360-Degree Appraisal System - Example

Name Institution Instructor Course Class Date 360 Degree Feedback What issues might managers expect when using the 360-degree performance appraisal and how can these issues be dealt with appropriately? Abstract In order to ensure that 360-degree appraisal system achieves its goals, which is the identification of strengths and weaknesses of participants, it is crucial that the process collects accurate data from raters. However, low validity of data collected, which undermines the validity and reliability of the system, is the main issue facing the process. This article discusses issues that managers might expect when using the performance evaluation system. Some of the sources of this problem (low validity and reliability) include use of inappropriate tool for the company and the items (values, behaviours, and capabilities) of interest, undue influence on raters from participants (people whose performance is being appraised) and social pressure, which encourages raters to give positive feedback while being reluctant to rate negatively. Recommended strategies for dealing with these issues include having a clear goal of the appraisal process that should be linked with the broader strategic agenda, using a professionally designed and tailor made data collection tool as opposed to over-the-counter prescriptions, and involving stakeholders especially by making the goal clear to them. Another strategy includes assuring raters that their responses will be dealt with in an anonymous and confidential manner. Introduction Evaluation and performance appraisal form a core part of professional and career development. Modern day organisations have realised that the human resource is not only an asset but also a core part of the business that determines its failure or success. Three hundred and sixty degree feedback is one of and the most common evaluation method. It provides feedback from all directions (3600) thereby giving employees, managers, and leaders an excellent opportunity to understand their strengths and weaknesses (Hafford-Letchfield & Bourn 497). The process begins with identification of key success factors in the areas of leadership and management. These include behaviours that the organisation believes that if enhanced or adopted throughout the organisation will lead to improved performance (Ghorpade 145). Next, the institution prepares evaluation forms that followers, peers, superiors, and customers use to rate every manager taking part in the evaluation/improvement program. The evaluation is usually unanimous although this may not be possible in instances where only one person belongs to a given group. For instance, unless a manager/leader is under more than one boss, which is usually not the case, unanimous evaluation of the superior is impossible. Once evaluation forms have been submitted, the evaluation team prepares a report for every manager/leader, which the team presents to the manager. In most cases, the report presents average score for every group of raters (Reissig 30). Therefore, the appraisal report outlines developmental needs or opportunities. It also highlights strengths in the form of behaviour, skills, and capabilities that a person should maximise on or which other people should develop for improved performance. When used properly, 360-degrees performance appraisal can help a manager to improve on areas that might be preventing him/her from performing optimally. It can also be of immense importance to team members who might be struggling to work collaboratively. However, if done poorly, it may have devastating effects including creation of mistrust, conflict, and anger, which might lead to reduced performance. The section that follows discusses issues might managers expect when using the 360-degree performance appraisal. Strategies for dealing with the identified issues are also discussed in terms of recommendations. Issues Associated with 360-Degree Performance Appraisal: Literature Review Certain issues affect the quality of 360-degree program especially in achieving its core goal, which is provision of the true picture of the person being evaluated. Tee and Ahmed highlight six core elements of a 360-degree feedback system. They include social pressure, quantity, quality, timing, communication, and reflection (Tee & Ahmed 582). According to Lawrence, factors that a manager should consider when designing and implementing a 360-degree appraisal program include tool, purpose, riming, debriefing participants, rater selection, stakeholder engagement, and ongoing support (5-7). Managers must check these factors and issues critically, and balanced them accordingly. If properly observed, these elements can result to accurate appraisal and consequent improvement of a person’s performance. The main issue facing 360-degree feedback is about the validity of data collected and hence the results of the evaluation. In order to understand this issue clearly, it is worth discussing validity in detail. Phelan and Wren define validity as the degree with which a test measures what it was supposed to measure. In more basic terms, validity is the extent to which a test gives a true measure. For example, if a measuring scale is set off by 10 centimeters, it means that every time it is used, it will be providing an excess length by the offset value. Although it is reliable because it gives the same value consistently, it is not valid