August 2005

WARNING! HANDLE 360 DEGREE FEEDBACK WITH CARE
By Tony Mulkern
 

             When does it make sense for a growing entrepreneurial firm to implement a 360 degree feedback system?  Researchers claim that 90% of Fortune 500 firms use 360 degree feedback. Understandably, a growing firm might rush to adopt a system which seems to be a mark of success.  What is easily overlooked is that 360 degree feedback is a high intensity lamp—it can cast great light but can also burn severely if handled unskillfully.

              First a definition and a little history:  the 360 degree process involves gathering anonymous feedback from all “points of the compass” in a manager’s work environment: boss, peers, and subordinates. Apparently first used for officer development in the British and German militaries in the 1940s, it was later adopted by U.S. military academies and finally by corporations in the 1980s. In the past 15 years, its use has become very wide spread across industries.  Typically, feedback is collected by a numerical rating questionnaire, and there is often opportunity for written comments.  The manager who is the subject of the feedback fills out a self questionnaire, and his or her responses are compared to the responses of the surveyed group in the final feedback report.  The anonymity of respondents is protected.  Sometimes, the boss does not submit feedback.

             Advantages: Since managers—like the rest of humanity—may have an inflated view of their own effectiveness, the feedback can be an eye-opener that inspires significant positive change.  Also, many bosses, not to mention subordinates, often soft-pedal their face-to-face feedback, while the anonymity of the 360 process tends to promote candor.

             Dangers: The 360 process can significantly erode managerial morale and create divisiveness between managers and employees. This is especially true if employees use the feedback opportunity in a retaliatory or vindictive way with a manager who maintains high standards and is not afraid to make tough decisions.  Instead of promoting candor, the process can lead to inflated performance ratings and undeserved raises from managers seeking popularity, just as student evaluations in academia have contributed to grade inflation.  Some corporate chatrooms show a lingering bitterness in the wake of the process.

              As with many sound tools that become management “fads,” the original purposes and guidelines are sometimes forgotten in the rush to stay current.  Having used the 360 process and other feedback tools with hundreds of managers over many years in numerous organizations, I offer the following guidelines as ways to optimize the positive and to minimize the negative effects:

• Use for developmental purposes, not for appraisal.  Development is the original purpose behind the process, and it is the one which is best served.  If 360 feedback is used to appraise managerial performance, it is more likely to generate defensiveness and rationalizations, which greatly reduce its effectiveness. Appraise managers on the basis of predefined outputs or results, not on the basis of scores on a survey. Feedback scores may provide valuable insights as to how to better obtain those results, but should not be confused with the results themselves.

• Exercise complete confidentiality.  Just as respondents’ ratings must remain anonymous, the final report should strictly confidential.  If the feedback is to create minimal defensiveness, then even the subject’s boss should not see the final report, unless the subject chooses to share it.  Feedback is best collected either by an outside consultant or by an internal staff person who has the backbone to resist any pressures to compromise anonymity of responses or confidentiality of the reports.

• Deliver the report in a supportive context.  This means at the very least not to simply drop the report on the subject’s desk with the rest of the day’s mail.  There is no predicting the extremes of emotions managers may experience when receiving candid feedback in writing for the first time.  An effective way for the facilitator or coach to deliver the reports to a group of managers is in a workshop setting where they have a chance to air their issues and develop action plans, without feeling pressure to reveal their scores.  When only one or a few managers are going through the process, someone with coaching skills needs to deliver the report in an extended meeting.

• Let the subject decide which part of the feedback to act on.  Significant human change comes from choice, not coercion.  And most of us cannot change more than one or two significant things at one time.  High performing organizations encourage managers to build on their strengths, not  focus energy on trying to turn every weakness into a strength, just to get a better feedback score next time.

• Provide supportive follow up.  An excellent way to do this is to require each manager to develop an action plan that is shared with his or her boss.  This does not have to compromise the confidentiality of the scores or comments, but does allow for the boss to provide advice and resources needed to implement the plan.  It is important to coach managers to share the action plan with other respondents, thank them for their participation, and to encourage additional clarifying feedback if needed.

• Let the subject of the feedback choose the respondents.  Once a minimum number of respondents is set (typically 8 or 9), there are several advantages in letting the subject decide who will provide feedback.  Most of us will pick those whom we think will have the most positive things to say about us.  When they have some surprising suggestions or complaints, it really carries credibility!  Secondly, if the respondents are chosen by someone else, a natural response to low scores or critical comments is to dismiss them as coming from the “losers.”

• Involve the respondents. State of the art practice is for the coordinator or facilitator of the 360 process, before feedback is collected, to obtain subordinates’ commitment to a) recognize and acknowledge genuine progress when the manager actually does make changes and b) to let go grievances over past behavior that not longer recurs.  In the absence of these commitments, many subordinates will never forgive a past slight or perceived injustice and will allow no amount of improvement to alter their negative views.  At the very least, subordinates need guidance on how to give feedback in a constructive and specific manner.

• Implement after—not before—management training.   The best use of 360 is to provide feedback on how well management training is actually being applied.  For those who have yet been given no management training, it is unfair to subject them to feedback on all the things they are failing to do.

• Consider Timing.  If the company has recently gone through painful changes, or the manager has implemented necessary but unpopular courses of action, this will greatly color the tone of any feedback given.  Better to postpone the 360 than to gather skewed feedback that is not a fair reflection of the manager’s style.

• Lead by example.  Because receiving 360 feedback can be so gut wrenching, when it is undertaken on a company-wide scale it is advisable for it to start with senior management, including the CEO. This serves two purposes: a) it illustrates that senior management takes the process seriously, and b) it allows upper management to understand first-hand the stress that can be involved for feedback recipients.

              Before implementing 360, it is worthwhile to consider an alternative, namely to gather team rather than individual managerial feedback. As with 360, all team feedback is anonymous but is compiled into a report which goes only to the team leader, or CEO, with a set of recommendations.  The focus is on team effectiveness as a whole, rather than putting any one individual in the “hot seat,” and recommendations are specific to the feedback patterns for the group.  See the Mulkern Associates Team Assessment service for more information on this kind of approach.  Because the feedback and recommendations are highly detailed and specific, it is rare that the report is read and then forgotten, as is too often the case with 360.