|
You receive a call from your manager saying, "It's about
time for your annual review. Can we get together?" If you're like most
people, you feel a sense of dread. A 1993 survey of 100 Fortune 500
companies by the Wyatt Company showed that only 10 percent of the
employees were satisfied with their performance appraisal systems. Most
said that annual reviews were perfunctory discussions that dealt mainly
with salary. Still, other surveys indicate that most employees think
performance appraisals are a good idea. They want to know where they
stand and what they must do to improve. If employees say that they're
dissatisfied with the current appraisal system, what's the alternative?
One alternative is 360-degree feedback--also called multirater
feedback, upward appraisal, full-circle feedback, and peer review.
Though many companies are still using one-way, downward feedback,
another Wyatt study showed a beginning trend in upward feedback. The
1992 study found that subordinates were critiquing their superiors and
peers in 12 percent of the 397 U. S. companies surveyed. By 1993, the
figure was up to 26 percent. So, why are some companies going this
route?
The upside
Upward feedback gathers behavioral observations from different groups
within an organization. The feedback providers--bosses, peers, and
subordinates--fill out a form that summarizes an employee's skills,
abilities, styles, and job-related competencies. There's no ideal
number of feedback providers. Typically, external assessment
consultants request four to 10 feedback providers per feedback
recipient. Most consultants say that who gives the feedback is more
important than how many.
As a director in a large company, my first experience with 360-degree
feedback was in 1991, at a six-week executive program at the University
of Pittsburgh. At the time, 360-degree feedback was rarely used. Prior
to the program, I received a "Leadership Practices Inventory" that
required me to conduct a self-assessment and distribute assessment
surveys to my peers, subordinates, and boss. I think that I probably
chose my "best" candidates for feedback, my friends. The feedback was
anonymous, though it was grouped by the categories "peer, subordinates,
and superior." Back then, I thought that feedback from bosses was the
most valuable because they made the decisions about salaries and
promotions. Other people have told me that they felt the same way.
My second encounter with 360-degree feedback was in 1993, at a program
at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. This time, I
was sent another assessment survey with forms for myself, three peers,
three subordinates, and my boss. After the forms were completed, I
spent two hours going over the responses with a consultant who was a
trained facilitator and well-versed in reading and discussing feedback.
She asked me to write some action plans to address the areas in which
I'd received low ratings. Considering that I had been in my position
only a short time, it troubled me that I was receiving feedback from
people I hadn't worked with for very long.
During follow-up six months later, I again received survey forms to
distribute to the same people, if possible. The consultant scored the
forms and returned them to me so that I could assess whether there had
been any improvement in the areas for which I'd written action plans. I
concluded that there was some improvement. This "revisiting" was
important. I needed to know whether people's perceptions of my behavior
had changed.
Sometimes, feedback is sent directly to an employee with only written
explanations; sometimes an external consultant or HR person interprets
the feedback verbally face-to-face with the recipient. Either way, the
objective is to identify behavioral areas for improvement. Companies
such as AT&T, Sprint, and Signet Bank say that they use 360-degree
feedback only for employee development, not salary or promotion
recommendations. But as one HR manager asked me, "How can a boss be
aware of an employee's feedback and not use it in his or her
performance review--and not let it affect that person's salary or
advancement?"
Many companies have used 360-degree feedback as part of their TQM
efforts. TQM pioneer Edwards Deming said that the traditional appraisal
system has no place in a quality-oriented company. The fact that the
quality movement shifted emphasis from individuals to teams means that
multirater feedback has the potential to promote team cohesiveness.
Employees may want to meet the expectations of their peers as well as
their bosses when they know that their peers will be rating them.
Multirater feedback may also lessen discrimination and bias because the
responsibility for feedback involves more people. One evaluator's own
bias may still be a factor, but the role of evaluation is shared.
The downside
Sounds great so far, right? But there is a downside. One, feedback can
hurt. Evaluators aren't always nice or positive. People can see their
role as a feedback provider as an opportunity to criticize others'
behavior on the job. Interestingly, many feedback experts say that the
most devastating criticism to people is to be labeled "untrustworthy. "
Another flaw concerns conflicting opinions. Who decides who is right?
What's more, employees can stack the deck by choosing their friends to
provide feedback. Then, one has to question how valuable the process
is. Another potential problem is when people experience "survey
fatigue" from having to fill out countless forms. Then the question is:
How accurate and reliable is the feedback?
Another area for concern is whether the feedback is truthful. Suppose
that you have to fill out a form on someone you don't like. It's
difficult to own up to negative feelings on paper, so you might
equivocate. Or, you might vent. I admit that I have been less than
candid on occasion, often because I didn't want to answer certain
questions or hurt someone's feelings. Whatever the reason, if the
feedback isn't truthful, it isn't going to be useful.
Now that we've examined the pros and cons, we can address the most
important question; Does 360-degree feedback improve performance? Too
often, managers receive feedback, resolve to do better, and nothing
changes. That can happen whether the feedback is 360-degree or
traditional, especially when it involves a strong personality.
According to feedback specialists at the Center for Creative Leadership
in Greensboro, North Carolina, it takes massive doses of feedback for
some people's lights to come on.
People may intend to act on feedback but then feel that they're too
busy to change their behavior. Or, they may lose their commitment. Or,
they may run into resistance from their subordinates and bosses. They
may even convince themselves that the feedback isn't true, especially
if it wasn't a universally held opinion. Perhaps the fault lies in the
feedback instrument: It just didn't go far enough.
In one case, a company recently began using 360-degree feedback to
assess its senior ranks. Executive officers were asked to complete a
self-assessment and to distribute feedback surveys to two "direct
reports" and two "indirect reports" to complete. The executives could
also give the form to two peers.
The executives were apprehensive. It had been a long time since
lower-level people had appraised them. The feedback instrument included
seven rating areas and some open-ended questions. The executives
expected the open-ended portion to benefit them most, assuming that the
feedback providers would be candid--a big assumption considering that
people were rating the most senior executives. In fact, many of the
subordinates thought that it was dangerous to be completely truthful in
this situation.
Once the feedback was compiled and tabulated, the executives were
supposed to call a consultant to discuss the results. Some called; some
didn't. When they were asked whether they'd acted on the feedback, some
said that they "tried to pay attention to what everyone was saying."
But all of them admitted that it was very easy to slip back into their
usual behavior.
What to do
Most people would agree that old habits die hard and
that criticism isn't easy to take, even when it's well-intentioned. To
ensure that 360-degree feedback has a better chance of producing a
change, here are some recommendations:
- The feedback must be anonymous and confidential.
Involving enough participants is critical to obtaining truthful,
specific feedback. The promise of anonymity helps convince people that
they can be candid.
- Consider the length of time in the position. Valid
feedback depends on people having worked with someone long enough to
get to know them. If time on the job is less than six months, feedback
from the person's prior work group can serve as a benchmark for the
next appraisal.
- A feedback expert should interpret the feedback. Most
people won't act on something that they don't understand. Many feedback
instruments are complicated. An expert can explain the scoring and
present the results properly.
- Follow-up is an essential part of the process.
Employees should develop action plans on low-scoring areas on the
initial appraisal and assess their improvement in follow-up surveys
about six months later.
- 360-degree feedback shouldn't be used to determine salaries or promotions. The aim is to open up a dialogue.
- Let feedback providers give written descriptions as
well as numerical ratings. This enables them to be specific, and the
feedback will be more meaningful to the recipient.
- Ensure that the feedback instrument is reliable, valid, and based on statistical methods.
- To avoid survey fatigue, don't use 360-degree
feedback on too many employees at one time. You're likely to obtain
unreliable feedback. That doesn't mean that you can't use the process
successfully with an entire work group. You just need to stagger the
distribution of the forms.
Whether it's called multirater, 360-degree, or some other kind of
feedback, it's more useful and reliable to obtain information about an
employee's performance from several people at different organizational
levels. Just keep in mind the tips above, and look for people to change
their behavior for the better.
Copyright © 1996 from Training and Development by Mary N. Vinson.
Posted with permission of American Society for Training and Development
> Back to top
|
