360 Degree

Performance Appraisal

What it is
What it is not
Is it appropriate for your organization?
How do you implement it?
 Overview
 Definition
 Key Features
 Appropriate Uses
 Inappropriate Uses
 Pros and Cons
 Support For Use
 Is The Environment Appropriate?
 Key Features
 Implementation
 Participants
 Web Resources
Definition
 Evaluation tool that utilizes opinions of
many different people that interact with the
employee on a routine basis3
 Generates more accurate feedback by
“gathering information from people about
an individual’s performance as seen by the
standards and expectations of their boss,
self, peers, direct reports, and customers.”
 Key Features
 Usually based on a questionnaire, possibly web-based
 Choosing Appraisers
– Done by the individual employee
– Done by HR
– Done randomly
 Feedback is usually anonymous
 Appraisal is normally followed up with actions for
individual improvement and development
 Not to be used for decision-making, only purpose is for
employee growth
 Utilizes many stakeholders inside, and outside of, the
organization
Appropriate Uses
 Employee Development
 Employee Coaching
 Validate personal opinion of one’s self (or not)
 Starting point for personal development plan
 Seeking objective information, such as determining
employee knowledge, skills, and behavior, not
personality traits
 Benchmark individual performance against peer
group
 Provide a broader view of the employee’s
performance
Inappropriate Uses
 Rarely linked to decisions on pay
 Not recommended for promotion decisions
 Should not be a heavy determinant in bonus
awards
 In small organizations where anonymity is
unlikely or there are a lack of enough peers
and direct reports to reduce outlying
opinions
Pros and Cons
 Pros  Cons
– Combined opinions – Administratively
more accurate burdensome
– Colleague comments – Results can be difficult
tend to carry weight to interpret
– Some skills are best – Feedback can de
judged by peers and not damaging unless
management handled appropriately
– Increases motivation of – Can generate an
employees environment of
– Helps engender a more suspicion and cynicism if
honest organizational not managed opened
culture and honestly
Support For Use
 US Office of Personnel Management supports research
that shows “assessment approaches with multiple
rating sources provide more accurate, reliable, and
credible information”
 Spencer and Morrow indicate that 360-degree
feedback systems could yield a Return on Investment
as high as 700 percent
 In 1997, 8% of companies used 360°, increased to
10% by 2000
 Current posted information at
[Link] states that nearly all
Fortune 1000 companies have either already
implemented a 360 degree approach or plan to shortly
 Is The Environment
Appropriate?
 Ask yourself the following questions:
– What is the desired outcome of the feedback?
– Do we have enough raters?
– Is this applicable to all of our employees or an
employee group?
– Are our employees mature enough to handle
the feedback and to give feedback?
– Is there openness and trust between
supervisors and their direct reports?
 Is The Environment
Appropriate?
 More questions to ask yourself
– Are our employees and “managers willing to
listen and learn and to effect any necessary
changes as a result?”
– Are we willing to devote the time and energy
to make this system work? (It won’t work
unless everyone in the organization is on
board from the “get-go”)
– What do we want to do with the information
that is gained? Help the employees grow or
are we looking for a way to determine pay
and promotion?
Implementation
 Build credibility early on by seeking input from all
levels of the organization; use this input to craft the
feedback tool
 Ensure the employees that this will not be used to
determine pay, promotion, or bonus
 Instill in management that this tool is to assist
them in coaching their direct reports to grow in all
aspects of their professional responsibilities
 Seek outside professional help to ensure smooth
implementation
 Train appraisers to be constructive, positive, and
specific with their feedback
Implementation
 [Link] 9 Step Process
– Determine organizational readiness
– Develop an appropriate survey and process given
organizational needs and objectives
– Generate enthusiasm among key decision makers and
participants
– Ensure that participants and managers have the skills to
support the process
– Provide an orientation briefing
– Administer the survey
– Coach participants in one-on-one meetings
– Provide organizational summary data
– Re-conduct the survey (in four to six months)
Participants

