May 6, 2010
The Ins And Outs
Of 360-Degree
Assessments
We’re all pretty familiar with the
traditional employee performance
appraisal: the supervisor details how
well the individual has performed
over the last year, and what areas
they need to improve upon. Oftentimes,
these reviews are presented in
conjunction with a salary increase if
the employee has performed well.
A multi-source, or 360-degree
assessment is quite different: in most
cases, they aren’t linked with wages;
instead, they’re used as a baseline
to plan an individual’s development
and training, especially when one
is being considered for promotion
or additional leadership responsibilities.
Structured “on the round,”
360-degree assessments don’t simply
include performance feedback from
supervisors, but peers, subordinates,
and sometimes outside sources—such
as vendors and customers—as well.
“A performance appraisal measures
what you are achieving in your
job; it’s made up of metrics that can be
quantified,” explained Paul Warner,
director of consulting services at DecisionWise
in Provo, UT. “A 360-degree
assessment measures how you’re doing
it.” These assessments don’t focus so
much on whether or not the employee
is achieving results, but more on how
they go about getting those results. Do
they work well as part of a team? Do
they communicate with others? Do
they make good decisions?
A 360-degree assessment may
be applied in a number of different
forms, such as via confidential online
surveys or through face-to-face interviews.
Many organizations purchase
360-degree assessment packages
from suppliers specialized in this
area, and some companies will hire
third-party professionals to coordinate
the process for them.
The 360-degree assessment surveys
that DecisionWise creates are
largely tailored toward leaders at the
executive level, and raters are asked
for feedback on several main categories:
business acumen (how well the
individual grasps strategic thinking,
their understanding of basic business
finance, and their overall comprehension
of the industry in which they are
working); decision making (whether
or not they are open to soliciting and
receiving input from others, how well
they use that information to make an
informed decision, and whether or
not they are able to make decisions in
a timely manner); and interpersonal
skills (how adept they are at clearly
communicating the organization’s
vision and direction).
Larry Cipolla, president and
director, CCi Surveys International
in Edina, MN and author of Building
Performance-Based 360-Degree
Assessments: From Design to Delivery,
warns that questions should be
worded in such a way that they may
be easily interpreted. “One single
question should not touch on three
issues,” he illustrated. “Otherwise,
what happens is you’ve asked the
rater to give feedback on three issues,
which they do, but the recipient isn’t
sure which of the issues the rater
was responding to.” He also noted
that raters should understand why
the individual they’re assessing was
selected for this process in the first
place, and why they were asked to
participate in the evaluation process.
Confidentiality is crucial in the
360-degree assessment process, and
generally, the only people who get
to see the results are the individual
that was assessed and, when handled
by a third-party vendor, the person
that coordinated the process for the
company. When confidentiality isn’t
respected, the assessment loses its
effectiveness or worse, causes problems
between co-workers, or employees and
their supervisors. “If the supervisor
has not been through the 360-degree assessment process first, they may not
be good at reading that information,”
Cipolla said. “What happens is, if the
boss has the opportunity to look at the
feedback and they’re a bit confused
about it, they may resort to some of the
biases they have about that person.”
The process then becomes more about
criticism and less about development.
Donna Rawady, an executive
coach based in Rochester, NY, suggested
that in some cases, sharing the
feedback with those who participated
as raters may actually strengthen the
employee’s position among their coworkers.
“The feedback is confidential
and it is for the individual’s eyes
only, but there is some strength in
their own willingness to share either
the key points or the report itself with
the participants,” she said. “There is
a lot of worth in bringing everyone
together and thanking them for
participating—which is important
anyway—and acknowledging those
areas that need development, and
letting them know that you’re paying
attention and that you’re engaging
them in feedback should they see
an improvement or if they are still
being challenged.” This approach,
however, requires a bit of discretion,
Rawady admitted, and depends a lot
on the politics in the workplace.
Warner emphasized that the
360-degree survey is the beginning
of the feedback process, rather than
the end. “Once the employee receives
their report back, they need to have
a coach that can walk them through
that report in a de-briefing format.”
He noted that sometimes the data
that’s been compiled is extremely
detailed, and, in some cases, tough—
which means that the individual
that’s been assessed is bound to go
through a series of emotions. “It’s
good to have a coach that can help
you through that process.”
For those being assessed, Rawady
believes a 360-degree feedback
assessment is a relatively simple
way to gather candid input that a
professional may not receive otherwise.
“Regardless of how strong an
employee they may be and how tight
the working relationships are, people
still tend to hesitate to give developmental
feedback,” she said. “Having
an opportunity to actually receive
that feedback is so rich.”
360 Degrees...
And Beyond
One error that companies make is neglecting
to regularly follow-up with the
individual once the 360-degree assessment
is complete and the development
plan has been outlined. “They collect
the data, they put it on someone’s desk,
they walk away, and they assume that the
individual knows what to do with that,”
observed Paul Warner of DecisionWise.
“They also don’t put enough emphasis
on the coaching afterwards.”
Warner counsels organizations to
invest the time necessary to help the
individual interpret the feedback so they
can develop an effective action plan
based on the results they’ve received.
This plan should not only include
specific goals, but details on how the
employee will work toward attaining
them. The person charged with coaching
the individual should then follow up
at regular intervals, such as 30, 60, and
90 days, and then a few months after
that. “That action plan isn’t just about
writing a goal: ‘I want to improve in my
communication.’ It describes, specifically,
what they are going to do in the
future to achieve that.”
Carolyn Heinze is a freelance writer/editor.
|