Basically, a 360-degree feedback evaluation is a questionnaire that asks people—superiors, direct reports, peers, and internal and external customers—how well a manager performs in any number of behavioral areas. These “raters” should know the manager, or “ratee,” and they should have opinions that the organization respects. Sometimes the manager will also want to rate himself or herself as a sort of personal benchmark.
The rationale behind such a broad and well-rounded evaluation is simple. Upper management does not always see aspects of a manager's performance that others in the organization see. And a manager failing in those performance areas is probably also hurting the bottom line.
For example, a manager who browbeats workers into making production deadlines may stay on schedule, but the fast-paced environment and disgruntled employees may make quality suffer. Or a manager who is the workers' “friend” may avoid personal conflict, but his or her lack of critical feedback may leave workers feeling adrift.
Possible reasons to use 360-degree feedback evaluation include the following:
Helping managers with their personal and professional development. It is easy to miss our own faults, but understanding those faults can improve our performance and our careers.
Providing input for performance appraisals. This is controversial, but human resource development (HRD) professionals are looking for ways to make the link between 360-degree evaluations and performance appraisals stick.
Helping in an organization's succession planning. The detailed reports generated in a 360-degree evaluation make it easier for an organization to match a manager's skills with a particular job or function.
Helping facilitate organizational change. Multirater feedback systems can make sure that managers align themselves with the organization's strategies and values.
“I could do my job better if only my boss would (or wouldn't)…”
Who couldn't fill in that blank on almost any given day? But, how many of us actually tell our bosses what should go in that blank? Multirater (or 360-degree) feedback gives us a chance to do just that. We can evaluate our managers, subordinates, and peers anonymously, honestly, and thoroughly. And we can learn from being rated ourselves by those very same people. People work together better. The bottom line improves.
It sounds simple enough, but this is a subtle system that can be easily misused, if not abused. Personality conflicts can take over the evaluation if the process is not carefully designed. And everyone must trust the system for it to work effectively. In addition, the technique can be very scary for ratees. Some of the collected information can be personal or even embarrassing. (It's hard to remember that the criticism is supposed to be constructive when half a dozen people have said you are too disorganized.)
Although the use of multirater systems has been increasing for years, we are still learning what its potential problems are—how to ensure accuracy; and its long-term effects on raters, ratees, and their organizations. This issue of Info-line describes the ins and outs of 360-degree evaluations, tells you why they are so popular, and walks you step by step through an implementation process.
The instrument is a questionnaire of statements, questions, or behaviors that users rate along an assigned scale (for example, “very satisfied” to “very dissatisfied”). These items are usually grouped together under category headings, and they usually discuss very specific actions managers do or should do. Most instruments also include space for open-ended responses. (See an example of such a feedback instrument on the next page.)
Collected feedback can range from “He stands too close and talks too loud” to “She doesn't understand how we work.” Rarely is the feedback easy for managers to take. Some managers may even want to discount the feedback as being “only someone's opinion.” But whether the feedback is objective or subjective, it is still what somebody thinks. That alone should make a good manager want to address the problem.
Any organization can conduct 360-degree evaluations. Smaller organizations, however, will have trouble getting enough responses for accurate reporting and will probably have trouble keeping the responses anonymous.
Another consideration is the organization's culture. An open, participatory culture used to continuous improvement and change will be more successful with a 360-degree evaluation. Hierarchical organizations characterized by internal competition and inflexibility will be less successful and less likely to stick with such an evaluation method. In either case, don't expect the system to work perfectly right away. It may take several years to build faith in the process and create a sense of trust among workers.
Finally, if your organization is reengineering or otherwise experiencing a change in its culture, wait awhile before moving to 360-degree evaluation. Give people a chance to adjust before throwing another new idea their way.
So, you like the idea. Now what do you do? Your organization can get its own multirater system in the following ways:
You can purchase a package off the shelf. Several hundred are currently on the market, and each has its own particular pluses and minuses.
You can hire a consultant to develop a customized multirater process. This may be relatively expensive, but the hands-on treatment ensures a good organization-evaluation fit. And some consultants will help with the ratee's action planning at the later stages of the process.
You can construct a system internally. This can be a big step for some organizations. Think hard before jumping in. For more information about what is involved in building your own instrument, see the next section.
You can use a combination of any or all of these methods. This method provides the most flexibility in terms of instrument design, time involved, and cost.
No matter where it comes from, a good 360-degree feedback system should be:
Reliable and consistent. If a manager doesn't change, the same raters' responses shouldn't change over time. Also, raters at the same level in the organization with the same level of contact with the ratee should have “similar” responses. Finally, scales within the instrument should be the same.
Valid. The instrument should actually measure what it claims to measure. Only actual reports of performance improvement in ratees who used the instrument provide true validity testing.
Easy to use. Every rater should be able to understand and answer every item.
An agent of positive change. The instrument should measure management behaviors that your organization values and desires. Unneeded feedback can confuse the issues by describing embarrassing or painful behaviors that do not affect job performance.