Workforce Management Community Center: Training & Organizational Development

Community Center

= Member Only

Forums: Training & Organizational Development

Training & Organizational Development
A forum for exchanging ideas about skills training, leadership training, management training, compliance training, e-learning, as well as organizational development and effectiveness. (Please note that this forum is dedicated to workforce-management professionals only, and not for employees.)

Workforce Management Community Center Forum Index � � Training & Organizational Development � � 360s - Successes and Failures?

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )

Author	360s - Successes and Failures?
cchittero Joined: Jun 15, 2004 Posts: 3	Posted: 2005-02-09 15:50 I've heard various horror stories about companies where a 360 process produced nothing but bad feelings. How realistic is that? I'd appreciate any analysis of efforts that succeeded or failed, and why. In our case, we are assessing our top 3 levels of executives (CEO and down) based on Leadership Competencies that the top 2 levels defined. The purpose is individual development planning - each executive will be assigned a development coach from HR and that coach is the only other person to see their results. Thanks for your insights.
Vivlin Joined: Mar 23, 2004 Posts: 148	Posted: 2005-02-10 07:02 The success or failure of a 360 depends upon the culture of the company, and how the instrument is introduced to the employees. If the culture is unhealthy and morale is low, it's quite likely that some people can become targets for the shared angst. I use Sterling Institute's Management Practices Survey to get feedback on how effectively supervisors and managers are working with their folks. SI has other assessments you might find interesting. (I do not work for SI, and have no financial ties to the company.) The strength of the MPS is that is focuses on PRACTICES not personality, has high content validity and reliability, and has been in use since the 70's. In addition, you receive individual reports, group reports, and can add additional questions to the on-line instrument. Dr. J. Sterling Livingston (Pygmalion in Management, The Myth of the Well-Trained Manager -- both Harvard Business Review Classics) developed these instruments before the assessment craze. The web site is www.sterlinginstitute.com.
deltac Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 273	Posted: 2005-02-10 08:56 I don't think negative outcomes are due to the method or performance appraisal, they are usually a reflection of the organization's culture or an outcome of poor planning and delivery. This is really a very sensitive issue that should merit a lot of thought up-front. I think it helps to explain that in terms of accuracy, 360 degree feedback is more valid than using just one performance appraiser because research shows that performance ratings are mostly subjective because they are based on the rater's limited experience with the employee and the rater's own idiosycracies about what comprises "good" performance. Using several raters helps to reduce these biases. You can also explain that the results of a 360 degree feedback review are an excellent indicator of their support system, this is very important for top leaders to know because leadership is really an interaction between the leader and the teams they lead. Some best practices that I have seen in the literature are to use 360 as a developmental tool, to allow ratees to select their raters (because of trust issues), to understand that the most accurate feedback probably comes from the supervisor so the developmental plan should align with their supervisor's expectations, counseling from supervisors, coachs, or mentors beyond the performance appraisal is essential, and most important, the tool itself should be a reflection of core competancies and role expectations otherwise it could be meaningless.
Vivlin Joined: Mar 23, 2004 Posts: 148	Posted: 2005-02-10 12:28 Agree with Caubets on most of the post. I still think that executives need to receive feedback on their practices from 3 or more of the people they supervise, which the MPS does very effectively. Adding peer-to-peer feedback is helpful, and can be accomplished via survey instruments (and I think SI has those as well, but I have not used them). The most important issue in selection of instruments is --- reliability. Does the instrument measure what it purports? What is the relationship of the items to the dimensions? How do each of the dimensions relate? OPM has an interesting site on human capital management that identifies standards and strategies you might find helpful.
jassia2002 Joined: Sep 10, 2004 Posts: 12	Posted: 2005-02-15 02:53 No wonder why I love HR science. You guys are cool.
dwarrencenseocorp Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 1	Posted: 2005-02-15 05:28 [quote] On 2005-02-09 15:50, cchittero wrote: I've heard various horror stories about companies where a 360 process produced nothing but bad feelings. How realistic is that? I'd appreciate any analysis of efforts that succeeded or failed, and why. In our case, we are assessing our top 3 levels of executives (CEO and down) based on Leadership Competencies that the top 2 levels defined. The purpose is individual development planning - each executive will be assigned a development coach from HR and that coach is the only other person to see their results. Thanks for your insights. [/quote]
alreuben Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 3	Posted: 2005-02-15 05:37 Some good points made about the intent of 360 feedback and getting multi-rater feedback as a more useful mirror. My experience has been that while the data generated from a 360 feedback instrument is important from a developmental point of view (let's forget the actual tool for the moment), the data itself is only 10% of the exercise. It's like the saying "10% of life is what happens to you - 90% is what you do about it!" The process of 360 should include, YES, introducing it to all employees, the WII-FM "what in it for me" - but I feel the most important aspect is the process attached to meeting with raters (boss, direct reports and peers - all in separate meetings) afterwards and debriefing them on the findings, your strengths, areas for development and what you intend to do about it - ask for their continued feedback and support. People need to see that there is action tied to the exercise which can begin change - their input into the 360 is their opportunity to provide impetus for change - and improving performance.
