Using 360-degree feedback systems remains popular among Canadian employers even though many organizations doing it say it isn’t easy, according to a recent study from Concordia University.
Most notably employees regularly balk at 360-degree feedback because they feel it is more labour intensive, they don’t trust the system or they find little connection to organizational strategy.
Traditionally, with employee evaluation, managers were the sole bearers of evaluative duties, but in recent years the trend has been toward multi-source assessment programs where feedback is gathered from several sources: subordinates, peers, internal or external customers and supervisors. When all relevant parties participate in the assessment, the process is referred to as 360-degree feedback.
Last year, a research team from the John Molson School of Business at Montreal’s Concordia University surveyed large Canadian companies to learn about experiences with 360-degree feedback programs.
Of the 101 organizations surveyed, 43 per cent used 360-degree feedback; of those not using it, nine said they were considering it.
Companies are using 360 because of its many advantages, such as increases in measurement accuracy, perceived fairness and the dissemination of performance standards within the company. However, these systems have a unique set of challenges.
Respondents identified several of these challenges when implementing 360-degree feedback programs in their organizations, as well as solutions they proposed to address these issues.
Most issues involved resistance from individuals affected by the initiative. Resistance was due to the following issues:
•time and effort in administering and managing such programs;
•trust; and
•strategy.
Time and effort
One of the most common complaints were that more effort and time were required for 360-degree programs compared to more traditional programs. One participant stated, “It is simply not worth it — it is way too labor-, time-, cost-, and energy-consuming.”
The process is quite “involved,” requiring the education of users on 360-degree feedback, ensuring that the evaluations get completed, and analyzing and explaining the results to employees.
Many respondents also mentioned that 360-degree feedback places a large burden on participants. Although each evaluation may be completed fairly quickly, employees often receive multiple requests, the evaluation duties quickly becoming burdensome to the average manager.
This was especially problematic for upper-level managers who receive the greatest number of feedback requests given the large number of people they supervise and interact with. For example, one manager was said to have received more than 3,000 feedback requests.
Many solutions were suggested with respect to these issues. Some targeted the reduction of the length of the survey, reducing the number of evaluators required for each participant — just three is needed to ensure the anonymity of raters — using a Web-based rather than paper-based process to enhance efficiency, providing the process for only a limited number of employees (such as high-potential or problem employees), and reducing the frequency of administration.
Other proposed solutions included increasing the amount of time given to complete evaluations, and tying completions of evaluations to the compensation of key managers. However, this last solution, adopted by two organizations surveyed, was said to have reduced the legitimacy of the process. The evaluations were more likely to be completed in time but seemingly for the wrong reasons.
Trust
A different set of issues raised by interviewees involved the lack of trust many employees have in these new programs. Many commented that despite the promise of anonymity, people feared identification from peers or supervisors. This can lead to resistance with respect to participation and overly positive evaluations. Other issues relating to trust can also contribute to inaccurate evaluations.
One respondent stated, “Some raters abused the system and used it to stab colleagues.” In another case, a respondent commented that feedback participants carefully selected raters to use “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” strategies.
Biased evaluations are clearly of little value to organization, and in fact can be quite detrimental.
Accountability and anonymity are issues at odds when using 360-degree feedback. Communication and training were seen as solutions to address trust issues.
Organizations conducted sessions to clarify the purpose of the process, explain the different steps involved, train future participants on how to use the instrument, and emphasize that anonymity was ensured.
Furthermore, other sessions focused on report interpretation, the use of the information, and the future use of the process. These steps are important if participants are to buy into the process.
In this respect, some mentioned the importance of success of the first wave of implementation. In one interview, it was recounted that the senior level managers in the company never took it seriously; this lack of support and acceptance of the process was said to have crippled the program. “The first wave of participants, who were the top echelons of the organization, never really took the process seriously. This had a snowball effect for the rest of the organization.”
Strategy
Another set of issues leading to resistance in organizations concerned the lack of fit between the use of 360-degree feedback processes and the organizational goals and objectives.
Several respondents commented on the absence of links between the new programs and existing systems. One participant commented that his company had no clear strategy for using 360-degree feedback. He said: “We use it almost randomly. We need to integrate it with the other systems in place.”
