In 360 degree feedback a person, usually a manager, receives feedback from his or her boss, a number of peers or co-workers and team members.
The results are variously summarised but usually and most importantly include variance analysis of any differences between the person’s self-view and the views of others. HR consulting firm William M. Mercer has said that in 2000 65% of US firms used 360 feedback to some degree.
The UK CIPD says that for 360 success questions asked must be short, clear and directly relevant to the person’s job and that respondents must be credible to the person receiving the feedback. More respondents make feedback more credible and thus provide more impact. However, the use of respondents who are not credible to the recipient confuses the feedback and dilutes its impact.
Their research shows that everybody gets some critical feedback and it this critical feedback that provides the greatest motivation to change – for as long as the respondents are credible and their views are of value to the recipient. Mild praise raises self-esteem, but produces no change, except to encourage existing behaviour.
When poorly implemented, 360 feedback is seen as coercive and intimidating and has no beneficial effects.
Professor Jai Ghorpade, of San Diego State University, writing in the US Academy of Management Executive, said that 360 "has serious problems relating to privacy, validity and effectiveness." He reported that out of more than 600 feedback studies, one-third found improvements in performance, one-third reported decreases in performance and the rest reported no impact at all.
Professor John Sullivan, of San Francisco State University, found no data that 360 feedback actually improves productivity or is in any way superior to ordinary performance appraisal He said, “It sounds good, but there is no proof it works."
For more information team building, development, leadership and management training visit our website
Comments