• Home
• About Us
• Talent Management
• 360-degree
• Products
• Business Systems
• Privacy
• Support
• Contact Us
• Login to myWorkbench

Research Articles

• FREE Webinars
• Articles
• FAQs
• Partnering
• Multi-lingual
• Employment
• Find Us
• Site Map

360-degree feedback - Dinosaur? Or Diamond?

I would like to place on the record that I have been in the HR sector since 1985 and have seen a great many things come, and apparently, go.

I recall Excellence, Total Quality Management, Situational Leadership, NLP, Team Building, Process Re-Engineering, Empowerment, and many other initiatives coming into the marketplace, creating a great deal of talk and action, and then slipping away into the background.

There are reasons for this. It isn't that those things did not work, or were, or still are, valuable.

The first reason is that the HR Department comprises people with a high level of altruism, usually little real power in the organisation, and a need to be noticed as "delivering positive change". If you entered a room full of HR people, such as this one, you will often hear the phrase "that's interesting". They like challenge, excitement, and therefore "new".

New items create intrigue. It's new. I want to try that. I want to be ahead of the competition. I can gain kudos from using that first.

This poses a problem in that there appears to be a search for a panacea, an all-encompassing solution to organisational development. Everyone is searching for something that will change everything. Something to "hang the hat on". The latest of these, and very good work it is too, is Jim Collins' Good to Great. Very good stimulus for the mind.

OK, so what happened to Excellence? What happened to TQM? What happened to all of those other power plays?

In high quality, long term focussed business those things are still there. They worked, and so instead of tacking them on to the side of the business activity, to use a Tom Peters' phrase, they blended those concepts "into the fabric of the organisation".

This is the only time an initiative or intervention is useful.

At HRworkbench we talk of sustainable gains in productivity. These can only be brought about where consistent application of new concepts, practices or processes are brought into the fabric of the organisation and become measured as part of the normal, day-to-day operations.

Problem with the fads is that they are usually short term "tack-ons", not linked to anything else; and people wonder why they "don't deliver anything tangible for me". How many people are out there at present developing hedgehogs and Level Five Leadership?

When a new concept is brought into an organisation it will have an impact. Read up on the Hawthorn experiment. Because you are trying something, anything, people will react. But sustainable gains are different.

Let's have a look at performance in the workplace.

The Primary Components of Performance are:

• Skills
• Knowledge
• Behaviour
• Motives and
• Values

These things combined will deliver performance.

Now lets explore that performance.

For each component of performance in the workplace, there is an optimal level that is represented by this graphic.

Take the gray area where the optimal performance range appears. For any element of performance there is this range.

In 1994 I developed the concept of tolerance in customer service delivery, which became a foundation stone of our Quality Customer Relationships" blended learning program.

In every human action and interaction we have levels of tolerance.

If the performance is too high it can be inappropriate. For example, you expect me to give you performance feedback. If I do this every three minutes you would say I am doing this too much and it is inappropriate.

It can, of course, be too low. If I never give you feedback you would say this is also inappropriate.

So we have, either consciously or unconsciously, ideas about where performance should be to be optimal. This can vary from situation to situation, day-to-day, as environmental pressures change around us.

The tolerance levels of too high and too low, are not a static point, there is a range in which we feel comfortable.

Note at the bottom of the graph that we have an orange arrow with continuum. This is the reality. Performance is a day-to-day proposition. Factors influence us every day and our performance varies.

The organisational challenge is to have performance within acceptable tolerance levels on a consistent basis. Allow variance, but keep the variance within tolerance limits.

The orange "wiggly" line on the graph represents a person's actual performance level.

Enter 360-degree feedback!

This new fad thing hits the market and we tread carefully at first, but then say, let's try it.

I conducted my first 360-degree feedback session in Australia in 1989 after seeing it used in the USA as part of a team building activity.

In the first few years I made many presentations at AHRI functions around Australia about its utility and in the last 15 years I have witnessed great successes and some tragic failures.

Why success and failure? If it is good, should it not always be successful?

Let's examine the next graphic.

At the blue vertical line on the timeline, we measure a person's performance using a 360-degree profiling tool and we give the recipient feedback. They look at the results and conclude "I'm OK".

360-degree profiling is over, that was interesting, I am OK; let's get back to the real world.

For some reason performance dips.

At this point the HR practitioner can justify the claim that the 360-degree process did not deliver results and is a waste of time - what will I try next?

It would be better to examine why the performance dips.

Looking at the dip on the graph below, we can see that it is a significant dip. This could be caused by a multitude of things in isolation or combination.

The tragedy is that the person may not be aware that their performance is declining, remember that they did a "360" and they came out OK.

The change could be caused by:

• Complacency brought about by the original feedback
• Changes in personal circumstances e.g. family issues weighing on the mind
• Shifts in work environment, new surroundings, new people, etc
• New work issues that are out of the normal range causing stress, or
• Lack in personal confidence . it can happen to anyone
• When we measure something once, there is no chance to look at relativity. If we measure at frequent intervals, we have a benchmark and can look at both current status and trends.

If we now measure the person again, they can clearly see that there is a gap between the two measurements. The graph below highlights the "GAP".

The second measure (360 degree for consistency):

• Creates awareness that the performance has changed and reveals the extent of the change
• Allows the person to assess the situation and decide if remedial action is required
• Forms the basis for the creation and adoption of an improvement plan
• Creates a catalyst to ask for help if it is needed, and
• Focusses the person and provides motivation to correct the slide and improve performance

But wait, there's more! Remember it's a continuum.

When we measure at the same interval a third time, we see a distinct improvement, shown above.

> For the recipient this will:

• Reinforce that the decision to change was a good decision
• Validate that the steps they took to change their performance and places those processes firmly in the success part of their brain
• Provide self motivation (refer Herzberg, the opportunity to improve)
• Reward the raters for their honest feedback at 360 processes number 1 and 2, they spoke, were listened to and actions were taken, and
• Reward the effort taken by the person to try to change

In a once only 360-degree feedback situation these benefits will never be realised. And I contend that these are the most significant things that can be achieved in Performance Improvement.

The Case for Dinosaur

Those that would see 360-degree feedback as a Dinosaur will be heard to make a variety of comments. I have summarised some of the more common of these below and added my experience:

Peter Drucker wrote as far back as 1986 that change was the norm and we had better get used to it. The pace of change will increase exponentially. He later commented that the managerial sphere of control would become a sphere of influence and we can witness this taking place every day. Change is here to stay. Change causes problems, and that is what good managers confront and solve. The best do it before it causes pain. The Case for Diamond

Let me address a technical issue first.

There is a 360-degree process.

This process comprises 360-degree profiling, the act of collecting response data from raters and compiling a report, and 360-degree feedback, the process of taking the recipient through a structured interview to assist them to make sense of the report and be in a position to make developmental decisions.

Now that I have that on the table, we can continue.

The 360-degree process is a very valuable tool if used properly. It should never be used as a solution in its own right, it is a component of a bigger process.

These are the things that HR practitioners should add to the list of MUST DOs when implementing a 360-degree process to realise the diamond:

Make sure you measure at fixed periods, measure and re-measure. Give people a chance to track the changes they make to their behaviour and the impact this has on the perceptions of those around them.

Use the measures consistently. If the things you measure are different to last time it is useless as a comparison tool. Get the measures right in the first place and then use those measures over and over again so people can track that they are in the Optimal Performance Zone.

Integrate the 360-degree process into a wider Performance Management System. Talk with me after about our approach to this, that is another whole presentation. Never use 360-degree profiles in isolation.

Never use 360-degree profiling for identification of retrenchment potential. This practice will undermine any future use of the tool. Used in times of turbulence the process will become distrusted, the motive for using the tool is wrong.

My hobbyhorse. Market, market, market. Let both ratees and raters know why the process is being engaged, what is expected of them, explain the privacy issues carefully. Make sure it is linked to development - and that they KNOW that.

Please see this process as a tool. It is not an integrated solution. Like having a payroll system with no money despatched at the end.

See the combination of 360-degree profiling and 360-degree feedback as an integrated kit that cannot be separated. Giving people a profile is not enough; they must go through a process of applying that profile to a development plan. They need actual feedback. They need to discuss and debate and reason and reconcile the results to their performance in the workplace.

International Trends

We have observed the following trends in relation to 360-degree process application from our overseas offices and Global Network of Consultants:

• 360 degree profiles are becoming a mandatory line item in performance agreements
• Large organisations are increasing their use of the tool, not decreasing
• The process is being heavily applied for Leadership development tracking
• The next heaviest use is for Management Development
• It is still a powerful tool for input into the team development process
• It is an excellent addition to the training needs analysis process, and
• It is becoming a valuable input into management issues mapping when the data is aggregated on various demographics in large organisations

Some Snippets to Finish With

In our years of experience we have observed the following:

• In the second 360-degree process, the self view generally decreases as self awareness improves.
• Managers often score people lower the second time around as they become more aware of the performance of the person they are rating.
• Peers and Direct reports will reward recipients who take feedback well and attempt the change process.
• When the recipient denies the feedback and refuses to address issues, the next round will be ugly. If the trend of denial continues behaviour gravitates to apathy and we have seen instances where raters refuse to complete the questionnaire a third time around - no point you will hear them say. Raters take this process seriously.
• Women generally rate themselves lower than men rate those women. We think this is a reflection of the fact that women see that they have to perform higher for the same recognition as men.
• Very few organisations use the 360-degree process in a way that will generate the best possible results.
• These observations reflect our view that the 360-degree profile is perceptive; it is not an absolute measure. It gives a strong input into the decision making process and should be used in context.

Conclusion

For mine, 360-degree process is a diamond.

The profiling and feedback combine to empower the recipient to take charge of their own development.

In a rapidly changing work environment where resources are getting tighter and tighter, personal responsibility for performance and development are some of the keys to organisational success.

Definitely Diamond!

Thanks to Nadine Castle and her team for the opportunity to present.