360-degree feedback

Last updated

360-degree feedback (also known as multi-rater feedback, multi source feedback, or multi source assessment) is a process through which feedback from an employee's subordinates, peers, colleagues, and supervisor(s), as well as a self-evaluation by the employee themselves is gathered. Such feedback can also include, when relevant, feedback from external sources who interact with the employee, such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. 360-degree feedback is so named because it solicits feedback regarding an employee's behavior from a variety of points of view (subordinate, lateral, and supervisory). It therefore may be contrasted with "downward feedback" (traditional feedback on work behavior and performance delivered to subordinates by supervisory or management employees only; see traditional performance appraisal), or "upward feedback" delivered to supervisory or management employees by subordinates only.

Contents

Organizations have most commonly utilized 360-degree feedback for developmental purposes, providing it to employees to assist them in developing work skills and behaviors. However, organizations are increasingly using 360-degree feedback in performance evaluations and employment administrative decisions (e.g., pay; promotions). When 360-degree feedback is used for performance evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called a "360-degree review".

There is a great deal of debate as to whether 360-degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes [1] or for evaluation purposes as well. [2] This is due primarily to feedback providers' subjectivity and motivations, inter-rater variations, and whether feedback providers have the ability to fairly evaluate attainment of work and organizational objectives. While these issues exist when 360-degree feedback is used for development, they may be more prominent when employers use them for performance evaluation purposes.

History

The origins are from around 1930, with the German Reichswehr, when the military psychologist Johann Baptist Rieffert developed a methodology to select officer candidates. One of the earliest recorded uses of surveys to gather information about employees occurred in the 1950s at the Esso Research and Engineering Company. [3] From there, the idea of 360-degree feedback gained momentum, and by the 1990s most human resources and organizational development professionals understood the concept. The problem was that collecting and collating the feedback demanded a paper-based effort including either complex manual calculations or lengthy delays.

However, due to the rise of the Internet and the ability to conduct evaluations online, multi-rater feedback use steadily increased in popularity. [4] Outsourcing of human resources functions also has created a strong market for 360-degree feedback products from consultants. This has led to a proliferation of 360-degree feedback tools on the market. [5]

Today, studies suggest that over one-third of U.S. companies use some type of multi-source feedback. [6] Others claim that this estimate is closer to 90% of all Fortune 500 firms. [7] In recent years, this has become encouraged as Internet-based services have become standard in corporate development, with a growing menu of useful features (e.g., multiple language options, comparative reporting, and aggregate reporting). [8]

Issues

360-degree feedback is not equally useful in all types of organizations and with all types of jobs. Additionally, using 360-degree feedback tools for appraisal purposes has come under fire as performance criteria may not be valid and job based, employees may not be adequately trained to evaluate a co-worker's performance, and feedback providers can manipulate these systems. [9] Employee manipulation of feedback ratings has been reported in some companies who have utilized 360-degree feedback for performance evaluation, including GE (Welch 2001), IBM (Linman 2011), and Amazon (Kantor and Streitfeld 2015).

Some members of the U.S. military have criticized its use of 360-degree feedback programs in employment decisions because of problems with validity and reliability. [10] Other branches of the U.S. government have questioned 360-degree feedback reviews as well. [11] Still, these organizations continue to use and refine their assessments that offer multi-rater feedback in their development processes. [12]

Adopting the 360-degree review approach is purported by many to be superior to other traditional forms of evaluation and feedback for evaluating employee performance. When successfully implemented, this method can provide a more efficient, thorough, and accurate assessment of performance reviews.

The amount and level of training in 360-degree feedback for both the rater and ratee can affect the level of accuracy of the feedback. If no guidance is given, individual bias may affect the rater's ratings and the ratee's interpretation of the feedback. [13] However, even with training measures in place, unconscious bias may still occur due to factors such as the cultural influences or relationship quality between the rater and ratee. [14] Additionally, if there are potential consequences from rater feedback, rater motivation may shift from providing accurate feedback to providing feedback based on self-motivated reasons such as promoting or harming a particular individual. [13] [15] Therefore, it is imperative that a baseline of trust be established between the raters and ratees to improve rater accountability and feedback accuracy. [16]

It is important to recognize who will receive the data collected and who will maintain the confidentiality of that data. The manager or HR employee who manages the collection of data will need to ensure its confidentiality. When participants remain anonymous, they are more likely to provide more accurate feedback. Moreover, the data should only be available to the employee who has been reviewed and the manager who will be facilitating the feedback for developmental purposes. [16]

It is also important to standardize how information is collected during the review process. 360-degree feedback may be susceptible to decreased accuracy based on the style of assessment used. Research has shown that feedback results may change based on the rating scale used in the assessment [13] as well as the length of the assessment. [16] Furthermore, rater feedback may change based on the time they completed the assessment. [14]

A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that the length of time that a rater has known the individual being evaluated has the greatest effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. The study shows that subjects in the group "known for one to three years" are the most accurate, followed by those "known for less than one year," followed by those "known for three to five years" and the least accurate being those "known for more than five years." The study concludes that the most accurate ratings come from those who have known the individual being reviewed long enough to get past the first impression, but not so long that they begin to generalize favorably. [17]

It has been suggested that multi-rater assessments often generate conflicting opinions and that there may be no way to determine whose feedback is accurate. [18] Studies have also indicated that self-ratings are generally significantly higher than the ratings given from others. [19] The motivations and biases of feedback providers must be taken into account.

Results

Several studies [20] indicate that the use of 360-degree feedback helps to improve employee performance because it helps the evaluated see different perspectives of their performance. In a 5-year study, [21] no improvement in overall rater scores was found from the 1st year to the 2nd, but scores rose with each passing year from 2nd to 4th. Reilly et al. (1996) found that performance increased between the 1st and 2nd administrations, and sustained this improvement 2 years later. Additional studies show that 360-degree feedback may be predictive of future performance. [22]

Some authors maintain, however, that there are too many confounding variables related to 360-degree evaluations to reliably generalize their effectiveness. [23] Bracken et al. (2001b) and Bracken and Timmreck (2001) focus on process features that are likely to also have major effects on creating behavior change. Greguras and Robie (1998) tracked how the number of raters used in each particular category (direct report, peer, manager) affects the reliability of the feedback. Their research showed that direct reports are the least reliable and, therefore, more participation is required to produce a reliable result. Multiple pieces of research [24] have demonstrated that the scale of responses can have a major effect on the results, and some response scales are better than others. Goldsmith and Underhill (2001) report the powerful influence of the evaluated individual following up with raters to discuss their results, which cannot be done when feedback is anonymous. Other potentially powerful factors affecting behavior change include how raters are selected, manager approval, instrument quality, rater training and orientation, participant training, supervisor training, coaching, integration with HR systems, and accountability. [25]

One group of studies proposed four paradoxes that explain why 360-degree evaluations do not elicit accurate data: (1) the Paradox of Roles, in which an evaluator is conflicted by being both peer and the judge; (2) the Paradox of Group Performance, which admits that the vast majority of work done in a corporate setting is done in groups, not individually; (3) the Measurement Paradox, which shows that qualitative, or in-person, techniques are much more effective than mere ratings in facilitating change; and (4) the Paradox of Rewards, which shows that individuals evaluating their peers care more about the rewards associated with finishing the task than the actual content of the evaluation itself. [26]

Additional studies [27] found no correlation between an employee's multi-rater assessment scores and his or her top-down performance appraisal scores (provided by the person's supervisor). They advise that although multi-rater feedback can be effectively used for appraisal, care needs to be taken in its implementation or results will be compromised. [28] This research suggests that 360-degree feedback and performance appraisals get at different outcomes. Therefore, traditional performance appraisals as well as 360-degree feedback should be used in evaluating overall performance. [29]

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

A performance appraisal, also referred to as a performance review, performance evaluation, (career) development discussion, or employee appraisal, sometimes shortened to "PA", is a periodic and systematic process whereby the job performance of an employee is documented and evaluated. This is done after employees are trained about work and settle into their jobs. Performance appraisals are a part of career development and consist of regular reviews of employee performance within organizations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job satisfaction</span> Attitude of a person towards work

Job satisfaction, employee satisfaction or work satisfaction is a measure of workers' contentment with their job, whether they like the job or individual aspects or facets of jobs, such as nature of work or supervision. Job satisfaction can be measured in cognitive (evaluative), affective, and behavioral components. Researchers have also noted that job satisfaction measures vary in the extent to which they measure feelings about the job. or cognitions about the job.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Business performance management</span> Processes to bring output into alignment with goals

Business performance management (BPM) is a management approach which encompasses a set of processes and analytical tools to ensure that an organization's activities and output are aligned with its goals. BMP is associated with business process management, a larger framework managing organizational processes.

Depressive realism is the hypothesis developed by Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson that depressed individuals make more realistic inferences than non-depressed individuals. Although depressed individuals are thought to have a negative cognitive bias that results in recurrent, negative automatic thoughts, maladaptive behaviors, and dysfunctional world beliefs, depressive realism argues not only that this negativity may reflect a more accurate appraisal of the world but also that non-depressed individuals' appraisals are positively biased.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job interview</span> Type of interview

A job interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most common methods of employee selection. Interviews vary in the extent to which the questions are structured, from an unstructured and informal conversation to a structured interview in which an applicant is asked a predetermined list of questions in a specified order; structured interviews are usually more accurate predictors of which applicants will make suitable employees, according to research studies.

Competence is the set of demonstrable characteristics and skills that enable and improve the efficiency or performance of a job. Competency is a series of knowledge, abilities, skills, experiences and behaviors, which leads to effective performance in an individual's activities. Competency is measurable and can be developed through training.

Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) are scales used to rate performance. BARS are normally presented vertically with scale points ranging from five to nine. It is an appraisal method that aims to combine the benefits of narratives, critical incidents, and quantified ratings by anchoring a quantified scale with specific narrative examples of good, moderate, and poor performance.

Greenberg (1987) introduced the concept of organizational justice with regard to how an employee judges the behavior of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. For example, if a firm makes redundant half of the workers, an employee may feel a sense of injustice with a resulting change in attitude and a drop in productivity.

Clark L. Wilson was an American industrial psychologist who introduced the concept of 360 feedback surveys for management training and development applications. From 1970-1973 he developed his first 360-degree feedback survey, the "Survey of Management Practices". It was based on a learning sequence he called the Task-Cycle-Theory. Today, 360 feedback surveys of many types are standard tools for management training and development worldwide.

Organizational behavior management (OBM) is a subdiscipline of applied behavior analysis (ABA), which is the application of behavior analytic principles and contingency management techniques to change behavior in organizational settings. Through these principles and assessment of behavior, OBM seeks to analyze and employ antecedent, influencing actions of an individual before the action occurs, and consequence, what happens as a result of someone's actions, interventions which influence behaviors linked to the mission and key objectives of the organization and its workers. Such interventions have proven effective through research in improving common organizational areas including employee productivity, delivery of feedback, safety, and overall morale of said organization.

A health risk assessment is a questionnaire about a person's medical history, demographic characteristics and lifestyle. It is one of the most widely used screening tools in the field of health promotion and is often the first step in multi-component health promotion programs.

Job performance assesses whether a person performs a job well. Job performance, studied academically as part of industrial and organizational psychology, also forms a part of human resources management. Performance is an important criterion for organizational outcomes and success. John P. Campbell describes job performance as an individual-level variable, or something a single person does. This differentiates it from more encompassing constructs such as organizational performance or national performance, which are higher-level variables.

Personnel psychology is a subfield of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology. Personnel psychology is the area of I-O psychology that primarily deals with the recruitment, selection and evaluation of personnel, and with other job aspects such as morale, job satisfaction, and relationships between managers and workers in the workplace. It is the field of study that concentrates on the selection and evaluation of employees; this area of psychology deals with job analysis and defines and measures job performance, performance appraisal, employment testing, employment interviews, personnel selection and employee training, and human factors and ergonomics.

Performance rating is the step in the work measurement in which the analyst observes the worker's performance and records a value representing that performance relative to the analyst's concept of standard performance.

Individual psychological assessment (IPA) is a tool used by organizations to make decisions on employment. IPA allows employers to evaluate and maintain potential candidates for hiring, promotion, and development by using a series of job analysis instruments such as position analysis questionnaires (PAQ), occupational analysis inventory (OAI), and functional job analysis (FJA). These instruments allow the assessor to develop valid measures of intelligence, personality tests, and a range of other factors as means to determine selection and promotion decisions. Personality and cognitive ability are good predictors of performance. Emotional Intelligence helps individuals navigate through challenging organizational and interpersonal encounters. Since individual differences have a long history in explaining human behavior and the different ways in which individuals respond to similar events and circumstances, these factors allow the organization to determine if an applicant has the competence to effectively and successfully do the work that the job requires. These assessments are administered throughout organizations in different forms, but they share one common goal in the selection process, and that is the right candidate for the job.

Work motivation is a person's internal disposition toward work. To further this, an incentive is the anticipated reward or aversive event available in the environment. While motivation can often be used as a tool to help predict behavior, it varies greatly among individuals and must often be combined with ability and environmental factors to actually influence behavior and performance. Results from a 2012 study, which examined age-related differences in work motivation, suggest a "shift in people's motives" rather than a general decline in motivation with age. That is, it seemed that older employees were less motivated by extrinsically related features of a job, but more by intrinsically rewarding job features. Work motivation is strongly influenced by certain cultural characteristics. Between countries with comparable levels of economic development, collectivist countries tend to have higher levels of work motivation than do countries that tend toward individualism. Similarly measured, higher levels of work motivation can be found in countries that exhibit a long versus a short-term orientation. Also, while national income is not itself a strong predictor of work motivation, indicators that describe a nation's economic strength and stability, such as life expectancy, are. Work motivation decreases as a nation's long-term economic strength increases. Currently work motivation research has explored motivation that may not be consciously driven. This method goal setting is referred to as goal priming.

Reward management is concerned with the formulation and implementation of strategies and policies that aim to reward people fairly, equitably and consistently in accordance with their value to the organization.

The performance paradox is a theory set forth by Marshall W. Meyer and Vipin Gupta in 1994, which posits that organizations are able to maintain control by not knowing what exactly performance is. This theory is based on several facts of performance, namely that the number and type of performance measurements that exist are increasing at a rapid rate and that these new metrics tend to be weakly correlated with old ones.

Job characteristics theory is a theory of work design. It provides “a set of implementing principles for enriching jobs in organizational settings”. The original version of job characteristics theory proposed a model of five “core” job characteristics that affect five work-related outcomes through three psychological states.

References

  1. Bracken & Rose, 2011; Maylett 2009
  2. Waldman et al., 1998
  3. Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, & Pollman, 1997
  4. Atkins & Wood, 2002
  5. Johnson, Lauren Keller (January 2004). "The Ratings Game: Retooling 360s for Better Performance". Harvard Management Update.
  6. Bracken, Timmereck, & Church, 2001a
  7. Edwards & Ewen, 1996
  8. Bracken, Summers, & Fleenor, 1998
  9. Bracken, David R. (September 1994). "Straight Talk about Multirater Feedback". Training & Development.
  10. Lee, Gregory G. (July–August 2015). "Caution Required: Multirater Feedback in the Army". Military Review.
  11. Bent, William (September 2015). "Speaking Out: The State Department Needs to Reevaluate Its Use of 360-Degree Reviews". The Foreign Service Journal.
  12. Cerella, A. (2020). Multi-Source Feedback in the U. S. Army: An Improved Assessment, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  13. 1 2 3 Bracken, David W.; Rose, Dale S.; Church, Allan H. (December 2016). "The Evolution and Devolution of 360° Feedback". Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 9 (4): 761–794. doi: 10.1017/iop.2016.93 . ISSN   1754-9426.
  14. 1 2 Ainsworth, Elva R. (12 April 2016). 360° feedback : a transformational approach. St Albans. ISBN   978-1-78452-244-5. OCLC   1031336375.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  15. Bracken, David W.; Rose, Dale S. (June 2011). "When Does 360-Degree Feedback Create Behavior Change? And How Would We Know It When It Does?". Journal of Business and Psychology. 26 (2): 183–192. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9218-5. ISSN   0889-3268. S2CID   145745127.
  16. 1 2 3 Fleenor, John W. (2020). Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback. Taylor, Sylvester; Chappelow, Craig (Second ed.). Oakland, CA. ISBN   978-1-5230-8835-5. OCLC   1159679868.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  17. Eichinger, 2004
  18. Vinson, 1996
  19. Lublin, 1994; Yammarino & Atwater, 1993; Nowack, 1992
  20. Hazucha et al., 1993; London & Wohlers, 1991; Walker & Smither, 1999
  21. Walker & Smither, 1999
  22. Maylett & Riboldi, 2007
  23. Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001b; Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005.
  24. Bracken & Paul, 1993; Kaiser & Kaplan, 2006; Caputo & Roch, 2009; English, Rose, & McClellan, 2009
  25. Bracken et al., 2001b
  26. Peiperl, Maury (January 2001). "Getting 360-Degree Feedback Right". Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 6 April 2012.
  27. Maylett, 2005
  28. Maylett, 2009
  29. Maylett, Tracy M. (2005). The relationship of multi-rater feedback to traditional performance appraisals (EdD thesis). Pepperdine Univ. Abstract. Retrieved 15 May 2009.

Further reading