How Much Do Performance Reviews Actually Cost and Are They Really Worth It?

Posted on January 9, 2012 by Linda Linfield, M.A.

 

Here is a simple way to estimate the cost of your performance appraisal process:

Let’s assume the average manager earns $50 per hour (including benefits) and spends an average three hours per review (including gathering feedback, preparing documents, and holding discussions with employees).  Remember, that’s the average; managers can earn much more (and a few obviously earn less).  Let’s also assume that the average employee earns $30 per hour (including benefits) and that they spend about the same amount of time on their own reviews (including preparing a list of achievements, documenting development goals, and meeting with their manager).  To make the math simple, let’s say the organization in question has a total of 500 employees:

The cost for the annual performance review process is about $120,000 just in the value of time spent. Take the number of employees to 5,000, and the cost soars to $1.2 million.

These numbers do not include software or IT maintenance costs associated with implementing and maintaining an online system.  Nor have we included costs for the HR resources used to orchestrate the process and consult with managers.  Nor have we included any group management meetings wherein relative performance and rankings are discussed and finalized.  And the list could go on with opportunity costs associated with focusing on the performance review cycle instead of attending to opportunities that could boost organizational profitability or other success in the market.

Is it worth it?

To justify the cost and time of this annual process, you would think that an organization could easily recognize the results the process produces. We’ve found that it’s the rare organization that actually tracks –or even knows how to track- the impact of performance reviews and conducts a cost-benefit analysis.  Instead, organizations tend to only measure participation rates, adherence to guidelines, and completion of documentation. 

How does your organization measure the effectiveness of its performance review process?

Do you measure how much the process costs and how much impact the process has on increasing company performance?

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback, Employee Engagement, Performance Appraisal, Research, Talent Assessment, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Did You Become More Engaged in Your Work After Your Last Performance Review?

Posted on December 23, 2011 by Linda Linfield, M.A.

Every year organizations spend untold hours conducting performance reviews. It’s an expensive process in terms of time and money and, if not done right, can have a negative impact on manager and employee engagement and morale.

Think about your own experience. When you’ve been part of a performance review process, either for yourself or for those who report to you, have you experienced the time spent as producing high value? Did you have the unusual experience of walking away feeling understood, appreciated, capable, supported, motivated, and energized? Or, were you with the majority who have walked away feeling misunderstood, unappreciated, surprised (or blind-sided), disenchanted, disheartened, stressed out, or frustrated?

What if the performance review process could actually improve employee morale and productivity? What if the annual event was something everyone looked forward to because it was the time for celebration of accomplishments and preparation for next year’s success?

For people to give their best effort on behalf of their organizations, they need to be fully engaged at work. The annual performance review process could go a long way toward engaging them. In these conversations, with acknowledgement of past contributions and with a focused view of the future, managers and employees can connect their day-to-day work with the organization’s purpose. They can feel a sense of belonging and that others care about them and their development. They can figure out how to get the tools and resources they need to do their jobs right. They can come away feeling respected, invested in, and important.

The performance review cycle is a perfect time to give and receive feedback that will help the individual, manager, and organization improve. If done with an eye to motivating engagement and future performance, the money and time spent will prove worth the investment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My Experience Using 360-Degree Feedback for Performance Appraisals

Posted on December 13, 2011 by Linda Linfield, M.A.

As a leadership coach, I often have the opportunity to work with high-performing leaders who are interested in infusing their employees with a passion for results and openness to feedback that will help them become increasingly capable.  I remember the precise moment when I became an advocate for people to have the opportunity to receive their own feedback in order to use it as a development tool.  Today I’d like to share that experience with you.

For more than 10 years, I worked for a high-tech company that had a well-defined, well-orchestrated performance management process that allowed managers and employees to document achievement against specific objectives.  The manager was responsible for the process – setting objectives, setting up meetings with employees, following up on progress, gathering feedback from key stakeholders, writing the reviews, obtaining employee signatures, and allocating associated bonus funds based on performance.  It was clearly a top-down, pay-for-performance culture, and despite its inherent flaws, employees were accustomed to the process.

Then my company merged with another company of similar size – a high-tech consulting firm that approached performance management in a vastly different way. I found out about it when a newly acquired employee let me know that the time was approaching for her annual performance review.  She wanted to give me a heads up that she would be preparing for that discussion by contacting her internal customers for feedback on her performance.

Say, what?  She was personally going to start her own performance review process.  I didn’t know what to think, and I’m sure she saw my bewilderment.  Rather than impose my process on her, I had the presence of mind to stop, listen, and learn.  I asked her to tell me more about the performance review process as she knew it, and she explained how at the acquired company, the employees owned the process.  They drafted their own objectives, met with their managers to discuss and confirm, followed up and gave status reports, sought their own feedback, wrote their self-reviews, and then set up a meeting to discuss with managers their achievements, areas for development, and aspirations.  The managers contributed by guiding objectives, giving timely feedback, and writing comments, and they allocated bonus money based on both individual and team performance.

The idea that people would seek their own feedback was new to me and a bit unnerving.  You mean you just ask people for feedback directly? You ask them to tell you straight out what you did well, what you could have done better, and if you exceeded their expectations?  Yes, she said.  That’s pretty much it.

Isn’t that stressful?  I wondered aloud.

She answered with a question that changed closely held belief.  Isn’t it stressful for YOU to have YOUR MANAGER reach out for feedback that you should be getting directly from the people who are impacted by your work?  Shouldn’t you have built the kind of relationships that allow other people to give you the information that will help you improve your level of service, your interactions, and your effectiveness?

She was right – it was stressful to have my manager initiating and engaging in the performance feedback conversations that I should be having. I should be the one finding out about the perceptions of others regarding my behavior, attitude, competency, communication style, and follow through.  After all, I’m the only one who has the ability to change anything about me or about my performance.

I learned from this employee’s explanation and example, and mustered my courage.  From that moment on, I took responsibility for my own development.  At my level in the organization, I certainly didn’t need my executive vice president to provide parental supervision; nor did I need him to hold me accountable for my responsibilities.  I set out to acquire the taste for authentic feedback, and I was astonished by how immediately empowered I felt as a result.  When I received direct positive feedback, I savored it.  When I received redirecting feedback, I knew where it was coming from and developed a sense of what I could do to change that would have immediate impact.

During the ensuing years, I have shared this pivotal moment in my leadership learning with the many other leaders who I’ve coached.  Usually we start with a 360 assessment with the leadership team demonstrating to the employees how to respond to feedback without becoming defensive.  We follow up with conversations designed to help both leaders and employees understand how to communicate in a way that increases trust and empowerment.  And then we build the capacity for giving and receiving candid feedback in a virtuous cycle that promotes employee engagement and high performance.

Posted in 360-Degree Appraisal, 360-Degree Feedback | Leave a comment

5 Reasons Why People Dread Feedback (and why we need to hear it anyway)

Posted on December 5, 2011 by Linda Linfield, M.A.

Talk to any group of leaders or managers, and you’ll hear the same thing.  For the most part we dread feedback, and for good reason – our experience is that feedback has been used as a hammer, a club, a spear, or other weapon of destruction.  So, naturally, we respond with defensiveness (fight) or avoidance (flight).

In such a group, you’ll also hear a few individuals speak up who’ve had a different experience with feedback – used more like a mirror than a hammer.  They will tell you that their most valuable feedback has been difficult to hear but has produced outstanding results.  The feedback may have caused them to plan more carefully, communicate more openly, or become more assertive.  They now make better decisions, inspire more commitment from their employees, or take well-reasoned risks that have catapulted their organizations to new performance levels.

At DecisionWise, we specialize in turning feedback into results, and so we have a lot of experience working with leaders and managers to make good use of 360-degree feedback surveys (as well as other data).

