360 Degrees Performance Appraisal
Content
360 Degrees Performance Appraisal!!! An Outlook. Background •
•
•
•
•
Contemporary 360-degree methods have roots as early as the 1940s, however, there is some disagreement regarding the exact genesis of the techniqe! "espite these disagreements, one point that most scholars can agree on is 360degree performance appraisal has historical roots within a military context! "ring the 19#0s and 1960s this trend contined in the $nited %tates within the &ilitary service academies! 't the $nited %tates (aval 'cademy at 'nnapolis, the midshipmen sed a mltisorce process called ) peer grease* grease* to evalate the leadership s+ills of their classmates! n the corporate world dring the 1960s and 190s, organi.ations li+e /an+ of 'merica, $nited 'irlines, /ell as, "isney, 2ederal xpress, (estle, and C' experimented with mlti-sorce feedac+ in a variety of measrement sitations! The Concept
2or example, sordinate assessments of a spervisor5s performance can provide valale developmental gidance, peer feedac+ can e the heart of excellence in teamwor+, and cstomer service feedac+ focses on the qality of the team5s or agency5s reslts! The Process
The Apprai App raiser serss uperiors
It’s Contribution Contribution •
•
7he 1st line spervisor is often in the est position to effectively carry ot the fll cycle of 8erformance &anagement! 7he spervisor may also have the roadest perspective on the wor+ reqirements and e ale to ta+e into accont shifts in those reqirements!
Cautions Cautio ns to be addressed ad dressed •
•
%periors shold e ale to oserve and a nd measre all facets of the wor+ to ma+e a fair evalation! %pervisors shold e trained! 7hey shold e capale of coaching and developing employees as well as planning and evalating their performance!
elf
It’s Contribution: Contribution: •
• •
%elf-ratings are particlarly sefl if the entire cycle of performance management involves the employee in a self-assessment! 7he developmental focs of self-assessment is a +ey factor! 'pproximately half of the 2ederal employees in a large srvey felt that selfratings wold contrite )to )to a great or very great extent * to fair and well-ronded 8'!
•
%elf-appraisals are particlarly valale in sitations where the spervisor cannot readily oserve the wor+ ehaviors and tas+ otcomes!
Cautions to be addressed: •
•
•
esearch shows low correlations etween self-ratings and all other sorces of ratings, particlarly spervisor ratings! 7he self-ratings tend to e consistently higher! 7his discrepancy can lead to defensiveness and alienation if spervisors do not se good feedac+ s+ills! %ometimes self-ratings can e lower than others5! n sch sitations, employees tend to e self-demeaning and may feel intimidated and )pt on the spot!* %elf-ratings shold focs on the appraisal of performance elements, not on the smmary level determination! ' range of rating sorces, inclding the self assessments, help to )rond ot* the information for the smmary rating!
Peers
It’s Contribution: Contribution: •
•
•
•
•
mployees when they that their extra reqired to )make )report make resentment the boss look good * aselieve opposed to meeting theefforts nit5sare goals! 8eer ratings have een an excellent predictors of ftre performance and )manner of performance*! 7he se of mltiple raters in the peer dimension of 360-degree assessment programs tends to average ot the possile iases of any one memer of the grop of raters! 7he increased se of self-directed teams ma+es the contrition con trition of peer evalations the central inpt to the formal appraisal ecase eca se y definition the spervisor is not directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the team! 7he addition of peer feedac+ can help move the spervisor into a coaching role rather than a prely dging role!
Cautions to be addressed: •
•
•
•
8eer evalations are appropriate for developmental prposes, t to emphasi.e them for pay, promotion, or o retention prposes p rposes may not e prdent always! :enerally, the identities of the raters shold e +ept confidential to assre honest feedac+! /t, in close-+nit teams that have matred to a point where open commnication is part of the cltre, the developmental d evelopmental potential of the feedac+ is enhanced when the evalator is identified and can perform a coaching or contining feedac+ role! t is essential that the peer evalators e very familiar with the team memer5s tas+s and responsiilities! 7he se of peer evalations can e very time consming! ;hen sed in 8', the data wold have to e collected several times a year in order to inclde the reslts in progress reviews!
