Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Has 360° Feedback Been Given a Bad Wrap?
From becoming standard ‘Best Practice’ as a tool for performance feedback in the
1990’s, 360’s are sometimes now being passed over as a ‘bad idea’. What happened in
just a decade? And is it justified?
Having experienced several 360’s over the past 10 years, along with having developed
two myself, I have encountered and worked with enough different models in different
situations to learn that we need to be more thoughtful than we have been about how we
work with 360’s. I suggest that the problem is not so much to do with a 360° feedback
process but the choices we have made around its use in organizations. Particularly, I think
we have typically made three key errors since the introduction of this tool into the
workplace. We have often failed to recognize the choices that need to be made around:
1. What we do with the instrument (Purpose);
2. How we decide on the instrument (Selection/design); and
3. How we implement it (Methodology/process/support).
What is a 360 and how has it been used?
360° is jargon for the generic term Multi-rater Feedback, which is a type of assessment
instrument that gathers feedback from all those you work with. It is a descriptive
metaphor for how the feedback is gathered - literally in all directions (or 360º around
you, as depicted in Figure 1). It became popular and has been widely used as a
potentially objective method for evaluating performance.
FIGURE #1
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004
Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As in the more traditional evaluation methods of Performance Review, the individual
receives feedback from the person to whom s/he reports. In addition, however, s/he also
receives feedback from those who report directly to him/her and from a number of peers
and clients (invited from a list usually provided by the individual).
It seems that to be identified as standard Best Practice can be the ‘kiss of death’ for a
valid practice in that it is often then adopted by an organization without thought to its
practicality, appropriateness, or usefulness within that specific environment.
Until recently, our understanding and use of a 360° Feedback process has been influenced
by common assumptions underlying Industrial Age institutions:
•
Management by measurement - where systems focus on measurement of tasks
and devalue intangible factors
•
Compliance-based cultures – where we suppress conflict and achieve
advancement by pleasing the boss;
•
Management by fear – where there are right answers and, by inference, wrong
answers and mistakes should be hidden
•
Uniformity – where diversity (in its broadest definition) is a problem to be
resolved
•
Predictability and controllability – where to manage is to control and we follow
the ‘holy trinity of management’ – planning, organizing, controlling. 1
And so, the process has been used predominantly to gather evaluative data with which to
measure an individual’s performance. Also, many organizations adopted a normative
instrument, itemizing a set of competencies to which everyone in the organization is
expected to comply and against which they are measured. The best of these instruments
used behavioural indicators, however, the vast majority consisted of vague language
associated with attributes and managerial objectives. The feedback gathered, under the
guise of quantitative data, was then construed as objective information rather than the
perceptions actually represented.
On the other hand, I have observed a phenomenon, particularly in healthcare and higher
education, where the feedback has been devalued and the validity questioned because it
represented merely the perceptions of others. In these environments, so much value is
1
SoL-CLG Business-Education Dialogue (Society for Organizational Learning & Change Leadership Group,
Harvard Graduate School of Education) Linda Booth Sweeny, Peter Senge, Tony Wagner. January, 2002
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004
Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
given to the empirical data of scientific research, the intangible beliefs and
unsubstantiated view of others are easily dismissed.
In either situation, without sufficient support for both those providing and receiving the
feedback in a 360, I have found that lack of trust, fear of failure, and of change itself has
prevented participants from hearing and acting upon the feedback received.
How does 360° Feedback work?
A 360° feedback process is best employed within an organizational paradigm consisting
of a different set of underlying assumptions about the quality of relationships, the nature
of productive performance conversations, and the purpose of receiving the feedback.
Most importantly, it needs to exist within a construct of multiple social realities, i.e. The
acceptance that another person’s perception is their truth.
“What a gift it would be to see ourselves as others see us!”2
Like the Johari Window model designed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham several
decades ago, 360° Feedback can be seen as a communication window through which you
can give and receive information about yourself and others.
FIGURE #2
2
Robbie Burns
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004
Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The process of giving and receiving feedback can be one of the most effective
mechanisms for behavioural change. It provides the opportunity “to see ourselves as
others see us.” In the model above, the information contained in the four quadrants is not
static but moves from one pane to another as a level of mutual trust and the exchange of
feedback varies. The Public Arena, characterized by open feedback and free exchange of
information, expands as the level of trust increases. The goal of a 360° feedback process
is to initiate an exchange of information about what lies in each of the other three
quadrants so that the internal boundaries shift horizontally and vertically allowing more
information to expand the Public Arena of dialogue.3
How can you implement a successful 360° Feedback process?
•
Clarify the purpose and underlying assumptions
•
Choose the right instrument
•
Administer the process well
•
Debrief the results and provide organizational support – e.g. ongoing coaching
and facilitation
Clarifying the Purpose
Understand the underlying philosophical assumptions of your environment. What is
the management model within which you work? Is it more characteristic of a ‘command
and control’ or a ‘participative and engaging’ environment? Are you introducing 360°
feedback as part of a Performance Appraisal/Evaluation system or as a developmental
tool that can assist in determining learning and growth goals?
Be certain about what you want to measure and how you intend to use the results.
Are you trying to develop awareness about expectations to align to a new organizational
vision, or to establish expectations with respect to leadership, job competencies or a
change in organizational culture? Do you wish to identify learning styles, measure
interpersonal communication, or perhaps determine career fit and conduct gap analysis?
