360 Degree Feedback Appraisal, Strengths & Weaknesses of 360 Degreed feedback
360 Degree Feedback Appraisal
360 degree feedback is also known as full-circle appraisal, multi-rater feedback, multi-source feedback, upwards feedback, group performance review, 360 degree appraisal, 540 degree feedback, all-round feedback, and peer appraisal. (Kanaslan EK & Iyem C, 2016).
According to Ward (2004) all these terms convey the same meaning.
Lepsinger and Lucia define 360 degree feedback method as ‘the feedback process which involves collecting perceptions about a person’s behavior and the impact of that behavior.
From the person’s boss or bosses, direct reports, colleagues, fellow members of project teams, internal and external customers, and suppliers’ (Lepsinger and Lucia, 1997). The authors claim that 360 degree feedback and the feedback from various raters are used as synonyms.
There are two common uses of the 360 degree feedback implementation – these are development and appraising and performance management purposes (Atwater et al, 2007; Atwater and Waldman, 1998; Ward, 2004; Tyson and Ward, 2004).
It has been acknowledged that most multi-source feedback techniques have been used with a development emphasis (Fletcher, 2001).
Furthermore, it may be argued that multi-rater feedback practices provide the best results when they are utilized for development rather than performance ratings (Atwater et al., 2007); most research declares that 360 degree approaches provide beneficial results when used for performance evaluating purposes (Ward, 2004; Lepsinger and Lucia, 1997; Gallagher, 2008; Dowling et al, 2008; Carter et al, 2005)
Strengths and Weaknesses of 360 Degree Feedback
Strengths
One suggestion is that multi-rater feedback approach strengthens the contact between the raters and the ratees (Gallagher, 2008). Another positive aspect of multi-source feedback is that by evaluating their boss, raters may feel empowered (Alimo-Metcalfe, 2003).
Opportunity of rating their boss may give employees the experience of power and right to speak. Multi-rater feedback systems provide high quality feedback and are used for performance coaching (Atwater et al., 2007). Feedback from various sources provides more reliable information in order to inform the receivers about the level of their performance
It is declared by Gallagher that multi-rater feedback system leads managers to draw a clear frame of employee strengths and weaknesses; it reveals the ‘blind spots’ of receiver performance (Gallagher, 2008).
Atwater and colleagues (2007) propose that 360 degree feedback practice may diagnose misalignment between internal and external stakeholders. That may lead to communication between them. Deci and Ryan (1985) illustrate that recognition of good performance may improve perceived competence of employees and following that it may enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985; cited by Kuvaas, 2007, pp.381).
Gitlespie and Parry (2006) carried out a literature review and found that 360 degree feedback implementations lead to team interactions. 360 degree feedback provides the opportunity for employees to evaluate themselves and the way other people work with them evaluate their behaviour (Rohan-Jones, 2004).
Heathfield (2001) claims that multi-sourced feedback decreases gender, race and age discrimination. Another positive effect of 360 degree feedback is provision of legal protection (Carter et al., 2005; Gitlespie and Parry, 2006)
Weaknesses
Multi-rater feedback implementation requires a substantial amount of cost (Rohan-Jones, 2004; Ward, 2004; Nickols, 2007). This fact may be seen as a limitation of 360 degree feedback implementation. Levy and Albright (1995) illustrated that multiple feedbacks may cause discrepancies as a result of multiple raters.
There has been a criticism about a free choice of respondents which claims that receivers are likely to choose the raters who are close to them and who like them (Ward, 2004).
Another negative aspect about 360 degree feedback is the threat of negative emphasis of receiver performance (Ward, 2004). The facilitators or the managers, who apply the multi rater feedback tool, may focus on the weakness of the appraisees’ performance.
Ward (2004) proposes that there may be some difficulties for appraising managers with their new responsibilities and the details that they have to manage. As was set out in the previous sections, 360 degree feedback approach itself is as important as the gathered feedback; therefore managers have to follow the process carefully and that adds more work to their jobs.
List of references
Ø Alimo-Metcalfe B, 1998. 360 Degree Feedback and Leadership Development. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, pp.35-44
Ø Atwater LE, Brett JF & Charles AC, 2007. Multisource Feedback: Lessons and Implications for Practice. Human Resources Management, 46(2), pp.285-307.
Ø Atwater, L., & Waldman, D, 1998. 360 Degree Feedback and Leadership Development. Leadership Quarterly, 9(4), pp. 423-426.Lepsinger, R & Lucia AD, 1997, The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/ Jossey-Bass.
Ø Carter A, Kerrin M & Silverman M, 2005. 360 Degree Feedback: Beyond the Spin. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
Ø Dowling PJ, Festing M & Engle AD, 2008. International Human Resource Management. Managing People in a Multinational Context. 5th ed. London: Thomson.
Ø Fletcher C, 2001, Performance appraisal management: the developing research agenda. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74, pp.473-487.
Ø Gallagher T, 2008. 360 Degree Performance Reviews Offer Valuable perspectives. Financial Executive, December, pp.61.
Ø Gitlespie TL & Parry RO, 2006. Fuel for Litigation? Links Between Procedural Justice and Multisource Feedback. Journal of Managerial Issues, XVIII,(4), pp.530-546.
Ø Heathfield S, 2001. 360 degree feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly defines and examines multirater feedback. Available at: http://humanresources.about.com/library/weekly/aa042501b.htm. [Accessed 10.08.2009].
Ø Kanaslan EK & Iyem C,2016. “Is 360 degree feedback appraisal an effective way of performance evaluation?”, Volume 06, No.05
Ø Kuvaas B, 2007. Different relationships between perceptions of development performance appraisal and work performance. Personnel Review. 36 (3), pp.378-397
Ø Lepsinger R & Lucia AD, 1997, The Art and Science of 360 Degree Feedback. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/ Jossey-Bass.
Ø Nickols F, 2007. Performance Appraisal: Weighed and Found Wanting in the Balance. The Journal for Quality & Participation, Spring, pp.13-16.
Ø Rohan-Jones R, 2004. 360 Degree Feedback in the Context of Leadership Development in the ADO. (CDCLMS Leadership Paper 1/2004). Centre for Leadership Studies, Australian Defence College, Canberra.
Ø Tyson S & Ward P, 2004. The Use of 360 Degree Feedback Technique in the Evaluation of Management Development, Management Learning, 35(2), pp.205–223
Ø Ward P, 2004. 360 Degree Feedback. Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House.
An effective employee evaluation is vital to improve the organizational and personal development(Jackson, 2007). The value and relevance of using 360 degree assessment rather than one point of view will help employee develop faster(Jackson, 2007).
ReplyDeleteComment noted & agreed. Further, Gitlespie and Parry (2006) carried out a literature review and found that 360 degree feedback implementations lead to team interactions. 360 degree feedback provides the opportunity for employees to evaluate themselves and the way other people work with them evaluate their behavior. (Rohan J, 2004).
ReplyDeletePerformance evaluation plays a crucial part in human resource management because to the important links it has with selection, retention, promotion, layoffs, remuneration, human resource planning, and training. Executive managers conducted the conventional top-down appraisal. Because organizational structures, methods, and cultures have changed significantly, it is vital to take into account additional sources when evaluating information.
ReplyDeleteThe 360-degree method uses a wide range of sources, such as supervisors, peers, subordinates, and the employees themselves, as well as offers multiple perspectives on the employee's performance in order to minimize the subjective assessment errors. This method was developed to address the shortcomings of top-down performance evaluation.
Multi source feedback is an increasingly widespread phenomenon that leads to 360-degree appraisal. Researchers outline five key applications of 360-degree feedback: team effectiveness, career development, performance assessment, and cultural change (Sepehrirad, Azar and Sadeghi, 2012).
Appreciate your valuable comments.
ReplyDeleteFurther, it is pertinent to mention that, 360 degree feedback has obviously several significant reasons over single-rated feedback methods. Rather than relying on the perceptions or feedback of single individual, the multi-rated feedback derives multiple perceptions from different angles which bring a broader overview of an employee’s performance. Those working with the employee, along with the supervisor are generally provide a more comprehensive picture of an employee’s behavior or performance especially when the supervisor does not have the opportunity to oversee all areas of an employee’s performance. (Maylett, 2009).
In terms of effectiveness the 360-degree performance appraisal system is quite operative in offering a complete analysis of the employee’s performance (Idowu, 2017). One of the best strength is that 360-degree appraisal is an opportunity of rating subordinate’s boss may give the experience of power and right to express (Kuzulu, 2016).
ReplyDeleteAccept your comments. It is also important to give due attention, a fruitful application of 360-degree appraisal depends upon a careful formulation of criteria, a thorough operationalisations of the concept to be measured and of course a climate wherein people can inform one another on strengths and weaknesses in the performance in particular career stage. The accurate interpretation of differences in appraisal by different sources requires that one can assume each set of ratings uses the same metric. If, for whatever reason, one group of raters interprets the text of an item or a set of items differently than another group, the resulting differences in the ratings may be the result of not only the observations of the raters but also of the interpretative difference elicited by the item (Penny, 2001).
ReplyDeleteThe best performance appraisals create a link between individual employee expectations and how the employee’s work contributes to the larger organization’s success (Dijk & Michal, 2015). They clarify expectations that the supervisor has for the employee and help the employee prioritize his duties. Ideally, performance appraisals open the lines of communication between supervisors and employees (Idowu, 2017).
ReplyDeleteComment noted & adding to that, the tough business environment creates the necessity to rate employee performance in order to measure the returns an organization gets in exchange of the salary it pays. Evaluation is one of the most required and useful practices in order to determine how an organization or an employee performing. Without rating its productivity, companies or managers cannot be aware of how well they are doing. Feedback may be seen as a mirror which reflects employees’ level of productivity. It provides an opportunity to see you from other people’s perspectives. Mandal proposes that ‘Feedback of any nature is important for initiating improvements’ (Mandal, 2002, pp. 36).
ReplyDelete360 degree feedback is a very effective feedback procedure that is followed by development in which technology must be thoroughly understood before implementation (Panda,2015). Furthermore, Drew (2009), 360 degree feedback assists individuals in looking within themselves and working on their own growth.
ReplyDeleteAccept your comment & it is pertinent to mention that, Warr and Bourne (2000) indicate that, when professionally managed, the 360-degree feedback increases individual self-awareness and, as part of a strategic organizational process, it can promote an increased understanding of the behaviours required to improve both individual and organizational effectiveness and contribute to more focused development activities built around the skills and competencies required for successful organizational performance.
ReplyDelete