Companies implementing 360-degree feedback in order to imitate competitors, or without proper consideration for its purpose and how it will integrate with existing organizational practices, are likely to find themselves in a difficult position since the program will not be aligned with other HR practices or may not be a good fit with the culture of the organization.
The strategic issues raised by respondents focused on targeting the appropriate employees, the coherent incorporation of the program with formal performance appraisal practices, and the need to follow up with developmental plans and other appropriate developmental support, such as coaching.
Success of 360
When analyzing the characteristics of 360-degree feedback processes with respect to reported success, certain general themes emerged from the interviews.
A large majority of organizations that reported that objectives weren’t met relied exclusively on external consultants for the design and implementation of the program.
Hence, it seems that the extent to which companies rely on external consultants influences how useful they judge the programs to be. One possible explanation may be that, because success with 360 is so dependent on contextual factors — such as readiness of the employees, culture of the organization — the reliance on an external consultant probably leads to more generic 360-programs or processes that are not sensitive to this context of the organization.
Also, a majority of those organizations that were successful used feedback facilitation (63 per cent). The most successful organizations were also the ones that were the clearest on what their objectives for using 360-degree feedback were to begin with. This was obvious in the interviews wherein certain respondents did not seem very sure of why they were using the program at all. For example, a majority of those using the process for development used immediate supervisors to facilitate the link with developmental planning (12 out of 23, or 52 per cent). Putting the person responsible for performance management in the position of facilitating 360-degree represents a clear violation of the confidentiality required.
The study shows 360-degree feedback programs take many different forms and that this diversity leads to a myriad challenges. Companies looking into implementing 360-degree should be mindful of these challenges because the many benefits often come at the expense of much effort.
Stéphane Brutus is an associate professor of management with the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University. He can be reached at (514) 848-2912 or by e-mail, [email protected]. Mehrdad Derayeh is a graduate student in industrial-organizational psychology at the University of Waterloo and can be reached at (519) 888-4567 ext. 3786, or by e-mail at [email protected].
Most notably employees regularly balk at 360-degree feedback because they feel it is more labour intensive, they don’t trust the system or they find little connection to organizational strategy.
Traditionally, with employee evaluation, managers were the sole bearers of evaluative duties, but in recent years the trend has been toward multi-source assessment programs where feedback is gathered from several sources: subordinates, peers, internal or external customers and supervisors. When all relevant parties participate in the assessment, the process is referred to as 360-degree feedback.
Last year, a research team from the John Molson School of Business at Montreal’s Concordia University surveyed large Canadian companies to learn about experiences with 360-degree feedback programs.
Of the 101 organizations surveyed, 43 per cent used 360-degree feedback; of those not using it, nine said they were considering it.
Companies are using 360 because of its many advantages, such as increases in measurement accuracy, perceived fairness and the dissemination of performance standards within the company. However, these systems have a unique set of challenges.
Respondents identified several of these challenges when implementing 360-degree feedback programs in their organizations, as well as solutions they proposed to address these issues.
Most issues involved resistance from individuals affected by the initiative. Resistance was due to the following issues:
•time and effort in administering and managing such programs;
•trust; and
•strategy.
Time and effort
One of the most common complaints were that more effort and time were required for 360-degree programs compared to more traditional programs. One participant stated, “It is simply not worth it — it is way too labor-, time-, cost-, and energy-consuming.”
The process is quite “involved,” requiring the education of users on 360-degree feedback, ensuring that the evaluations get completed, and analyzing and explaining the results to employees.
Many respondents also mentioned that 360-degree feedback places a large burden on participants. Although each evaluation may be completed fairly quickly, employees often receive multiple requests, the evaluation duties quickly becoming burdensome to the average manager.
This was especially problematic for upper-level managers who receive the greatest number of feedback requests given the large number of people they supervise and interact with. For example, one manager was said to have received more than 3,000 feedback requests.
Many solutions were suggested with respect to these issues. Some targeted the reduction of the length of the survey, reducing the number of evaluators required for each participant — just three is needed to ensure the anonymity of raters — using a Web-based rather than paper-based process to enhance efficiency, providing the process for only a limited number of employees (such as high-potential or problem employees), and reducing the frequency of administration.
Other proposed solutions included increasing the amount of time given to complete evaluations, and tying completions of evaluations to the compensation of key managers. However, this last solution, adopted by two organizations surveyed, was said to have reduced the legitimacy of the process. The evaluations were more likely to be completed in time but seemingly for the wrong reasons.
Trust
A different set of issues raised by interviewees involved the lack of trust many employees have in these new programs. Many commented that despite the promise of anonymity, people feared identification from peers or supervisors. This can lead to resistance with respect to participation and overly positive evaluations. Other issues relating to trust can also contribute to inaccurate evaluations.
One respondent stated, “Some raters abused the system and used it to stab colleagues.” In another case, a respondent commented that feedback participants carefully selected raters to use “I scratch your back, you scratch mine” strategies.
Biased evaluations are clearly of little value to organization, and in fact can be quite detrimental.
Accountability and anonymity are issues at odds when using 360-degree feedback. Communication and training were seen as solutions to address trust issues.
Organizations conducted sessions to clarify the purpose of the process, explain the different steps involved, train future participants on how to use the instrument, and emphasize that anonymity was ensured.
Furthermore, other sessions focused on report interpretation, the use of the information, and the future use of the process. These steps are important if participants are to buy into the process.
In this respect, some mentioned the importance of success of the first wave of implementation. In one interview, it was recounted that the senior level managers in the company never took it seriously; this lack of support and acceptance of the process was said to have crippled the program. “The first wave of participants, who were the top echelons of the organization, never really took the process seriously. This had a snowball effect for the rest of the organization.”
Strategy
Another set of issues leading to resistance in organizations concerned the lack of fit between the use of 360-degree feedback processes and the organizational goals and objectives.
Several respondents commented on the absence of links between the new programs and existing systems. One participant commented that his company had no clear strategy for using 360-degree feedback. He said: “We use it almost randomly. We need to integrate it with the other systems in place.”
Companies implementing 360-degree feedback in order to imitate competitors, or without proper consideration for its purpose and how it will integrate with existing organizational practices, are likely to find themselves in a difficult position since the program will not be aligned with other HR practices or may not be a good fit with the culture of the organization.
The strategic issues raised by respondents focused on targeting the appropriate employees, the coherent incorporation of the program with formal performance appraisal practices, and the need to follow up with developmental plans and other appropriate developmental support, such as coaching.
Success of 360
When analyzing the characteristics of 360-degree feedback processes with respect to reported success, certain general themes emerged from the interviews.
A large majority of organizations that reported that objectives weren’t met relied exclusively on external consultants for the design and implementation of the program.
Hence, it seems that the extent to which companies rely on external consultants influences how useful they judge the programs to be. One possible explanation may be that, because success with 360 is so dependent on contextual factors — such as readiness of the employees, culture of the organization — the reliance on an external consultant probably leads to more generic 360-programs or processes that are not sensitive to this context of the organization.
Also, a majority of those organizations that were successful used feedback facilitation (63 per cent). The most successful organizations were also the ones that were the clearest on what their objectives for using 360-degree feedback were to begin with. This was obvious in the interviews wherein certain respondents did not seem very sure of why they were using the program at all. For example, a majority of those using the process for development used immediate supervisors to facilitate the link with developmental planning (12 out of 23, or 52 per cent). Putting the person responsible for performance management in the position of facilitating 360-degree represents a clear violation of the confidentiality required.
The study shows 360-degree feedback programs take many different forms and that this diversity leads to a myriad challenges. Companies looking into implementing 360-degree should be mindful of these challenges because the many benefits often come at the expense of much effort.
Stéphane Brutus is an associate professor of management with the John Molson School of Business at Concordia University. He can be reached at (514) 848-2912 or by e-mail, [email protected]. Mehrdad Derayeh is a graduate student in industrial-organizational psychology at the University of Waterloo and can be reached at (519) 888-4567 ext. 3786, or by e-mail at [email protected].