RobBusSol Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 1	Posted: 2005-02-15 05:39 "I'd appreciate any analysis of efforts that succeeded or failed, and why. In our case, we are assessing our top 3 levels of executives (CEO and down) based on Leadership Competencies that the top 2 levels defined. The purpose is individual development planning - each executive will be assigned a development coach from HR and that coach is the only other person to see their results. Thanks for your insights." Regardless of the method/questionnaire you plan to use, my strong recommendation is that you make provision for additional comments. In my experience, the verbatim comments tended to make more of an impact where change is needed then any other measures. With a direct comment, there is no place to hide. And when the comments come from multiple sources, its an appropriate wake up call.
ltbobrt Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 1	Posted: 2005-02-15 06:10 I can only speak to my own experience. I found the feed back to be insightful and thoughful. It was of great value in perparing my personel IDP. In choosing my assesors, care was taken to choose some folks that I had not seen eye to eye with in every catagory. All feed back was consistant and candid.
alreuben Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 3	Posted: 2005-02-15 06:51 Regarding the comment that 1)only the HR coach will see the results and 2) the top 2 levels of management identified the competencies. I have found that it is important that the manager's boss share (see the final report) in the results and that a strong working relationship between these two be constantly cultivated. It is important for the boss to help his team/individuals, better understand their strengths and get involved about how they can further leverage their strengths. It isn't just about shoring up weaknesses - to me that's only a minor point - it's about leveraging strengths and how they can help address weaknesses. The most successful and effective managers/leaders know why they are successful and become clearer on how they can leverage their strengths! This critical information needs to be transparent between a boss and his direct reports. I ceratinly encourage a third party like HR as a further coach. I have seen it work well when managers can find their own coach - with specific criteria involved in that selection. They may know a peer who has the skill they are looking to develop - and this interaction strengthens their working relationship and team development. As to identifying competencies, you mention the top 2 levels identified them - great. Some 360 tools ask boss and self to identify the top 6 competencies when they do their 360 input - this is an excellent way to measure alignment between the management team as to key competencies for their positions. The output report clearly identifies the skill sets identified by boss and manager, which leads to discussion towards better alignment.
rfootball Joined: Mar 05, 2002 Posts: 4	Posted: 2005-02-15 06:53 the problem can be that the facilitator of the feedback may be attempting to tell the participant what is wrong with them! that is not the role of the facilitator, their job is to present the information, asking though provoking questions and help the participant recogonize their developmental opportunities. another issue is the confidentiality aspects of the process, you must be clear on that from the beginning!
mikekestly Joined: Sep 21, 2004 Posts: 7	Posted: 2005-02-15 07:17 I have heard of "horror" stories about 360's, too. Usually the reasons are either because they were being done for the wrong reasons, or the pre-meetings/setup were not handled correctly. 360 feedback reports should be used for development purposes only. They should be part of a "process" - an ongoing 360 usage over years, not a one time event. The setup before, and the review out meetings after, are part of the key to the success of the 360 process. Having the manager review results with their boss, peers, and direct reports is vital to the development commitment. Comments that can be inserted can be a problem, in the beginning. If comments can be "turned off" for the first go around, this will eliminate the temptation to "take a shot" at the manager and reduce the positive developmental impact of the 360. Using a 3rd party to administer the 360 and most of the administrative functions, including reviews, may increase the likelyhood of success of the development program.
RonKatz Joined: Sep 13, 2001 Posts: 13	Posted: 2005-02-15 07:18 Lots of good advice. Allow me to add a thought from my experience. Be sure that the managers being evaluated have bought into the process. One sure way to deflate your organization is if managers who are rated accept only the positive feedback and dismiss any areas for improvement that are reported. Managers who only want to hear the good news need to be educated to the benefits of multi-rater feedback. A second thought, this process is not a one time event but a process that needs to be repeated. People won't change because of one round of 360. They need to know it is ongoing. And the first time you do it, only the manager being evaluated and his/her coach gets to see the results. In future rounds, the manager's direct reports should also see the outcomes. In this way, the manager will start to take it seriously because they will no longer be "playing with house money". Good luck! and I agree with jassia2002. We are cool because we tackle the difficult issues!
cchittero Joined: Jun 15, 2004 Posts: 3	Posted: 2005-02-15 07:29 All - Thank you very much for your responses. The good news is none of you had much bad news to share, so that encourages me that as long as we take a careful and positive approach with each person we should be okay. I appreciate the various suggestions offered, especially those relating to what happens after the results are shared. My view going into this agrees with those who wrote that the developmental process will have the biggest impact on how the 360 is perceived and remembered. We hope to make ours as positive as possible, using Marshall Goldsmith's "feedforward" approach as our foundation.
stachilles Joined: Feb 15, 2005 Posts: 3	Posted: 2005-02-15 07:37 In theory 360 sounds good but in practice it does not work well. Research by Watson Wyatt has indicated that it is an HR practice that is negatively correlated with performance. Given the various practices that can be implemented that have a positive impact on the company why bother with 360. If a company lacks good feedback to top level managers then maybe improved trust and communication should be the focus.

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )