Why 360-Degree Method of Employee Evaluation Would Fail in a UAE Organization - Research Proposal Example

Why the 360-degree method of employee evaluation would fail in a UAE organization January 8 2010 Why the 360-degree method of employee evaluation would fail in a UAE organization A number of companies in the world, including global brands such as Intel and Morgan Stanley combine various methods of performance appraisal information so that there is the creation of multirates- also known as the 360 degree appraisal and feedback system. These mean in essence that jobs are multifaceted and different people would automatically see different things or different aspects in any given job. The name signifies that the 306-degreee feedback mechanism is intended to provide employees with a view that is as accurate as can be possible with respect to the valuation of the employee and the company about the job and the employee overall. This would naturally require getting inputs from all the relevant aspects of the involved parties such as supervisors, peers, subordinates, customers and the like (Bohlander and Snell, 2009). Although in the beginning, the 360-degree systems were purely developmental and were restricted mainly to management and career development plans and programs, they have in the recent past been migrated to performance appraisal as well along with other administrative applications. The idea in this respect is the fact that because the system combines more information than a typical performance appraisal, it can become administratively complex, it is for this reason that organizations have recently begun the usage of software such as performance management software for the compilation and the aggregation of the relevant information and data. The aim of research would be to make a contribution to the literature of human resources and their management in the Middle east in general and UAE in particular given the fact that overall the area has found scant attention on research radar in the past few years. The idea would be inspect whether or not appraisal and culture are linked and impact upon performance. By questioning the traditional view of Middle Eastern practice the research raises interesting questions concerning the current status of managerial professionalism and efficacy in the area along with finding solutions on how best to approach the issue of implementation of an empirical method of employee evaluation in UAE. Performance Evaluation: Understanding reasons a and benefits:   In order to understand the significance of the research being undertaken it would be necessary that one understood in some detail the importance of institutionalizing a system of performance management and appraisal in any given organization at any particular moment in time. Performance appraisal is useful in as much as it provides useful information for diagnosing the organization’s level of functioning and for suggesting avenues for change. There is a substantial body of research and practice that has been undertaken over the years that has been aimed at the introduction of planned changes into the way organizations function and there is a growing concern that the key to successful organizational development is to change the on-the-job behaviors of individual members of the organization (Porras and Robertson, 1992).   Evaluation: The process and the ramifications Evaluation as a method is useful because it makes it clear that judgments about performances involve values as well as objective information. This in fact would be in congruence with the 360-degree method of judging performance because it would not just be judging performances but making all round evaluative choices about the kind of work that an employee puts in and the kind of place the he/she occupies within the organization.   360-degree performance evaluation and appraisal: The Method   The system of 360 degree performance evaluation is one that would at the end of the complete evaluation process provide the system with adequate knowledge and information with respect numerous sources and facets of the evaluation process- these would automatically include managers, peers, subordinates, and clients (Grote, 1996). The overall assessment is made on a one to four scale, with one representing one source of evaluation and four representing the maximum sources of evaluation. Bacon N A, Wilkinson A, Redman T, (2002) state that system of the 360 appraisal would take into account facts such as the technological levels of organization advancement. This would take into account categorical information on whether the organization is high tech. The information on Organizational Size would also be considered taking into consideration variable indicated the total number of employees in a given organization; the sector in which the organization is based -whether the organization belongs to the private or the public sector.   Performance appraisal can itself at times be an organizational development activity especially in cases where the new appraisal system is introduced. The better known discussion on the 360-degree method of performance appraisal has been discussed in some detail in a special issue of the Human Resource Management, 1993, Vol. 32, No.2 and 3. The use of appraisal and feedback systems that incorporate inputs from superiors, peers, and subordinates might change the organization and its functions in a number of fundamental ways. Traditionally, power, influence and evaluations in organizations flow from the top of the organizations down. In fact the ability to evaluate another’s performance is one of the key indicators of power and authority in an organization (Dornbusch and Scott, 1975). An organization that introduces the 360-degree appraisal and feedback mechanism of employee evaluation eliminates the network of power and authority in a manner that might substantially affect future interactions among peers, supervisors and subordinates. The fact of the matter would therefore remain that in case the power to evaluate and judge a subordinate is taken out of a superior’s hand, then the flow of work within the organization becomes easier and the manner of interaction becomes more relaxed. This happens because of the fact that the juniors know that they would be evaluated on merit and not on the bases of the more subjective nature of perceptions that would characterize a supervisor’s evaluation of their respective performances. The most basic implication of the system of evaluation would therefore be that the distinctions between the levels of authority in an a=organization are likely to break down, at least to some extent. These may also lead to ongoing changes in the structure of work in the organization having a ripple effect on the creation of more permeable barriers between levels of authority and to less emphasis on hierarchical differentiations in organizations. Changing the performance appraisal system could be one of the most basic methods of breaking down those barriers.     Reasons for the adoption of the 360-degree method of performance appraisal The ubiquitous dissatisfaction with conventional appraisal has generated a major movement toward the multi-rater system of employee evaluations as the 360-degree method is better known. In 1992 alone, employees invested an estimated $152 million on multi source feedback processes. Hopes of greater objectivity, lesser doubts and fairer appraisals ignited this popularity. The 360-degree appraisal attempts to provide the receiver with feedback from everyone he or she works with-direct reports, peers, superiors, co-workers, internal and external customers, suppliers and others. As Peter Scholtes says “it is like putting yourself in the middle of a lazy Susan and spinning yourself round”. The underlying belief is that conventional appraisal has failed because the supervisor as a rater, is not objective or sufficiently knowledgeable to provide accurate feedback. In case others are involved, the 360-theory goes, the feedback will be more objective and provide a broader base of information.  Literature Review: The literature review would be focused on providing a summary on that work that has already been done in the context of the issue- this would be inclusive of the stuff already known about. This in turn would be done by collecting sources and making a synthesis of the matter that has already been collected. Ideally the hypothesis in its expanded form would help in ensuring that there is a the creation of the research based on perspective scientifically. The review would be ‘systematic’ review in as much as it would make major attempts at ensuring that most relevant sources, published and unpublished found places. Details of the search strategies used and the criteria for inclusion must be made clear.  A systematic review will often make a quantitative synthesis of the results of all the studies, for example by meta-analysis. The greatest problem that the research would have to focus in the long term is the fact that there is no real research as far as the problems and its intricacies are concerned. There have been numerous new reports available about issue of 360-degree feedback and the fact that there are no real systemeatic systems of HR management in the UAE but linkages between the two soecific topics are hard to find. There has been a considerable amount of attention paid to the concepts of the 360-degree method of feedback, in which information from self evaluation, supervisors, peers and subordinates is used as a source of developmental feedback. As stated earlier, one of the better accepted researches in the area are codified in the Human Resource Management Journal special 1993 special issues (Vol. 32, No. 2 and 3). Although this type of feedback is usually considered distinct from the formal performance appraisal system, research on this feedback method has obvious implications for performance appraisal systems that incorporate multiple sources of information. Tornow (1993), notes that disagreement among sources is both common and expected. After all, if peers, supervisors, subordinate and so forth all have the same things to say about everyone there would probably be little value I obtaining information from all sources. The implications of this disagreement might be different thought, when the information is used for feedback as opposed to it being used for the sole purpose of evaluation. In a feedback session, this disagreement is evidence of the fact that different perspectives on your behavior yield different types of information (Murphy and Cleveland, 1995). Thus in this context, this disagreement represents an opportunity to obtain new and different information. In the context of a formal performance appraisal, this disagreement represents a problem to be solved. Even if one was to average away the differences he fact that sources disagree means that no single source is right and that the average of ratings from multiple sources might incorporate information that the organization decides is wrong (e.g., inflated self-ratings). One of the biggest surprises that one would encounter as far as the research that has been conducted in the 360-degree feedback mechanism system is concerned is the apparent lack of concern with violations of the organizational hierarchy. Top-down evaluations are one of the primary defining features of hierarchical organizations and violations of this principle (like the use of subordinate ratings) should be able to be representative of a serious problem. Research on reactions to upward feedback suggests that reactions are not necessarily negative (Bernardin, Dahmus and Redmon, 1993; Hautaluoma, Jobe, Visser and Donkersgoed, 1993). However, this research also suggests that the administrative details of upward feedback can substantially affect the acceptance of feedback from subordinates. Bernardin et. Al., (1993) showed that supervisors were generally favorable to upward feedback but that they were much less supportive when inputs from subordinates was the only source if performance information and feedback. Hautaluoma (199) studied reactions to several methods of collecting and communicating feedback reactions to several methods of collecting and communicating feedback from subordinates to supervisors. Each of the several variations on an upward feedback policy was seen as presenting both risks and benefits, but on the whole attitudes were reasonably positive toward such feedback. A feedback system in which subordinates presented upward feedback as group (as opposed to one-on-one interactions with their supervisors would therefore naturally be seen as being a lot less risky). Any given performance appraisal system would therefore naturally be a lot more effective if it were to consider the details and background in an al round multi faceted manner rather than focusing on information provided by single sources. This would automatically therefore mean that in a culture that would allow for the responsibility of powers and evaluation to be decentralized and the structure of hierarchy to be flexible and malleable to change. This translated would mean that the usage of multiple sources is always a lot more effective in scenarios where information from non traditional sources is balanced with the more familiar top-down methods of evaluations and if inputs nontraditional sources is presented in a more aggregated form rather than as individual observations and assertions. Thus the overall principle of the 360-degree mechanism of performance evaluation violates the general principle of evaluation flowing downward. The second most important aspect of the research is the work appraisal and evaluation culture that is prevalent in UAE. In this context the most effective research that one could find is one by Beherey and Paton (2008). The paper entitled, Performance appraisal-cultural fit: organizational outcomes within the UAE, seeked to underline and clarify within the UAE, the culture of performance appraisal and associated outcomes. The research was built upon literature review that was mainly Western in its characteristics so that a parallel could be drawn between the western methods of appraisal with the manner in which it was carried out in UAE. The idea in essence was to develop the case for aligning culture with appraisal to meet stakeholder expectations.  The researchers used a research design wherein a sample of managers was drawn from the Chamber of Commerce listing. The idea was to list the views that the managers would have on the levels to which the various appraisal approaches would have their empathy and their support. This would basically mean that all opinions relating to organizational outcomes associated with the appraisal, combined with an exploration of culture issues, were canvassed.  The results of the study are significant given the fact that they suggest that the kind of commitment that a manager would have for a given appraisal procedure would always find influence by the extent to which an employee perceives a personal organizational “fit”; an employee's job satisfaction maybe positively linked to the extent to which they consider appraisal and culture to be aligned; and, there was an unexpected neutral effect relating to the impact of national culture.  Bernardin, Dahmus, & Redmon (1993) found that 56 per cent of the managers that believed and accepted the fact that an appraisal had a better chance of being correct if it was carried out by a subordinate than by a supervisor with respect to performance accuracy. It was also found that most executives were in favor of subordinate appraisals when they received superior appraisals as well. This indicates a strong support for multiple source feedback systems. Having another rating source may have minimized the managers' concerns over the perceived detrimental effects of subordinate appraisals. Bernardin & Beatty (1987) also completed a review of the effectiveness of subordinate appraisals in five large organizations. The organizations they chose were IBM, RCA, Syntex, Libby-Owens-Ford and the Highway Patrol. In all of these organizations what one found was that there was great success with subordinate appraisal. IBM reports more employee involvement and job satisfaction, and RCA reported that 94% of their managers preferred the multiple source feedback approach. The researchers, thus, conducted a study to determine which areas of managerial behavior subordinates should evaluate. A large sample of managers were asked to rate on a five-point scale the extent that they themselves and their subordinates were qualified to assess ten supervisory dimensions. Overall, subordinates received moderately high ratings on eight out of ten dimensions. In fact, managers considered subordinates to be better evaluators of their leadership and information disseminator skills than they were themselves. Method of data collection and data analysis The method of data collection that the research will seek to utilize is that of the Quantitative data collection method, this method in essence is reliant on random sampling and structured data collection instruments. Most of these methods are tailored so that they are able to fit dissimilar and varied facts and experiences into response categories. The idea would be to provide results that could be easy to summarize, compare, and generalize.              The idea behind the method of data collect ion would be ensure that the hypothesis that has been arrived at in the earlier part of the research cold be proved in the most scientific manner possible so that one could test hypotheses derived from theory and estimate size of the phenomenon.  Given the details of our research question we will identify three very clear aspect of the quantitative method of data collection and utilize these so that our hypothesis could be proved. In case this does not work, we will collect data on participant and situational characteristics in order to statistically control for their influence on the dependent, or outcome, variable. Theoretically, the major types of quantitative data gathering strategies are as follows: Experiments/clinical trials Observing and recording well-defined events (e.g., counting the number of patients waiting in emergency at specified times of the day). Obtaining relevant data from management information systems. Administering surveys with closed-ended questions (e.g., face-to face and telephone interviews, questionnaires etc).   The questionnaire that we will has been instituted for the purpose of research will take three basic forms: 1.      Paper-pencil-questionnaire- This would be sent to many people and would save the researcher a lot of resources in terms of the amount of time and money invested on research. There would also be the advantage that most people are more honest whilst answering the questionnaires even in this scenario-which is a little controversial because of the fact that they could be assured that anonymity would be maintained. The basic drawback that the research would face as a result of this method is that  a number of people who would receive the questionnaire would not answer or even return them and those who do might not be representative of the originally selected sample.(Leedy and Ormrod, 2001) 2.      Web based questionnaires : A new and inevitably growing methodology is the use of Internet based research. This would mean receiving an e-mail on which you would click on an address that would take you to a secure web-site to fill in a questionnaire. This type of research is often quicker and less detailed. Some disadvantages of this method include the exclusion of people who do not have a computer or are unable to access a computer. Also the validity of such surveys are in question as people might be in a hurry to complete it and so might not give accurate responses. Questionnaires often make use of Checklist and rating scales. These devices help simplify and quantify people's behaviors and attitudes. A checklist is a list of behaviors, characteristics, or other entities that the researcher is looking for. Either the researcher or survey participant simply checks whether each item on the list is observed, present or true or vice versa. A rating scale is more useful when a behavior needs to be evaluated on a continuum. They are also known as Likert scales. (Leedy and Ormrod, 2001)   The questionnaire: How many employees of your organization are expatriates? 1. 80-100% 2. 50-80% 3. 10-50%   How many of the expatriate workers are temporary? 1.  80-100% 2. 50-80% 3. 10-50%   How scientific is the method of appraisal that your organization follows? 1. Very scientific 2. Average 3. Not scientific at all   How open is your organization to hierarchical change? 1. very open 2. Little open 3. Not agreeable at all   Which of the following is the primary aim for appraisal in your organization? 1. Pay-scale revision 2. Yearly practice 3. Feedback and evaluation mechanism       In conclusion, one can state that based ion the findings of the research undertaken through a method of questionnaires and surveys, there are a number of very basic obstructions to the successful implementation of the 360-degree method of employee appraisal and evaluation that the UAE needs to contend with. Based on the answers that were derived from this questionnaire one would arrive at some sort of conclusion as to why there the 36—degree method of employee evaluation and appraisal has not and would not really find flavor in any given organization located in UAE. The questionnaire was posed to over 20 individuals and managers employed across 3 organizations in Dubai. When asked about the percentage of expatriates that the organization employed a number as high as 14 said that over 80 per cent of the employees in their organization were expatriates. It was also recorded that almost 50 per cent of the expatriate workers were temporary. Before last year’s credit crunch, Dubai and the rest of the United Arab Emirates were estimated at the end of 2007 to have a population of 6.4 million people – of whom 5.5 million were foreigners. It was also found that 67 per cent of the respondents stated that there were high chances that their organizations would not be malleable to a down-top method of appraisal and the their was little to no chance that there would ever be an institutionalization of the subordinate method of appraisal. More than three million were registered with the ministry of labor as workers, when Dubai was still racing to build enormous shopping centers and business districts. It can also be concluded from the data that has been drawn that because of the fact that much of the work force that operates out of UAE in general consists of temporary expatriate workers who have no interests in a proper or comprehensive process of appraisal. This in turn would relate to the owners of the business as well who would not wish to invest resources and efforts in a process of feedback and evaluation of employees who would mostly be temporary in their nature. The government too would not be interested in following rigorous processes of feedback in the context of employees that are not citizens of the country but mostly foreigners. The second basic problem is that given the fact that much of the business is owned by the Arabs and the locals, there is little to no hope of there ever being change in the hierarchical structure of the organization in terms of pay scale decisions and the appraisal of work that is done by employees,. The socio-cultural background of the country is such that it promotes the reinforcement of ownership and workforce hierarchy rather than dissolution of the same. Promotions are even till date based on birth and relations more than merit given the context of the fact that much of the Arab world values the concept of family over the concept of professionalism and empiricism at the workplace. .   Recommendations: The first negotiation that becomes relevant in this case is that there be allowed a greater scope for negotiations for the subordinates and they be given a better say in the kind of decisions that would taken in the process of appraisals. Negotiating the expected levels of productivity with respect to benchmarking against industry standards and the host nation's norms (which may conflict with those previously experienced by the impatriates) may help adjustment. . Supervisory controls and the standards and types of controls vary from industry to industry and from country to country. These expectations would need to be standardized as far as organizational methods of undertaking appraisals are concerned. Job specifications, which may vary even in tightly organised sectors and in mature industries would have to be better spelt out. This would therefore mean that the process of appraisal would have a fall back system and a scope of comparison in terms of employee performance rather than it being dependant on the whims of a superior. Organisations form their own cultures, which in turn create unique styles of conduct and may become a source of competitive advantage. Fitting newcomers into a culture is a challenge to any institution, more so for temporary foreigners. Thus one would have to ensure that expatriates feel like they are part of the organization instead of tem being temporary guests.  References: Data collection methods, accessed January 7, 2010, http://people.uwec.edu/piercech/ResearchMethods/Data%20collection%20methods/DATA%20COLLECTION%20METHODS.htm Leedy and Ormrod, 2001, Practical Research: Planning and Design, (8th Edition), pub, Prentice hall Coxon A P, 1999, Sorting data: collection and analysis, pub, sage Publications, pp20-27 Managing Impatriates to UAE, accessed January 8, 2010, Dubai faces gradual exodus of expatriate workers, accessed January 7, 2010, Read More