because it fails to give the true length. Notable factors that affect validity include time effect, methodology for data collection, research environment, sampling procedure, researcher effects, and characteristics of the population (Catano et al. 49). Three hundred and sixty degree feedback is a type of research involving data collection on various performance aspects. Consequently, the issue of validity as explained here is a notable issue. Indeed, Fletcher and colleagues (77) notes that 360-degree appraisal programs often suffer low validity such that they end up being useless and a mere waste of time and resources. They fail to measure the intended item. In that case, the entire program becomes useless. One of the causes of low validity of the program is failure to select and design an appropriate tool that captures required data accurately. This problem is related to methodology as a factor of validity. It is crucial to select a 360 degree feedback tool that measures all the items deemed relevant to skills, competencies, values, and behaviours that are believed to be relevant for managers, leaders, and employees (Tee & Ahmed 583). Characteristics of a good data collection instrument include having a clear rating scale, does not have confronting wording, and customised to a particular organisation and rating group (Tee & Ahmed 582). However, in a study conducted by Lawrence, it was found that a significant number of firms use off-the shelf tools, which fail to collect relevant and adequate data for the respective organisation. Eventually, the tool fails to measure what it was supposed to evaluate rendering the entire program ineffective. There is a number of reasons behind failure to use the most appropriate tool. Lawrence feels that the genesis of this problem is lack of a clear understanding of 360-degrees feedback whereby organisations simply implement it because they hear that other better performing firms have done so. Consequently, in accordance with Ghorpade, such firms apply the program without a clear goal in mind. Having a clear objective is the most important success factor in performing 360-degree appraisal (Hafford-Letchfield & Bourn 498). When the evaluating team fails to set and communicate the appraisal goal, the implementation plan is compromised and there are no clear criteria for designing the tool. In that case, any data collection tool (survey) is usable. Another serious threat to validity of data and results of the appraisal is the interaction between raters and those whose performance is being assessed. Tee and Ahmed call it social pressure. Research shows that group pressure exerts a strong influence on the behaviour of an individual member (Ghorpade 145). In the workplace environment, strong social ties between employees may discourage them from giving accurate data about their colleagues especially if their peers perform poorly on areas under consideration. In fact, they may tend to rate fellows fairly (giving wrong ratings) (Ghorpade 146). This scenario occurs when workers believe that appraisal data shall be used to punish non-performers (Tee & Ahmed 582). Even if anonymity and confidentiality are promised, employees within strong social ties feel that they are responsible for safeguarding their mates (Hafford-Letchfield & Bourn 498). Consequently, they will hesitate to provide accurate data. On the other hand, enmity in the workplace may lead to raters giving unfairly low rates to people with whom they do not get along well (Reissig 30). For example, if team members do not like a certain leader perhaps because they feel he/she is harsh, they will award him poor scores on vital areas hoping that dismal performance will lead to his/her employment termination or demotion. Colleagues and superiors may also use the performance appraisal as an opportunity to get rid of those who get in their way and prevent them from achieving selfish goals. People being rated may also be the masterminds of wrongful use of the process. One of the notable risks associated with 360-degree appraisal process was associated with rater selection (Lawrence 6). In particular, managers and leaders were highly likely to select raters (friends) who would give them positive feedback (Ghorpade 145). Perhaps the main reason behind this is the belief that performance appraisal is only meant to demote or promote employees since this has traditionally been the use of employee evaluation results (Hafford-Letchfield & Bourn 498).The resultant would be collection of inaccurate data that lowers the validity of process results hence trashing its importance. It then becomes extremely difficult to get accurate picture of workforce strengths and weaknesses such that attempt to invest in human resource development in order to address identified weaknesses would not bear fruits. Recommendations Validity of data collected and hence results of the appraisal process has been found to be the main issue affecting 360-degree performance appraisal process. This section provides recommendations on how managers can address the various validity issues that have been identified in order to ensure that the appraisal process provides accurate data that will then be used to improve employee and consequently organisational performance. Managers can increase validity of 360-degree programs by improving on data collection. Firstly, they should have clear goals for the performance appraisal, which should specify values, behaviours, and capabilities that they intend to assess. This clarity helps in customising the data collection tool, mostly questionnaire, to capture just that and consequently collect as much data as possible (Reissig 30-31). Then, the management should communicate the stated goal to all the relevant stakeholders especially people being rated and those filling assessment forms. When communicating the goal/objectives, managers should link appraisal with the broader strategic agenda so that people are motivated to support it by providing accurate data (Tee & Ahmed 582). Failure to communicate a clear goal makes people uneasy and suspicious. They may stage efforts to undermine the process. For example, if team leaders think that the assessment is purposed to get rid of ineffective leaders, they may influence rating from their subordinates. Eventually, the program fails to accurately identify development areas to make such leaders more effective in their work. Hence, it fails to achieve its desired goal. Managers can address the problem of raters giving inaccurate rates by communicating goals of the performance appraisal clearly to dispel fear that notable weakness will lead to punishment. In doing so, they would be encouraging raters to give accurate data that will be used to develop employees’ performance and hence the performance of the entire organisation (Davies et al. 1016-1018). Another strategy for addressing this issue and hence increasing validity is through effective rater selection. Literature supports the idea that managers should select people who have an in-depth knowledge of the person whose performance is under appraisal (Hafford-Letchfield & Bourn 498). This knowledge should be based on prolonged observance of the person being rated (Wood et al. 178). In addition, participants should approve raters being selected (Ghorpade 146). However, the second strategy is highly questionable because participants may fail to approve neutral raters. Giving participants the power to approve raters gives them the opportunity to influence for the selection of participants they know will provide positive feedback. A better recommendation would be to let raters know the purpose of the appraisal especially in the way it will help the organisation improve its performance. In addition, the appraisal team should assure raters that their responses would be treated with anonymity and utmost confidentiality. In doing so, raters dispel fear that there will be enmity with participants in case appraisal results show dismal performance of the participant. Conclusion In general, the primary objective of 360-degree performance appraisal is to identify strength and weak areas in participants. If used properly, this performance evaluation process can greatly help organisations to improve their performance through workforce development. In particular, properly designed and executed 360-degree feedback system identifies improvement opportunities in employees, managers, and leaders, which when exploited would lead to improved performance. However, the process faces serious challenge with validity of data collected and hence its findings, which may make it useless and simply a waste of company resources. Sources of low validity include lack of clear goal, use of inappropriate data collection tool/methodology, and social pressure. Managers can address these issues by having a clear goal that is known to all stakeholders (raters and participants). In addition, using a properly tailor-made data collection that collects only the relevant data to help achieve the stated goal and assuring raters of anonymity and confidentiality would help in collecting accurate data. Works Cited Catano, Victor M., Wiesner, Willi H., Hackett, Rick D and Methot, Laura L. Recruitment and selection in Canada, fourth edition. Cengage Education, Inc. 2009, Print. Davies, Helena., Archer, Julian., Bateman, Adrian., Dewar, Sandra., Crossley, Jim., Grant, Janet and Southgate, Lesley. “Specialty-specific multi-source feedback: assuring validity, informing training.” Medical Education, 42.10(2008), 1014-1020. Fletcher, Clive. Appraisal, feedback and development: Making performance review work, fourth edition. London: Routledge. Ghorpade, Jai. “Managing five paradoxes of 360-degree feedback.” Academy of Management Executive, 14.1(2000), 140-150. Hafford-Letchfield, Trish and Bourn, Diana. “‘How Am I Doing?’: Advancing Management Skills Through the Use of a Multi-source Feedback Tool to Enhance Work-based Learning on a Post-qualifying Post-graduate Leadership and Management Programme.” Social Work Education, 30.5(2011), 497-511. Lawrence, Paul. Building great 360 feedback programs. Sydney, Australia: Training & Development. 2015. Print. Phelan, Colin and Wren, Julie. Exploring reliability in academic assessment. Web. 2016. Accessed April 11, 2016. Reissig, Steven. “360-degree feedback.” British Journal of Administrative Management, 75(2011), 30-31. Tee, Ding D and Ahmed, Pervaiz K. “360 degree feedback: An integrative framework for learning and assessment.” Teaching in Higher Education, 19.6(2014), 579-591. Wood, Laurence., Wall, David., Bullock, Alison., Hassell, Andrew., Whitehouse, Andrew and Campbell, Ian. “'Team observation': a six-year study of the development and use of multi-source feedback (360-degree assessment) in obstetrics and gynaecology training in the UK.” Medical Teacher, 28.7(2006), 177-184. Read More