 Superiors
 Peers
 Direct Reports
 Customers
 Self
Participants
The following slides outline the pros and cautions
associated with each participant in 360 Degree
Appraisal process. There may be occasions when
one source or another may not be chosen to
participate.
For each individual being appraised, specific groups
should be chosen to ensure that the feedback is
appropriate and that a plan for improvement can be
generated for the employee.
A pro is something that is a positive outcome from that
specific group. A caution is not something that is
necessarily negative but must be monitored so that it
does not create a negative situation for all involved.
Superiors
 Pros  Cautions
– First-line supervisors – Relying solely on
often in best position to superiors reduces
carry out full cycle validity of performance
performance feedback
management – Superiors may not be in
– Superiors have authority same location as
to redesign an employee, preventing
employees work based them from having
on individual and team hands-on knowledge of
performance the employee’s
– Most Federal employees performance
think that best ratings – Training may be lacking
come from first-line on appropriate methods
supervisors of evaluation
 Peers1
 Pros
– Peer pressure and peer approval more effective
motivators than supervisors
– Peer ratings have proven to be excellent predictors of
future performance
– Peer ratings remarkably valid and reliable in rating
behaviors and manner of performance
– Peer ratings tend to average out bias from other
groups in the rating process
– Increased use of self-directed team encourages use
of peer evaluation
– Peer ratings help move supervisors into a coaching
role as opposed to a pure judging role
Peers
 Cautions
– Should not be used to determine pay, bonuses, or
promotions (creates animosity and prevents truthful
responses from peers)
– Do not divulge the names of those providing feedback; in
general anonymity is preferred to prevent animosity and
generate truthful responses
– Choose the peers wisely; don’t choose at random-the
peers must be very familiar with the work requirements
and performance
– Can be very time consuming for peers to participate
– Can cause tension among employees and breakdown of
teams
– Ensure employee involvement in creation; otherwise no
buy-in will be achieved from employees or their
representatives
 Direct Reports
 Pros  Cautions
– Gives supervisors a more – Need for anonymity is essential; if
comprehensive picture of not anonymous, reprisal from
employee needs & issues
supervisors is likely
– Makes employees feel that
they have a greater voice in – Supervisors may feel that authority
organizational decision making is undermined when they must
– Extremely effective in take into consideration that their
evaluating supervisor’s employees are rating them
interpersonal skills – Allow only direct reports with at
– Combine direct report ratings least a one year relationship with
to achieve an average rating; the supervisor and no disciplinary
adds validity and reliability action to comment
– Supervisors are more – If undergoing downsizing or
responsive to direct report
feedback, creating more reorganization, carefully weigh the
effective managers need for direct reports in the
process; may add fuel to the fire
Customers
 Pros  Cautions
– Serves as “anchor” for all – Only ask customers to
other performance factors evaluate outputs, not
– Combined with peer processes; they can’t
evaluation, these data always see the entire
round out feedback and process
focus attention beyond – Customer feedback process
only serving the is time consuming; focus
supervisor’s needs this time on “big picture”
– Ensures that the items
employees concentrate – Don’t ask the customer to
their attention on the evaluate a single
customer as the customer employee, unless the
will have some say with customer has a direct
regards to their feedback relationship with the
employee
Self
 Cautions
 Pros – Research indicates “low
– Improves communication correlation between self-
between supervisor and ratings and all other
employee sources of ratings,
particularly supervisor
– Particularly useful if entire ratings”
cycle focuses on self-
assessment; forces – Self ratings are consistently
individual to keep track of higher than other ratings
successes and failures – If supervisors do not use
– Develops ability to see one’s appropriate feedback skills,
self for what they really are the fact that a self-rating is
– Allows supervisor to have higher than the
better handle on supervisor’s may cause
performance when it can alienation and
not always be observed defensiveness
Web Resources

 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 Closing Thought
This is a performance development tool!

“In working with organizations, one of the biggest fears people have
is that a group of anonymous people will determine their raises,
promotions, and standing. I am a strong proponent of introducing
360 degree feedback as a developmental tool for individuals.

In a performance development environment, the question of