•
"epending on the cltre of the organi.ation, peer ratings have the potential for creating tension and rea+down rather than fostering cooperation and spport!
uordinates
It’s Contribution: Contribution: •
• •
•
' formali.ed sordinate feedac+ program will give spervisors a more comprehensive pictre of employee isses and needs! mployees feel they have a greater voice in organi.ational decision-ma+ing! 7he feedac+ from sordinates is particlarly effective in evalating the spervisor5s interpersonal s+ills! <owever, it may not e as appropriate or valid for evalating tas+-oriented s+ills! Comining sordinate ratings, li+e peer ratings, can provide the advantage of creating a composite appraisal from the averaged ratings of several sordinates!
Cautions to be addressed •
•
•
•
7he need for anonymity is essential when sing sordinate ratings as this will ensre honest feedac+! %pervisors may feel threatened and perceive that their athority has een ndermined when they mst ta+e into consideration that their sordinates will e formally evalating them! %ordinate feedac+ is most eneficial when sed sed for developmental prposes! /t precations shold e ta+en to ensre that sordinates are appraising elements of which they have +nowledge! =nly sordinates with a sfficient length of assignment nder the manager shold e inclded in the pool of assessors! %ordinates crrently involved in a disciplinary action or a formal performance improvement period shold e exclded from the rating grop! =rgani.ations crrently ndergoing downsi.ing and>or reorgani.ation shold avoid this sorce of 8'!
Customers
It’s Contribution: Contribution: •
•
Cstomer feedac+ shold serve as an )anchor* for almost all other performance factors! nclding a range of cstomers in 8' program expands the focs of performance feedac+ in a manner considered asoltely critical to reinventing the organi.ation!
Cautions to be addressed: addressed: •
:enerally the vale of cstomer service feedac+ is appropriate for evalating team otpt ?there are exceptions@!
•
•
Cstomers, y definition, are etter at evalating otpts as opposed opp osed to processes and wor+ing relationships! t is a time-consming process!
"mportant factors in 360 degree feedacks • • • • •
7he mission and the oective of the feedac+ mst e clear! mployees mst e involved early! esorces mst e dedicated to the process, inclding top managementAs time! Confidentiality mst e assred! 7he organi.ation, especially top management, mst e committed to the program!
Ad#antages$
To the individual: individual: • • •
<elps individals to nderstand how others perceive them! $ncover lind spots! Bantifiale data on soft s+ills!
To the team: team: • • • • •
ncreases commnication <igher levels of trst /etter team environment %pports teamwor+ ncreased team effectiveness
To the organization: •
• • • •
einforced corporate cltre y lin+ing srvey items to organi.ational leadership competencies and company vales! /etter career development for employees 8romote from within mproves cstomer service y involving them Condct relevant training
Prolems • •
•
t is the most costly and time consming type of appraisal! 7hese programs tend to e somewhat shoc+ing to managers at first! 'mocoAs /ill Clover descried this as the %''< reaction %hoc+, 'nger, eection, 'cceptance, <elp! 7he prolems may arise with sordinate assessments where employees desire to )get the oss* or may alternatively )scratch the ac+* of a manager for expected ftre favors!
•
•
•
•
7he organi.ation implementing this type of performance appraisal app raisal mst clearly define the mission and the scope of o f the appraisal! =therwise it might prove conter prodctive! =ne of the reason for which 360 36 0 degree appraisal system might fail is ecase the organi.ations attempt to assimilate the 360-degree method within a traditional srvey research scheme! n traditional srvey research, investigators attempt to maximi.e data collection with as many items>qestions as possile and with large sample si.es! n the case of 360-degree appraisal, creating measrement instrments with many items will sstantially increase non-response errors! n addition, large sample si.es are not typically possile considering that perhaps p erhaps 4 or # sorces will rate an employee5s performance! 's sch, statistical procedres that rely on large sample si.es in order to ensre statistical validity might not e appropriate! =rgani.ations mst consider other isses li+e safegarding the process from nintentional respondent rating errors! 7he cltre shoc+ that occrs with any system that creates )change!* 'nd especially with a modern system li+e 360 degree performance appraisalD mst e ta+en care of!
Conclusion •
• •
•
•
/ecase many of the more conventional performance appraisal methods have often proved npoplar with those eing appraised and evalators ali+e, 360 is gaining poplarity with many managers and employees! t offers a new way of addressing the performance isse! ;hen sed with consideration and discipline, feedac+ recipients will feel that theyAre eing treated fairly! n addition, spervisors will feel the relief of no longer carrying the fll rden of assessing sordinate performance! 7he comined effect of these otcomes o tcomes shold reslt in increased motivation, which in trn improves performance!
