What Employees Should Know if Their Employers Use a 360-Degree Feedback Philosophy
What Is 360-Degree Feedback?
The phrase “360-degree feedback” refers to the 360 degrees in a circle. There are other commonly used terms that are used to describe this process. Multi-rater feedback, multi-source assessment and multi-source feedback are sometimes used to mean the same philosophy.
This process indicates that management requests, receives and evaluates opinions from all employees who interact with you. Surprisingly, the U.S. Military apparently created this process back in the 1940s. Over the years, many companies thought the concept of 360-degree feedback could be a valuable tool to evaluate staff. Nevertheless, there were two primary obstacles that caused most business entities to avoid the process.
Time and complexity. Collecting feedback and opinions from all employees that interacted with another worker, whether the staff was above or below the worker on the organization chart, took significantly more time than a simple supervisory job review. Analyzing, evaluating and interrelating these opinions into a comprehensive personnel review was a complex and challenging issue that had to be performed on paper.
In the late 1990s, however, the sophistication of computers began to eliminate the obstacles and 360-degree feedback became more widely used. Using e-mail and electronic checklists and surveys, companies became more able to use multi-rater feedback to collect and analyze responses. The building of an honest profile of overall job performance became both easier and more effective.
How 360-Degree Feedback Is Used
Supporters of 360-degree feedback strongly believe that this process is beneficial for the company and employee. There have been a number of studies that indicate that more diverse feedback provides a better basis for job performance evaluation AND helps employees recognize strengths and weaknesses that may have been previously hidden.
Detractors might argue that soliciting a volume of feedback and opinions from so many co-workers, supervisors and those being supervised may generate comments that are not objective. Consequently, whether the tenor of these comments is overly positive or negative, consistent, inconsistent, thoughtful or callous, the result is a cloudy picture of the employee’s job performance and value.
Most employees are intimately aware of the typical process of annual performance reviews. Their manager spends quality time analyzing the employees’ documented performance, perceived cooperation with his/her team and co-workers, future development potential, promotion suitability indicators and deserving compensation increase (if earnings are directly tied to the performance review).
While publicly advertised as an objective assessment of the employee’s performance by a third party who is dispassionate, knowledgeable and capable, all employees realize the high incidence of potential partiality of the reviewer. Much like replacing Major League Baseball umpires with a computerized strike zone to avoid incorrect judgments, eliminating the human element for both reviewer and the person reviewed is not considered appropriate or even desired.
Using a 360-degree feedback philosophy may (emphasize the “may”) help neutralize the prejudice or partiality of one reviewer. Combining feedback from a variety of people, some of whom may be supervised by the employee, some of an identical responsibility level and some who may occupy a higher position on the organization chart, provides a wider spectrum of opinion for evaluation.
Companies using this philosophy typically still use the employee’s supervisor or Human Resources to compile and create the review. However, instead of one or two perspectives, multiple levels of feedback are used to create the employee’s performance review. Employees receive a broader perspective regarding how they are perceived by their co-workers. Proponents of 360-degree feedback will tell all who will listen that this provides a more objective, fair, and comprehensive performance review for everyone.
What Employees Should Know in a 360-Degree Feedback Environment
Whether you, as an employee, are a supporter or detractor of working in a 360-degree feedback environment, you should be aware of the process and potential consequences. The cliché “you can’t play the game unless you know the rules” is never more appropriate in understanding how multi-source feedback might affect you.
If you are naturally a “personality plus” person, adept at relating to people of all backgrounds, both personally and professionally, you have a starting advantage. While this positive trait may or may not actually improve your job performance, many of those providing feedback to management may hold you in high regard. Conversely, should you be more shy, reserved and not a natural “people person,” you risk generating opinions based on these characteristics rather than your pure performance results.
This risk/reward potential has little factual significance to a job performance analysis, but could prove critical, depending on your position and job responsibilities. Yet, this feedback is also important. Since perception is closely related to reality in the 21st century, how you are perceived by subordinates, co-workers and management plays a sometimes important role in your job effectiveness.
Please don’t become paranoid, but be aware that in addition to developing unofficial, private opinions about co-workers, your associates may be asked to contribute their feedback “on the record” for performance review input. Your company may use 360-degree feedback to make some decisions on “team players” and even potential leaders. Whether you embrace this reality as a fabulous opportunity to shine or have concerns that you might be unfairly judged by others, you should be aware of the process and how it works. Once again, knowing the rules helps you play the game better.