Here are a few of the most-cited reasons people dread feedback, and why they need it anyway:

1.       We’re afraid of what we don’t know:

We think of ourselves as self-aware, and it’s disturbing to consider that others may have different perceptions of how we perform and the value we add.  We don’t want to put ourselves in a position of potential embarrassment when we find out about something that’s obvious to others that we totally missed.

We need feedback precisely BECAUSE we don’t know what we don’t know.  We need to find out how we are perceived by others, so we have the option of changing.  With new knowledge, we can choose to start doing things that would make a difference.  We can also choose to change things that would make a difference if they were working better.  And, we can stop doing things that either aren’t making a difference or are getting in the way of achieving our desired results.

2.       We think people will blast us:

We have the impression that most feedback is negative.  We believe that if given an opportunity to be candid AND anonymous, people will rant about whatever annoys them.

While it’s true that some people may jump at the chance to vent, especially if they have pent-up frustrations, they are not the majority.  Most people take feedback opportunities quite seriously.  They tend to give well-considered feedback they believe will be helpful to the individual seeking it as well as to the organization and/or the team.  The real problem is not those who vent; it’s the apathetic or disengaged who don’t respond at all.  Many of these individuals do not want to waste their time giving feedback that won’t matter.  In some cases, people withhold feedback because they fear the consequences of being open with their opinions and perceptions.  Different strategies are required to address each of these challenges, and it is well worth the effort to create an environment where feedback is encouraged and valued.

3.       We’re worried the information will be used against us:

We suspect that HR or management may have a hidden agenda to use anonymous feedback against us – as part of a performance review process or as evidence that we shouldn’t receive the promotion we’ve been working toward.

The far more likely scenario is that negative perceptions, if any exist, are already at work.  The problem is they are not in the open where the individual can address them.  The reality is that when a leader or manager demonstrates openness to receiving feedback and working on issues identified, he or she is almost immediately perceived as a better leader.  So in truth, a healthy feedback process actually promotes positive perceptions of leadership.

4.       We doubt our ability to keep our composure under fire:

We don’t know how surprised we’ll be by the feedback and if we’ll be able to digest it in the moment without becoming overly emotional.  We don’t want to overreact with anger, frustration, insecurity, tears, or any other unprofessional outburst.

Responding appropriately during stressful situations is an important leadership competency, so it’s important to pay attention to when and how feedback is delivered.  I recommend setting up a process that allows the individual to receive and process the data in a supportive environment.  Generally this means receiving a 360 Feedback Report to read through individually, and then approximately 24 hours later, meeting with a third-party coach.  The coach will provide a debrief to help the individual process the data, look for patterns in strengths and areas for development, and create a reasonable yet high-impact action plan.  In this way, any surprises can be dealt with privately, and a personalized follow-up strategy be put in place.

5.       We know that some kind of behavioral change will be expected, and we don’t know if we’ll be able to meet expectations.

We doubt our ability to change specific behaviors of which we were previously unaware or that seem to be just part of who we are.  We may even have heard similar feedback before and made unsuccessful attempts to change.  Hearing the same feedback again and again makes us feel like failures.

This is an important concern.  Participating in a 360 Feedback Process infers that the individual is open to change and will use the information they receive in a positive, productive way.  In this situation, where individual attempts to change have not worked, a coach can help.  My best coaching experiences have been working with leaders and managers who have had a strong desire to change yet have so far been unsuccessful in making that particular change.  Desire is the key – the tools, tips, and accountability can be learned.

If after reading this blog, you’re still dreading feedback, then let’s talk.  (I’m here all week.)

Linda Linfield is director of Talent Assessment at DecisionWise, and her first love is Leadership Coaching and Development.  You can read more about her and the DecisionWise team at www.decision-wise.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Can People Really Change and Is It Worth the Effort to Try?

Posted on November 9, 2011 by Linda Linfield, M.A.

In a recent coaching conversation, my client asked me point blank in his abrupt, no-nonsense way, “Linda, is it really possible for me to change?”  We had been discussing the results of his recent 360 feedback survey, in which his raters had taken him to task for his lack of interpersonal skills.

The feedback did not come as a surprise; in fact, he expected and accepted it.  “It’s just who I am,” he shrugged. 

All of his professional life, my client had been commended and promoted for his intelligence, his keen ability to think and act strategically, his unparalleled work ethic, his relentless effectiveness in getting the job done, no matter what.  And, he had consistently been told that his soft skills needed work.  Recently, attrition in his operation had increased, so HR retained me to see if my coaching could help.

Now as a leader of leaders, 30+ years into his career, he questioned whether it was possible for him to change, and wondered aloud if it was even worth the effort to try. 

Is it Worth the Effort?

Maybe it’s not worth the effort, I replied.  It depends on what you want.  Does it matter to you that your employees and peers believe you don’t care about them as people?  Is it okay for them to continue to experience you as brusque and unapproachable?

I was serious.  Did he truly not care about others and how they felt when they had to work with him?  Did he not notice their unhappiness and frustration when he blew them off to attend to more business-critical issues?

“Of course, I care,” he sighed.  “I just don’t know if I CAN change.”

We had reached the pivotal moment in our conversation.  The rest of our work together would turn on this single acknowledgement of care and concern – and whether or not my client had the DESIRE for others to experience him as a leader who respects and values them.

It Depends on What you Want

The instant he expressed that he WANTED his relationships to be different was the instant we could begin to explore opportunities for how he could better engage with people without compromising the hard-core business results for which he was known. 

I recommended we start with a single behavioral change, one that required him to catch his behavior in the moment and stop in his tracks to talk with the other person in a specific, authentic way.  The conversation was to be quick, but to convey respect and concern.  And, if he failed to notice his poor behavior in time to catch it, he was to return to the situation and reopen the conversation, again in a specific and genuine way.  We rehearsed both situations a few times until the interactions felt somewhat natural.

This approach coincided with my client’s natural drive to dispense quickly with interruptions.  We rehearsed, and he was willing to try.  His assignment was to report back to me in three or four weeks with stories of what happened when he followed through and things went well and, conversely, when things didn’t go so well. 

The positive results from this first effort astounded him, and he came to our next conversation eager to relate his stories and to continue our work.  He was energized and heartened by his new-found belief that he could, indeed, change life-long behavior that had negatively impacted him and those around him for too long.

Soft Skills Produce Hard-Core Business Results

His aha moment came when he discovered that by engaging differently with his employees and peers, he became far more effective on the job.  He was able to empower those around him to take more initiative, delegate more with confidence that his employees would follow though, and reclaim some elusive time for projects that had gone begging for attention. 

If I were asked to select someone whose photo belonged on a poster for developing soft skills in order to drive stronger business results, this client would top my list.  In a few short months he transformed from “no hope for change” into an inspiring and engaging leader who likes who he has become.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Problems with 360-degree Feedback Statistical Measures

Posted on October 7, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

Validity and reliability are certainly critical in a 360-degree assessment instrument. An invalid or unreliable instrument will quickly bring down a 360 process.  However, it is important to also note that some of the statistical principles associated with evaluation may not have direct application to 360-degree feedback. Here’s why:

  1. Many feedback recipients will find gaps in the way different raters see their behaviors. For example, I may see myself as a stellar leader, yet my direct reports see me as mediocre. This is a gap in perception. Along the same lines, my supervisor may think I’m excellent at managing projects, yet my peers feel I have a long way to go. Viewed from a statistical perspective, these differences may be seen as problems with the validity and reliability of the survey. In reality, these differences are more likely due to the fact that these people have observed my performance from different vantage points. This may be because I act differently with different groups of people, or could mean that different raters are in positions where they can provide me with different insight into my performance. This difference in perspective is critical information, and actually makes the findings all the more reliable.
  2. Reliability is repeatability of results. While this is appropriate for statistical purposes, the end goal of 360-degree feedback should not simply be measurement; it should be improvement. Given coaching and establishment of action plans and goals, the objective would be that the results are not repeated, but improved upon. Although some measures of reliability are definitely appropriate, not all fit directly when it comes to 360-degree feedback.

Ultimately, when we look at the validity and reliability of 360-degree feedback instrument, we should be asking:

  1. Does this instrument measure what it is supposed to be measuring?
  2. Is what it measures what our organization needs it to measure?
  3. Are the questions clear, and can I provide an answer without having to guess at what the question is getting at?
  4. Are the results specific and clear enough that the employee can identify strengths and areas for improvement, then formulate specific action plans?

While validation of a 360 feedback instrument can be tricky, and may not fall into many of the traditional statistical methodologies, it remains critical. The vast majority of 360-degree feedback assessments have gone through little research and validation beyond a simple face validation. These instruments often cause more harm than good. For this reason, it is important to choose an instrument that will accurately measure your organization’s leadership competencies and provide actionable feedback.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

What Do Honesty, Integrity, and Trust Mean in Leadership?

Posted on October 4, 2011 by Linda Linfield, M.A.

I spend part of almost every day coaching leaders through feedback they have received from a 360-degree feedback survey. I’ve found it heartening that consistently the area of greatest concern to these leaders is Integrity and Trust. If the scores are high, the leader typically expresses how pleased or satisfied they are with the scores. Conversely, if the scores are even slightly below the norm, the leader is often so unnerved that he or she can hardly see anything else in the report.

Test for meaning
Think of a leader you know who exemplifies integrity, honesty, and trust. What specific behaviors cause you to experience this leader as upright, honest and trustworthy? I’ve posed this question to scores of leaders and have found the responses as varied as the leaders themselves. Here are some examples of what I’ve heard.

Integrity is often equated with courage- courage to speak up when your point of view is at odds with a manager’s perspective or with a commonly held belief about how things should be done. Integrity may also be interpreted as work ethic- in early, staying late to get the right things done for the company.

Honesty may be seen as transparency and openness- your willingness to communicate what you’re thinking or feeling, even when it is uncomfortable or unpopular. Honesty may be seen as a willingness to listen and discuss issues before the data is completely thought through, when available alternatives are not fully crystallized, and when decisions are not yet final. It may also be seen as keeping your word, following through on promises, and delivering on time.

Trust may be based on a feeling that you have the other person’s back when he or she is not in the room. It may be the confidence you will advocate the other person’s point of view with clarity and understanding. Or, trust may be gained as you’re seen to act in the best interest of the team or organization rather than acting primarily to advance your personal agenda.

Do What it Takes
While most everyone is adamant that their leaders ought to demonstrate integrity, honesty and trust, they do not define or understand those terms consistently. The differences in perception make it critical for you to find out more specifically what your managers, colleagues, direct reports, and other key stakeholders are looking for when it comes to honesty, integrity, and trust.

It may not be enough for you to simply tell the truth when challenged or to turn in accurate expense reports. To be known for your integrity, honesty, and trust, you may need to demonstrate more personal courage; you may need to create an environment that is more open and transparent; or, you may need to build a stronger sense of teamwork and cooperation.

The critical next step is to ask around. When it comes to integrity, honesty, and trust, what do the people in your organization expect from you?

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do You See What I See? Self Score Inflation in 360-degree Feedback

Posted on September 20, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

360-degree feedback provides a unique opportunity for one to compare his/her self-perceptions against the perceptions of others. Bosses, direct reports, peers, and others provide individuals with feedback about their performance and behaviors.  The individuals also rate themselves against the same criteria, and the results are typically compared side-by-side in a 360-degree feedback report.

But what happens when self-perceptions do not necessarily match the perceptions of others? 

It may not be surprising to find that self-perceptions are often somewhat, if not completely, different from the perceptions of other raters. In fact, our DecisionWise research of over 10,000 360-degree feedback recipients indicates that more than two-thirds of the time, 78%, to be exact, participants rate themselves higher than others rater them! In other words, most of those with whom we work (not us, of course) have an inflated view of their own performance and behaviors.

Part of this discrepancy can be explained through statistics.  Let’s look at Heidi, for example. Heidi is a manager with eight years of experience in her current organization.  When she takes her 360 feedback survey, she rates herself a “7” out of “7” on questions related to “Project Management.” Because she is the only rater in the “self” category, the score she would receive on her 360-degree feedback report would be, of course, a “7.”  However, in order to receive a “7” on that same competency from all 8 of Heidi’s direct reports, all 8 of them would have to rate her project management skills and behaviors as a perfect “7.”  Highly unlikely. 

A second reason for this self-rating inflation is due to field of view.  Heidi is the only person who sees every aspect of what she does.  Her supervisor may not know that she provides excellent direction to team members, as Heidi’s boss isn’t in a position to observe it every day.  Similarly, Heidi’s direct reports are not in a position to know that although Heidi is an excellent project manager, her boss continues to throw unnecessary wrenches in Heidi’s well-thought-out plans.  She receives a lower score from each group (and is left questioning when reviewing her feedback).

While the statement “perception IS reality” comes to mind in these scenarios, it’s also important to understand additional insights along these lines.  Our research also shows a very clear correlation between on-the-job performance and the way people rate themselves relative to those who also provided them ratings.  If Heidi’s “self” scores (the way she rated her own behaviors in her 360) are close to the scores provided by others, there is a strong likelihood that her on-the-job performance will be stronger than her counterpart, Aaron, who rated himself significantly higher than did his other raters on his own 360.

Why? Again, there are likely several reasons, but two stand out as most common.

First, those whose “self” scores most closely match those provided by their other raters tend to have formed relationships in which honest feedback is regularly exchanged, and communication is strong.  Because of this, when 360 feedback time rolls around each year, there are few surprises.  Heidi has a pretty good idea of how she is perceived, and tends to score herself accordingly.  Additionally, because this strong communication exists with others, Heidi is a generally more effective leader.

Second, one of the basis tenets of Emotional Intelligence is the concept of self-awareness.  Those leaders who are self-aware, particularly when it comes to how their behavior impacts others, tend to be better leaders.  Consequently, those individuals whose 360 self-ratings most closely match those of his/her raters show a greater sense of self-awareness and are better leaders.

I am puzzled when individuals chose not to rate themselves in a 360-degree feedback process.  I’m equally perplexed when I hear that an organization has chosen not to require an individual to rate him/herself when that individual is participating in a 360 (or performance evaluation, for that matter). One of the reasons gaps in perception (differences between scores) on 360-degree feedback are so valuable is that they give us another point of data that helps us understand our own behaviors, and how these are viewed by others.

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback | Leave a comment

Shhhh… That’s What Friends are For?

Posted on September 2, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

I am intrigued by a recent Monster.com poll regarding the propensity to provide (or not to provide) feedback regarding under-performing co-workers. Poll results reported that, of the 10,676 respondents, 58% would step in and help their underperforming friends at work, rather than reporting him or her.

The question was asked, “A colleague you are friends with has been seriously underperforming. Would you report him or her?” The poll received the following responses:

• Yes, if the team’s success is on the line: 27%
• No, if possible, I’d help my friend with work: 58%
• Yes, if it will help me get ahead: 4%
• No, if the boss doesn’t notice, it’s not my concern: 11%

Even more intriguing to me were the follow-up discussions held in various online groups. I found the following responses especially interesting:

“I would rather maintain the friendship.”

“If they were under-performing, they are probably hurting everyone else. Someone else has to pick up the load.”

“That’s the boss’s job.”

“What kind of ‘friend’ would report someone to the boss? Seriously? Time to find new friends!”

I fully support helping out co-workers in times of need. We’ve all been on both the giving and receiving ends of the need spectrum. While I’m certainly not suggesting that co-workers go out and start a “narc on your neighbor campaign,” I wonder what percentage of these ten thousand-plus respondents would have a discussion with his or her co-worker worker regarding this underperformance. Based on the poll results, it’s clear that not many would involve the boss, even if the boss could help.

One interesting option on the Monster poll would have been, “No, but I would tell my friend about his/her underperformance,” although in this poll it was not one of the possible responses. Withholding appropriate feedback does not help an individual correct a performance problem (Guys… notice I said, “appropriate feedback”… the answer to “Does this dress make me look fat” is NEVER “no, it’s not the dress”). I also question whether allowing an individual to continue in failure could really be “helping.”

An interesting follow-up question to this poll would be, “If YOU were seriously under-performing, would you want your co-worker friend to tell you about it?” I would suspect that most of us would want to know.

Posted in 360-Degree Feedback, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Using 360-degree Feedback to Gauge Leadership Improvement

Posted on August 24, 2011 by Tracy Maylett, Ed.D.

The vast majority of our DecisionWise clients administer 360-degree feedback assessments across multiple years, meaning 360s are conducted on an annual basis. Yearly administration gives individuals a sense of how they are progressing (or NOT progressing), as well as serves as a gauge for understanding whether an individual’s action plan from the previous administration had the intended results. Using 360-degree feedback is an effective way to measure this progress, and should be considered a valuable tool in any manager’s or organization’s toolkit.

While 360-degree feedback is an excellent tool when used correctly, there are some organizations that may not be using this year-over-year measurement appropriately. For example, if an individual had an overall 360-degree feedback score of 5.1 (on a 7-point scale), and that individual did not receive at least a 5.3 overall during the following administration, some would see this as lack of improvement, or even failure. Some would use this to question the value of the 360 process within their organization.

While this makes sense on the surface—track 360 results over time to gauge levels of improvement— there are several additional factors to consider when relying on this methodology to assess an individual’s progress or the overall effectiveness of a 360-degree feedback process:

1) Rater Changes: Many 360 recipients will have different raters from administration to administration. Technically speaking, this changes a variable, making year-over-year comparisons inexact.

2) Rater Mindset: Many organizations, when administering 360s over multiple years, become more accustomed to providing 360-degree feedback. While there may be some hesitance in Year 1 (due to perceived threats of retaliation, lack of confidentiality, intended use, whatever…), many of these misperceptions will have changed by Year 2 when raters see that their feedback was properly considered. This means that raters may respond with a different mindset in Year 2 versus Year 1, knowing that they are safe to open up.

3) Changing Roles: In today’s environment of change, a year is a long time. During this year, the possibility that the individual being assessed will have changed roles or reporting relationships is quite high. Again, we’re assessing with a different set of variables.

4) The Bar is Raised: In a performance-oriented organization, performance that is “great” one year will be considered merely “good” the next. While the individual’s actual performance levels in terms of key performance indicators may not have decreased, he/she will be rated according to (hopefully) increased expectations from one year to another. This may be reflected in 360 scores. 360s are reflective of performance relative to expectations (which change from year to year).

5) Overall Average: Logic would seem to dictate that multi-rater (360) assessment results would improve when looking at the same subject group over a period of time. Several studies (Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999) appear to support this logic. However, Smither, London, and Reilly (2005) claim that much of this change will not be readily visible year-over-year in 360 overall results, due to the fact that most feedback programs suggest participants focus on only a few key areas for change. Subsequently, the recipient may only make meaningful changes in those areas; yet those changes may be significant in overall on-the-job performance. These changes, however significant they may be, would have little impact on the average ratings.

Certainly, an individual who shows dramatic improvement in 360 scores is likely one who has made meaningful strides since the previous administration. While reviewing changes year-over-year makes sense, and should certainly be a part of gauging progress, we must be careful basing our evaluation of an individual’s 360 success solely on looking for improvement from “5.1 to 5.3” overall, or on a particular competency or question.

—-
Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32(2-3), 325-351.

London, M., & Wohlers, A. J. (1991). Agreement between subordinate and self-ratings in upward feedback. Personnel Psychology, 44(2), 375-390.

Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings. Personnel Psychology, 58(1), 33-66.

Walker, A., & Smither, J.W. (1999). A five-year study of upward feedback: What managers do with their results matters. Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393-423.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment