raters.

This clearly demonstrates how individuals who have severe development needs could be identified by 360-degree ratings. If suitable training and time failed to improve the ratings, the person could be reassigned or released. In other words, the 360-degree ratings are used to identify those at the extremes, rather than to attempt to discriminate among the many in the middle.

FedEx used such a process whereby any manager who received scores below a cutoff number in two consecutive rating processes was relieved of supervisory responsibilities. This strategy may be somewhat severe, but it could be considered if the cutoff was only at the taft end of the distribution, i.e., the individual's scores were very low.

OPTIONS FOR MAKING IT WORK

Companies such as Trompeter Electronics and Xerox include 360-degree ratings in the appraisal process, but they are not a critical component. At Xerox, for example, feedback results are a very small part of the formal review and are used with a focus on continuous development. Trompeter Electronics includes ratings in the review, but they do not affect decisions about raises or promotions.

Many individuals involved in the 360-degree feedback implementation process strongly discourage its use for evaluation. Others, such as the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, N.C, even restrict the use of their published instrument to development purposes only.

We recognize that some organizations are ready and able to successfully make the transition. As one client stated, "How could having more raters than merely one's superior make the appraisal process any worse?"

Superiors - often the sole evaluators in the traditional appraisal process - generally welcome the additional input and shared responsibility for evaluations. If handled properly, 360-degree feedback can broaden the perspective of performance appraisals and be a useful addition to the traditional performance-appraisal process. But, it may not be right for everyone.

ASKING QUESTIONS

Getting Feedback on 360 Feedback

Here is a readiness questionnaire that employers can use to help determine whether or not their organizations are prepared to use 360-degree feedback for evaluations. Questionnaire respondents should be asked if they "mostly agree" or "mostly disagree" with the questions posed.

If more than 70 percent of respondents provide "mostly agree" answers to at least eight of the questions, the organization can consider itself ready to introduce 360-degree feedback into appraisals. If these goals are not met, more work needs to be done to develop trust and confidence and to improve the culture.