It is only recently, in my new company, that I realised how often I have been involved with the introduction of 360\u2070 feedback.<\/p>\n
From the first time, more than 25 years ago, with a short paper version, a handful of questions and very little expertise. Supporting leadership development in a new organisation.<\/p>\n
Through reorganisations, introduction of new competences, new values, new leadership models, and yet more new organisations.<\/p>\n
And in teambuilding exercises and independent assessments.<\/p>\n
The technology and professionalism has improved of course. Such that by the time I left Shell, 360\u2070 feedback was available to all at any time, at the touch of a button.<\/p>\n
Every step along the way has strengthened my belief in what can be, under the right conditions, a powerful tool.<\/p>\n
And I am often reminded of a Robert Burns\u2019 misquote that I heard linked to 360\u2070 feedback a long time ago:<\/p>\n
\u2018Oh what a great gift we would have, if we could only see ourselves as others see us\u2019<\/p>\n
Which is what 360\u2070 feedback can do. Anonymous input from multiple sources \u2013 leaders, supervisors, team members, peers, subordinates, customers – leading to a collective wisdom, rather than having just a single person, your boss, giving their thoughts.<\/p>\n
For a long time I strongly believed that it should only be used for developmental purposes.<\/p>\n
Unsurprisingly given that was the starting point when gaining popularity in the mid-80s and when Jack Welch was an early adopter.<\/p>\n
Having worked for some time with recruitment assessment centres, based on training of assessors in a common understanding of the marking hierarchy, the fact that everyone in a 360\u2070 feedback sees different aspects and then interprets the scale themselves, seemed to me to nullify its use even in appraisal.<\/p>\n
Added to my own personal experience that I found the free-format written responses to be even more helpful than the numerical scores, this seemed to support my belief that 360\u2070 was powerful, but only for developmental purposes.<\/p>\n
And it works really well, highlighting personal strengths but also areas ripe for development.<\/p>\n
But my views have slowly changed. In line with the development of 360\u2070 feedback itself and research results which support its wider use and dispel many common myths.<\/p>\n
So given the moves anyway where bosses and subordinates asked for performance input from customers for example, why not structure this performance feedback via 360\u2070, adding to its credibility and validity? Does it lose its developmental impact? Well not really, especially in companies where performance is not only measured against what you have done but also how you do it. And 360\u2070 does not change the importance of the supervisor. It is a supplement and the boss is still the boss.<\/p>\n
And the other concerns? Select your friends? Research shows that with anonymity people are candid irrespective of friendship. The same is true for popularity bias. Research does not support this. And what about possible favouritism (or otherwise) in the single person\/boss situation anyway?<\/p>\n
What if different people interpret and use the scales differently, one of my early worries? It turns out that the reliability of 360\u2070 derives from the fact that multiple people respond independently to the scale, especially where there is a strong shared organisational culture.<\/p>\n
Of course\u00a0there needs to be some checks and balances, more than that first single sheet of paper a quarter of a century ago. Especially if you move further to a direct link to pay (rather than an indirect link via performance appraisal). But these are now well-documented and, if you really have a seriously professional organisation, these are built into the process.<\/p>\n
OK, I have seen it misused in one of the large companies for which I consulted, with managers giving each other maximum scores and hence the chance of maximum bonuses. But that could have been addressed with the now standard 360\u2070 feedback checks, which were surprisingly absent.<\/p>\n
Some of my learnings over 25 years of 360\u2070, which I would offer if you are considering using it even for purely developmental purposes, and especially when moving from development to appraisal and even pay, are:<\/p>\n
In conclusion, I believe 360\u2070 feedback has a dramatic effect on employees, managers, teams and organisations. It works simply because we all prefer to get feedback from more people than just our supervisor.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
It is only recently, in my new company, that I realised how often I have been involved with the introduction of 360\u2070 feedback. From the first time, more than 25 years ago, with a short paper version, a handful of questions and very little expertise. Supporting leadership development in a new organisation. Through reorganisations, introduction […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":113,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-change-management","category-hr-management","category-talent-management"],"yoast_head":"\n