360 degree performance appraisal 176[1]

8/14/2019 360 Degree Performance Appraisal 176[1]

1/18

360 DEGREEPERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

An outlook


2/18

Background

Contemporary 360-degree methods have roots as early as the 1940s,

however, there is some disagreement regarding the exact genesis ofthe technique.

Despite these disagreements, one point that most scholars can agreeon is 360-degree performance appraisal has historical roots within amilitary context.

During the 1950s and 1960s this trend continued in the United Stateswithin the Military service academies.

At the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, the midshipmenused a multi-source process called peer grease to evaluate the

leadership skills of their classmates.

In the corporate world during the 1960s and 1970s, organizations likeBank of America, United Airlines, Bell Labs, Disney, Federal Express,Nestle, and RCA experimented with multi-source feedback in avariety of measurement situations.


3/18

The Concept

For example, subordinate assessments of a supervisorsperformance can provide valuable developmentalguidance, peer feedback can be the heart of excellence inteamwork, and customer service feedback focuses on thequality of the teams or agencys results.


4/18

The Process


5/18

The Appraisers


6/18

Superiors

SUPERIOR

S

SUPERIORS

Its Contribution:

The 1st line supervisor is often in the bestposition to effectively carry out the fullcycle of performance management.

The supervisor may also have thebroadest perspective on the workrequirements and be able to take into

account shifts in those requirements.

Cautions to be addressed:

Superiors should be able to observe and measure all

facets of the work to make a fair evaluation.

Supervisors should be trained. They should be capable

of coaching and developing employees as well as

planning and evaluating their performance.


7/18

Self-ratings are particularly useful if theentire cycle of performancemanagement involves the employee ina self-assessment.

The developmental focus of self-assessment is a key factor.

Approximately half of the Federalemployees in a large survey felt thatself-ratings would contribute to agreat or very great extent to fair andwell-rounded PA.

Self-appraisals are particularly valuable

in situations where the supervisorcannot readily observe the workbehaviors and task outcomes.

Research shows low correlationsbetween self-ratings and all othersources of ratings, particularly supervisorratings. The self-ratings tend to beconsistently higher. This discrepancy canlead to defensiveness and alienation ifsupervisors do not use good feedbackskills.

Sometimes self-ratings can be lower thanothers. In such situations, employeestend to be self-demeaning and may feelintimidated and put on the spot.

Self-ratings should focus on the appraisalof performance elements, not on the

summary level determination. A range ofrating sources, including the selfassessments, help to round out theinformation for the summary rating.

SelfIts Contribution: Cautions to be addressed:


8/18

PeersIts Contribution:

Employees report resentment when they believe that their extra efforts

are required to make the boss look good as opposed to meeting theunits goals.

Peer ratings have been an excellent predictors of future performanceand manner of performance.

The use of multiple raters in the peer dimension of 360-degreeassessment programs tends to average out the possible biases of anyone member of the group of raters.

The increased use of self-directed teams makes the contribution ofpeer evaluations the central input to the formal appraisal because by

definition the supervisor is not directly involved in the day-to-dayactivities of the team.

The addition of peer feedback can help move the supervisor into acoaching role rather than a purely judging role.


9/18

Peers (continued)Cautions to be addressed:

Peer evaluations are appropriate for developmental purposes, but to emphasizethem for pay, promotion, or job retention purposes may not be prudent always.

Generally, the identities of the raters should be kept confidential to assure honestfeedback. But, in close-knit teams that have matured to a point where opencommunication is part of the culture, the developmental potential of the feedbackis enhanced when the evaluator is identified and can perform a coaching orcontinuing feedback role.

It is essential that the peer evaluators be very familiar with the team members

tasks and responsibilities.

The use of peer evaluations can be very time consuming. When used in PA, thedata would have to be collected several times a year in order to include the resultsin progress reviews.

Depending on the culture of the organization, peer ratings have the potential for

creating tension and breakdown rather than fostering cooperation and support.


10/18

A formalized subordinate feedback programwill give supervisors a more comprehensivepicture of employee issues and needs.

Employees feel they have a greater voice inorganizational decision-making.

The feedback from subordinates isparticularly effective in evaluating thesupervisors interpersonal skills. However, itmay not be as appropriate or valid forevaluating task-oriented skills.

Combining subordinate ratings, like peerratings, can provide the advantage ofcreating a composite appraisal from theaveraged ratings of several subordinates.

The need for anonymity is essential when usingsubordinate ratings as this will ensure honest feedback.

Supervisors may feel threatened and perceive thattheir authority has been undermined when they musttake into consideration that their subordinates will beformally evaluating them.

Subordinate feedback is most beneficial when used fordevelopmental purposes. But precautions should betaken to ensure that subordinates are appraisingelements of which they have knowledge.

Only subordinates with a sufficient length ofassignment under the manager should be included inthe pool of assessors. Subordinates currently involvedin a disciplinary action or a formal performanceimprovement period should be excluded from therating group. Organizations currently undergoingdownsizing and/or reorganization should avoid this

source of PA.

SubordinatesIts Contribution: Cautions to be addressed:


11/18

CUSTOMERS

Its Contribution:

Customer feedback should

serve as an anchor for

almost all other performancefactors.

Including a range of

customers in PA program

expands the focus of

performance feedback in a

manner considered absolutely

critical to reinventing the

organization.

Cautions to be addressed:

Generally the value of

customer service feedback is

appropriate for evaluating teamoutput (there are exceptions).

Customers, by definition, are

better at evaluating outputs as

opposed to processes and

working relationships.

It is a time-consuming

process.


12/18

Companies using 360 degreeperformance appraisals

Bellcore

International

Ltd(1998)

Johnson &

Johnson

Ltd(1980s)Wipro

Technologies Ltd

(Dec17th 2002)

Xerox (1980s)

IBM (1980)

Bell Atlantic (1980)


13/18

Important factors in 360 degreefeedbacks

According to Mr. Pratik Kumar.

The mission and the objective ofthe feedback must be clear.

Employees must be involved early.

Resources must be dedicated tothe process, including topmanagement's time.

Confidentiality must be assured.

The organization, especially topmanagement, must be committedto the program.

Pratik Kumar

Corporate VP HR,

Wipro Technologies

Limited- One of the

pioneers of 360

degree PA in India.


14/18

Advantages

To the individual:Helps individuals to understand

how others perceive them.Uncover blind spots

Quantifiable data on soft skills

To the team:Increases communicationHigher levels of trustBetter team environmentSupports teamwork

Increased team effectiveness

To the organization:Reinforced corporate culture by linking

survey items to organizational leadershipcompetencies and company valuesBetter career development for employeesPromote from within

Improves customer service by involvingthem


15/18

ProblemsIt is the most costly and time consuming type of

appraisal.

These programs tend to be somewhat shocking tomanagers at first. Amoco's Bill Clover described thisas the "SARAH reaction: Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance,

Help".

The problems may arise with subordinateassessments where employees desire to get theboss or may alternatively scratch the back of amanager for expected future favors.

The organization implementing this type ofperformance appraisal must clearly define themission and the scope of the appraisal. Otherwise itmight prove counter productive.


16/18

Problems (continued)One of the reason for which 360 degree appraisal system might fail isbecause the organizations attempt to assimilate the 360-degreemethod within a traditional survey research scheme. In traditionalsurvey research, investigators attempt to maximize data collection withas many items/questions as possible and with large sample sizes. Inthe case of 360-degree appraisal, creating measurement instrumentswith many items will substantially increase non-response errors. Inaddition, large sample sizes are not typically possible considering thatperhaps 4 or 5 sources will rate an employees performance. As such,statistical procedures that rely on large sample sizes in order to ensure

statistical validity might not be appropriate.

Organizations must consider other issues like safeguarding the processfrom unintentional respondent rating errors.

The culture shock that occurs with any system that creates change.And especially with a modern system like 360 degree performance

appraisal; must be taken care of.


17/18

Conclusion

Because many of the more

conventional performance appraisalmethods have often proved unpopularwith those being appraised andevaluators alike, 360 is gaining

popularity with many managers andemployees.

It offers a new way of addressing the

performance issue.When used with consideration and

discipline, feedback recipients will feelthat they're being treated fairly.


18/18

Thank You

Any

Questions???

360 degree performance appraisal 176[1]

Documents