Will you need to roll up your individual results into organization performance indicators
3
The Johari Window: a model for soliciting and giving feedback. Philip Hanson. The 1973 Annual Handbook for
Group Facilitators. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company. 1973
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004
Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(KPI’s) and/or benchmark the data? Each of these intents should result in a different
choice with respect to the tool you eventually adopt. 4
Choosing the Right Instrument
Assess organizational readiness. Is there executive or upper level management support?
Is there a sufficient level of trust among members of the organization? Is there
commitment for coaching or facilitation support? “The effectiveness of the feedback is
directly linked to the integrity of the process, and the integrity of the process is measured
in terms of commitment, clarity of purpose, and follow up”.5
Shop for the right tool – choosing between an off-the-shelf or custom design
instrument. Is client/customer or peer feedback required? Are language or reading level
an issue? Beware of off-the-shelf- competency-based (normative) instruments. They
seldom transfer across organizational boundaries successfully. If you are planning to
design a customized tool, please do so with caution. Remember, the design of any 360°
feedback instrument should allow an individual to identify where to focus change efforts.
Administering the Process
Communicate, communicate, communicate with anyone in the organization who is
likely to be impacted, throughout the entire process, from initial selection or design of the
tool, through distributing the instruments, gathering and analyzing the data, to reporting
results. Discuss issues of confidentiality and outline the resources that are being
committed to the process. Explain how and why you have selected the instrument of
choice – discuss the value of feedback; its purpose and the results you hope to see
organizationally, relating it to other organizational initiatives.
Prepare everyone involved in giving or receiving the feedback. Discuss with them the
benefits of the process and ask them to voice their concerns. Clarify and agree on roles.
Provide them with any background reading you want them to do in preparation. Talk
about potential reactions to the feedback and seek their commitment to engage in the full
process, which includes meeting to debrief the feedback. It will be very important that
4
An excellent resource for the selection or design of a 360 tool can be found at http://human
resources.about.com/od/360feedback. This website lists the following characteristics as factors in instrument
selection: design focus, tolerance for data collection and distribution, question development, reporting capabilities,
system requirements, security, technical support, and user friendliness.
5
“Are you ready for 360?” Genene Koebelin. Suffolk University. 1999.
www.work911.com/performance/particles/360.htm
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004
Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
feedback providers are guided to offer the kind of feedback that is actionable and that
they understand the responsibility that goes with providing this feedback. It is essential
that all participants, (including feedback providers) fully understand the instrument and
its framework; that all accept that the feedback is valuable information and worthy of
exploration and action; and that all agree to seek ways to incorporate the feedback into
their future actions.
Debriefing the Results and Ongoing Support
Provide support to Interpret, share results and take action. “Would you put an air
traffic controller in front of a radar screen without training and tell him/her, ‘good luck’?
Yet we are often willing to put a 360 in front of a manager and walk away!”6
The core of an effective 360° feedback process is coaching to guide individuals in
interpreting the feedback, listening to their respondents, deciding on those pieces which
are most critical to explore, accepting accountability for action and developing specific
action plans.
Regardless of the instrument eventually chosen, the key to the success of this kind of tool
is not so much the quantitative data collected, as the translation of that data, (with
coaching support) into developmental action plans, along with the dialogue that occurs
with those who have provided the feedback. The purpose of these dialogues should be to
clarify the meaning of the data, to identify strengths which can help the individual to
move forward, as well as those issue which are perceived by others to most impede
progress of the relationship and success of the individual. Those who have provided the
feedback should also understand that they are expected to become part of the supportive
environment that will be needed by the individual trying to change behaviour.
It has been my experience that when an organization is purposeful in its use, thoughtful in
its selection or design, and provides the infrastructure and coaching support to prepare
everyone to create meaningful dialogue about performance, that a 360 is one of the most
powerful and enlightening instruments for cultural change and organizational success.
About the Author
6
DecisionWise Inc. www.decwise.com
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004
Public Sector Digest Inc.
October 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
J.M.S. Consulting was formed in 1995 by Julie Stockton to provide consultative and
facilitation support to organizations striving to effect positive change. Working primarily
in the public service sector, Julie has assisted organizations to approach change from an
integrated, relationship-based and systems-oriented perspective. She draws from her
diverse experience in theatre, literature, research, organization development and adult
education to explore the dynamics of organizational change, leadership and community
building.
Julie has been working in the field of Organization and Staff Development since 1989,
and has designed and facilitated strategic planning, team building, process mapping,
instructional skills, conflict resolution and role clarification sessions/workshops, for
organizations such as B.C. Rehab Paraplegic Society, B.C. Centre for Disease Control
Society (Provincial Laboratory), B.C. Women's and Children's Hospitals, University
Hospital and Vancouver Hospital. Following several years at York University and
subsequently at Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, she has joined UBC as
the Director of Human Resources, Organizational Training & Development. Her current
work focuses on aspects of Social Architecture such as building learning community
networks using the workplace as a learning lab.
She holds a Masters degree in Literature from York University as well as Graduate
Certificates in both Creative Leadership and Adult Education. Julie is currently writing
her dissertation in completion of her Doctorate in Educational Leadership at Simon
Fraser University.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7 of 7
© 2004, Public Sector Digest Inc. www.publicsectordigest.com. All rights reserved.
© Julie Stockton. JMS Consulting. 2004