360 degrees feedback (also known as multi-rater feedback , multi-source feedback , or multi-source assessment ) is a process in which feedback from employees' subordinates, colleagues, and supervisors, as well as self-evaluation by the employees themselves is collected. Such feedback may also include, where relevant, feedback from external sources that interact with employees, such as customers and suppliers or other interested stakeholders. 360-degree feedback is so named for gathering feedback on employee behavior from multiple points of view (subordinate, lateral, and supervisory). It can therefore be contrasted with "downward feedback" (traditional feedback on employee behavior and performance submitted to subordinates by supervisors or management employees only; see traditional performance appraisals); or "upward feedback" submitted to supervisory or management by subordinates only.
Organizations most often use 360-degree feedback for development purposes, giving it to employees to assist them in developing work skills and behavior. However, organizations increasingly use 360-degree feedback in performance evaluations and employment decisions (eg, pay, promotion). When 360-degree feedback is used for performance evaluation purposes, it is sometimes called "360-degree review".
There is much debate as to whether 360 degree feedback should be used exclusively for development purposes or for evaluation purposes as well. This is mainly due to the subjectivity and motivation of the feedback providers, the variation between assessors, and whether the feedback provider has the ability to fairly evaluate the achievement of work and organizational goals. While this problem arises when 360-degree feedback is used for development, it is more pronounced when employers use it for performance evaluation purposes, because they can influence work decisions unfairly, and even lead to legal liability.
Video 360-degree feedback
History
One of the earliest use of surveys recorded to gather information about employees occurred in the 1950s at Esso Research and Engineering Company. From there, the idea of ​​360-degree feedback gained momentum, and in the 1990s most human resource and organizational development professionals understood the concept. The problem is that collecting and crafting feedback demands paper-based efforts including complex manual calculations or long delays. The first led to despair on the part of practitioners; the second is the gradual erosion of commitment by the recipient.
However, due to the emergence of the Internet and the ability to conduct online evaluations with surveys, multi-rater feedback uses ever-increasing popularity. Outsourcing human resource function has also created a strong market for 360 degree feedback products from consultants. This has led to the development of 360-degree feedback tools on the market.
Currently, research shows that over a third of US companies use some kind of multi-source feedback. Others claim that this estimate is close to 90% of all Fortune 500 companies. In recent years, this has been encouraged because Internet-based services have become standard in enterprise development, with more useful features (eg, multi-lingual, comparative reporting, and aggregate reporting). However, many issues relate to the validity and reliability of such systems, especially when used in performance appraisals.
Maps 360-degree feedback
Problem
Many 360-degree feedback tools are not adapted to the needs of the organizations they use. 360 degree feedback is not as helpful in all types of organizations and with all types of work. In addition, using 360-degree feedback tools for assessment purposes is increasingly burned because performance criteria may be invalid and based on work, employees may not be adequately trained to evaluate peer performance, and feedback providers can manipulate this system. Feedback ratings employee manipulations have been reported in some companies that have used 360-degree feedback for performance evaluation including GE (Welch 2001), IBM (Linman 2011), and Amazon (Office and Streitfeld 2015).
The US military has criticized the use of 360-degree feedback programs in employment decisions due to problems with validity and reliability. Another branch of the US government has questioned 360-degree feedback reviews as well. However, these organizations continue to use multi-rater feedback in their development process.
Accuracy
A study of the pattern of assessment accuracy indicates that the length of time an assessor has learned that the evaluated individual has the most significant influence on the accuracy of the 360 ​​degree review. This study shows that subjects in groups "known for one to three years" are the most accurate, followed by those "known less than a year," followed by those "known for three to five years" and the most inaccurate are those " known for more than five years. " The study concludes that the most accurate ranking comes from those who have known individuals who are reviewed long enough to get through the first impression, but not so long that they begin to generalize well.
It has been suggested that multi-rater assessments often generate conflicting opinions and that there may be no way to determine accurate feedback. Studies also show that general self-assessment is much higher than the ratings given from others. Motivation and feedback provider bias should be taken into account.
Results
Several studies have shown that using 360-degree feedback helps improve employee performance as it helps evaluate looking at different perspectives of their performance. In a 5-year study, no increase in overall scoring scores were found between the first and second years, but higher scores were recorded between the 2nd and 3rd and 3rd and 4th years. Reilly et al. (1996) found that performance improvements between the first and second administrations, and sustained improvement were 2 years later. Additional studies show that 360-degree feedback can predict future performance.
Some authors maintain, however, that there are too many hiding variables associated with a 360-degree evaluation to generalize their effectiveness. Bracken et al. (2001b) and Bracken and Timmreck (2001) focus on process features that tend to also have a major effect on the creation of behavioral changes. Greguras and Robie (1998) track how the number of assessors used in each particular category (direct reports, peers, managers) affects the reliability of feedback. Their research shows that direct reports are the most unreliable and, therefore, more participation is needed to produce reliable results. Several sections of the study have shown that response scales can have a major effect on outcomes, and some response scales are better than others. Goldsmith and Underhill (2001) reported strong influence from evaluated individuals following up with assessors to discuss their results, which can not be done when feedback is anonymous. Other factors potentially strongly influence behavior change include how assessors are selected, managerial approval, instrument quality, training and assessment orientation, participant training, supervisor training, training, integration with HR systems, and accountability.
Some researchers claim that the use of multi-valuer appraisals does not improve the company's performance. One 2001 study found that 360-degree feedback was associated with a 10.6 percent reduction in market value, and concluded that "no data indicates that 360-degree feedback actually increases productivity, increases retention, reduces complaints, or superior to the standard rankings and performance appraisal system. "
One research group proposes four paradoxes that explain why 360 evaluations do not yield accurate data: (1) Paradox of Roles, where an evaluator conflict with a peer and a judge; (2) Paradox of Group Performance, which recognizes that most of the work done in corporate arrangements is done in groups, not individually; (3) Paradox Measurements, which show that qualitative, or in-person techniques are far more effective than just ranking in facilitating change; and (4) Paradox of Rewards, which shows that individuals who evaluate their peers are more concerned about the rewards associated with completing a task than the actual content of the evaluation itself.
Additional studies found no correlation between employee multi-rater scoring scores and top-down performance appraisal scores (given by one's supervisor). They suggest that although multi-rater feedback can be used effectively for assessment, attention must be taken in its implementation or the results will be compromised. This study shows that 360-degree feedback and performance appraisal get different results. Therefore, traditional performance assessments as well as 360-degree feedback should be used in evaluating overall performance.
References
Further reading
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments