360-degree feedback performance appraisal … · 360-degree feedback performance appraisal in...

July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7

24

360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN

MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - A STUDY

1.Dr.S.K.Padhi, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur

2.Dr.P.C.Sahu, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur

Abstract

Under the present competitive era no Supervisors have time to think for him. Everybody

is remaining busy with their own job. Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of

reporting relationships lack the opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and

motivating performance appraisals. To compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the

survival for a longer period in the market to understand the capability of the employees become very

indispensable. To solve this problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the

educational institutions to study and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the

standard of the institution to maintain good will’s LondonM. (2004)1. After industrial globalization,

when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork, participative leadership, empowering employees,

improving customer service and re-engineering, employers need to look at other alternatives that will

support and enhance personnel development. For the purpose of the study the researcher has

selected three management educational institutions to understand how for the 360-degree

performance appraisal system is helpful for betterment of the appraise and appraiser that inter

alia develops the standard.

Key Words: Performance Appraisal, 360-Degree Performance system, personnel development

Introduction

1LondonM.&Beatty, R.W.(1993),“360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage”, Human

Resource Management,Vol.32,pp.352-373


25

Dissatisfaction is the real source of inspiration for future search work to provide rationale

in the subject area. Almost every employee seems to be dissatisfied with their Performance

Appraisal and always play the Blame Game.

Why is it so?

From the first ever Man to Man Rating System developed for the military personnel’s during the

First World War to the well-known 360 degree Performance Appraisal system, there seems to be

always some gap between the expected and the actual. Winds of change are sweeping business

organizations globally. Organizations jump on the band wagon assuming that survey feedback

results are valuable. Companies suffer through the experience of initially implementing the

performance appraisal system, often confronting resistance from Managers about being

evaluated by their subordinates and peers. Long term reactions and effects are rarely

determined systematically, so if the organization continues to use 360 degree feedback, the only

evidence for its effectiveness may be an ecdotes from vocal participants.(London, Manuel and

Richard W.Beatty)2. After industrial globalization, when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork,

Participative leadership, empowering employees, improving customer service and re-engineering,

employers need to look at other alternatives that will support and enhance personnel development.

Organizations are asking personnel for more productivity with fewer resources. The traditional tops

down supervisor only evaluation systems are no longer practical for the present globalization days.

Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of reporting relationships lack the

opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and motivating performance appraisals. To

compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the survival for a longer period in the

market and to understand the capability of the employees become very indispensable. To solve this

problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the educational institutions to study

and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the standard of the institution. According to

David W. That multi rater feedback (360-degree) for decision making has worked in many

2London, Manuel and Richard W.Beatty, "360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage"-Human Resource Management 32(2&3) 1993


26

organizations (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, Pollman and Hollenbeck, 1997).3 Before

understanding the meaning of 360-degree performance appraisal we should first know what

performance appraisal is. The basic root function of performance appraisal is gauging where the

employee is in job, how doing in that job, and what can be done to improve job performance, if

improvements are necessary. ”Performance appraisal is an exercise in observation and judgement, it is

a feedback process, and it is an intensely emotional process” (Cascio 1995,274).4 The 360 - degree

performance appraisal is an appraisal system that encompasses views of employee's superior and

co-workers/peers. Through 360-degree performance appraisal the employee has the chance to

review the supervisor an element that is not practiced with top down performance appraisals. The

use of 360 degree instruments has exploded during the past ten to fifteen years. The 360 degree

appraisal takes information from more than one source. This assessment collects information

from peers, subordinates, and superiors so that the person can get a well-rounded, or 360 degree,

view of their performance. “Here the traditional source for performance appraisals - the

individual's manager is supplemented by other sources who has significant perspectives to

provide which the manager may not have" (Tornow 1993,212)5. Ideally with multiple assessment

sources, the manager will have little doubt that every part of the employee's performance is

checked and double checked. The more feedback the manager is given the better the appraisal

process should go. And better yet, the employee will not think that they are criticized solely by

the manager " a cardinal rule is that the more information one collects and the greater depth of

the information, the greater the commitment must be to the recipient on the part of the

organization and on the part of those who conduct such an exercise"(Kaplan 1994)6.

3 Bracken,D.W.Dalton, M.A.Jake, R.A.McClauley, C.D.Pollman, V.A, and Hollenbeck,

G.P.(1997) Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes?

Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership. 4Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources, New York: McGraw-Hill,1995..

5Tornow,W.W.(1993a),“Editor’sNote:IntroductiontoSpecialIssueon360-

DegreeFeedback”,Human ResourceManagement,Vol.32,pp.211-219. 6Kaplan, R. E., and Palus, C. J.,(1994).Enhancing360-DegreeFeedbackforSenior


27

In simple 360-degree feedback system is a new model for performance feedback and appraisal.

360 turn the appraisal process upside down. It assesses employee performance and development

from multi perspectives such as supervisors, peers, subordinates, customers and clients. It is

aimed at improving performance by providing a better awareness of strengths and weaknesses.

The employee receives feedback from multiple sources in anonymous form, compares them with

self-ratings, and gets limited coaching and sets goals for improvement. It is a process of feeding

back to a person how others see him or her from people who work most closely with them and

know them best. 360 serve as a supplement to, not a replacement for, supervisory review.

For the purpose of the study the researcher has selected three management educational

institutions to understand how for the 360-degree performance appraisal system is working and

be helpful for betterment of the appraise and appraiser that inter alia develops the standard as

well as decision making capability.

Scope and Objective of the study

The primary purpose of this research is to investigate into the challenges before Educational

Institutions while implementing the system. However, to have a more focused study, the

objectives have been divided in two categories i.e. broad objectives and specific objectives. In

fact, the accomplishments of specific objectives ultimately contribute to the achievement of

broad objectives. More specially, the objectives of the research will be as under:

To examine the comparative significance of the 360-degree appraisal and feedback

system vis-a-vis the traditional system.

To pinpoint the pitfall of the 360-degree appraisal and feedback system and highlight the

impediments in its implementation.

Executives.Greensboro,North Carolina:Center for Creative Leadership.


28

To know whether the employees of management education are in support of 360

appraisal back system or not.

To make some viable recommendations on it.

Methodology

The study employed exploratory research in reaching the final results presented. About

150 in-depth interviews were conducted with Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant

Professors, Demonstrators, and Associate Officials of three educational institutions of repute

through 5 point Likert scale questionnaire method, using a simple random sampling. Out of 150

there were only 80 (Professor - 10, Associate Professor - 15, Assistant Professor- 20,

Demonstrators - 10, Associate officials – 25) respondents opined on various factors in relation to

the study. The field survey for primary data collection was conducted in three different phases.

In the first phase, a pilot survey was conducted to prepare a prototype questionnaire. In second

phase, the questionnaires were tested and finalized. In the third phase, the final field survey was

conducted. The questionnaire was analysed and percentage values were calculated to find out the

exact impact of 360-degree performance appraisal system in the educational institution.

Review of existing literature

Hegarty (1974)7examines that managers who received upward feedback about their supervisory

behaviour significantly improved their behaviour and improves the subordinate ratings of

managerial performance. Similarly, Mc Ivorand Buller(1987)8 found that employees were

favourably disposed toward peer evaluation. There action is positively associated with

7Hegarty,W.H.(1974),“UsingSubordinateRatingstoElicitBehaviouralChangesin Managers”,Journalof

AppliedPsychology.Vol.59,pp.764-766.

8Mc.Evoy,G.M.&Buller,P.F.(1987),“UserAcceptanceofPeerAppraisalsinanIndustrialSetting”,

PersonnelPsychology,Vol.40,pp.785-797


29

satisfaction with prior peer ratings and negatively associated with perceived friendship bias and

years of company experience. Atwater, Roush and Fischthal (1995)9 opined that subordinates’

ratings of leadership were significantly higher following feedback from subordinates under

which a highly structured session is there where leaders discussed the feedback results with

subordinates. Smither, Vasilopulos, Reilly, Millsap & Solvemini (1995)10

found that low and

medium level performers improved and high performers declined overtime. It is due to managers

who received feedback were no more likely to improve performance than managers who did not

receive feedback; people who gave themselves higher self-rating than the ratings their

subordinates gave them tended to improve overtime (Johnsonand Ferstl(1999).11

Walker and

Smither (1999)12

clarified that the improvements in subordinate ratings was greater for managers

who discussed the previous year’s feedback with subordinates than for managers who had not

discussed ratings. However, Manab Bose (2003)13

explains that the system helps to plan senior

leadership break class from the decadent past, there by developing competencies to attract and

retain world-class talent so desperately needed for business and organisations to grow to world

class standards. Similarly, Anu Wakhlu (2003)14

clarifiesthat 360-degree appraisal and feedback

system is totally developmental, and it can be linked to the overall performance of the business

plans of the company and the individuals. Generally, a performance appraisal occurs during a

meeting between manager and employee where the employee job performance is discussed. The

tone of the meeting usually depends on how the manager conducts it.“The review should have a

9Atwater,L.Roush,P.,&Fischtal,A.(1995),“TheInfluenceofUpwardFeedbackonSelfandFollower

RatingsofLeadership”,PersonalPsychology,Vol.48,pp.35-59. 10

Smither,J.W., London,M., Vasilopoulos,N.L.,Reilly,R.R.,Millsap,R. E.,& Salvemini,N. (1995),“An

ExaminationoftheEffectsofanUpwardFeedbackProgramOvertime”,PersonnelPsychology,Vol.48, pp.1-34 11

Johnson,J.F.,&Ferstl,K.L.“TheEffectsofInter-RaterandSelf-OtherAgreementonPerformance Improvement

Following Upward Feedback”, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.52,pp.271-303. 12WalkerA.G.&Smither,J.W.(1999),“A Five Year Study of Upward Feedback: What Managers do with their Results Matter”, Personnel Psychology,Vol.52,pp.393-423. 13Bose,Manab(2003)“360-Degree feedback as an Intervention”, in T.V.Rao and Raju Rao(Eds.),360- DegreeFeedback&PerformanceManagementSystem,NewDelhi:ExcelBooks.PP65-75. 14Wakhlu, Anu (2003), “Leadership Development using 360-Degree Feedback Process - The Pragati Approach“, in T.V.Raoand RajuRao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback and Performance Management System, NewDelhi:ExcelBooks,pp.58-64.


30

fair, honest, and thorough hearing as he presents his evaluations and plans for development and he

should leave the review session feeling that his superiors take his idea seriously and are vitally

interested in his progress “(Rowland 1970, 303)15

. There are certain things to be done when an

appraisal meeting takes place. “The boss should avoid any thing of threatening attitude in his

conduct of the appraisal interview. If he does not do this, his appraisal group will become nervous

as appraisal time approaches and the work will suffer “(Rowland, 1970, 210). Nobody wants to be

called into the managers’ office to be yelled at or talked down to. This technique can be seen as a

motivational tool but all it doesis destroy productivity because the entire employee thinks about is

the appraisal meeting and what will be said during it. Rowland maintains that while conducting the

meeting, the manager should avoid telling the employee that their performance needs improvement,

“Specific cases should be called to the attention of the appraise for they will help to make clear

exactly what the appraisers meant by the statement they made but should not take the form of a

harsh reprimand (Rowland,1970,273). The employment of performance appraisal for

development purposes helps strengthen the employee-supervisor relationship where the

supervisor is cast in the role of coach and adviser rather that of lord high executioner encourages

teamwork and facilitates the development of good work behaviours (Daley,1992,48).16

According

to Cascio(1995,277)17

the appraiser should be carefull and be unbiased while appraising on the

performabce of others. The criterion used in the appraisal process is a big determinant of the

validity of the appraisal process. If a manager is able to insert his/her bias into the appraisal then

the validity decreases. "The more subjective the rating criteria the easier it is for the raters’ biases

to enter into his/her evaluation"(Fleenor Scontrino,1982, 70)18

. The appraisal system needs be as

objective as possible to eliminate bias on the part of the supervisor. The courts have ruled on

what exactly constitutes an objective performance appraisal. "Case law outlines six criteria for

15

Rowland, Virgil K. Evaluating and Improving Managerial Performance New York McGraw-Hill Publishers,1970 16

Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public

Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:39-51 17

Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources New York McGraw Hill, Inc 1995 18

Fleenor,C.P. and M.P.Scontrino. Performance Appraisal: A Manager Guide, Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company 1982


31

constructing objective performance appraisal system: job analysis, work behaviours,

communications, training, documentation, and monitoring combine to guide the development of

systems capable of appraising performance" (Daley,1992,49)19

. If an organization constructs an

appraisal system that has at least these six objective criteria, the courts and the majority, if not

all, the employees should consider the system a valid appraisal of productivity and performance.

Analysis and discussion

On the basis of the Best(1977)20

measurement scale the following tables are being analysed.

Table No. 1 Respondents’awareness of performance appraisal system

Category Strongly

agree

Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly

disagree

Mean SD Total

Professor 07 03 00 00 00 4.7 3.08 10

Associate

Prof

05 08 02 00 00 4.2 3.46 15

Asst Prof 02 04 08 04 02 3.0 2.44 20

Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.0 4.47 10

Office Staff 00 00 05 03 17 1.5 7.03 25

Total 14 15 25 17 09 3.1 5.83 80

Sources : Compiled Primary data

19Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:49 20Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

.


32

The table No.1 depicts that 100% (Mean 4.7) professors have agreed that they have the idea about

the performance appraisal system of their institution. That 87% Associate Professors opined

positively whereas 13% did not comment on the subject. The mean in case of associate professors

are 4.2. In respect of Assistant Professors 30% expressed that they are having knowledge about

performance appraisal system, whereas 40% did not comment and 30% have no knowledge about

the existing of performance appraisal system. The mean in this respect is 3.0. With regard to the

demonstrator, that all the demonstrators did not expressed whether they have the knowledge on the

existing performance appraisal system of their institution or not. 80% Office staffs of the

institutions opined negatively that they are not having any knowledge about the performance

appraisal system of their institution and mean is 1.5 only.

From the above it can be interpreted that the professors and associate professors are having

very good information about the existing of the performance appraisal system. In case of Assistant

Professors and Demonstrators it exhibits that they are having average awareness on the system. But

Official staffs are not aware of the performance appraisal system.

Table No.2 Respondents’ Satisfaction with Current Evaluation System

Category Fully satisfied

Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied Fully dissatisfied disagree

Mean Total

Professor 00 07 03 00 00 3.7 10

Associate Prof

00 04 04 07 00 2.13 15

Asst Prof 00 00 20 00 00 3.00 20

Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.00 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.00 25

Total 00 11 37 02 00 2.84 80



33

Table No.2 exhibits that 70% professors, 26% associate professors have expressed their views

positively whereas Assistant Professors, Demonstrators and office staffs they did not comment on the

question. The mean in respect of Professor is 3.7 which seem to be good; in total the mean 2.84

indicates low degree of satisfaction.

From the above it is clear that the present evaluation system is not beneficial to the respondents of the

sample institutions.

Table No.3Respondents’Willing to Evaluate Superiors, Peers, and Subordinates

Category Strongly

agree

Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly

disagree

Mean Total

Professor 02 03 01 00 04 2.9 10

Associate

Prof

03 02 00 00 10 1.9 15

Asst Prof 11 03 00 06 00 3.96 20

Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.00 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.00 25

Total 16 08 36 06 14 2.95 80


That the table No.3 shows only 50% (Mean 2.9), 33%(Mean 1.9) and 70%(Mean 3.96) Professors,

Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in that order have agreed to evaluate superiors, peers

and subordinates performance. The Demonstrator and Associate Officials did not opine on the matter.

The mean in total is 2.95 reflects the average degree of acceptance.


34

Table No.4 Respondents’ willing to accept evaluation from Peers and Subordinates

Category Strongly agree

Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly disagree

Mean Total

Professor 00 06 00 00 04 2.8 10

Associate Prof

05 02 00 00 08 2.73 15

Asst Prof 08 05 00 07 00 3.7 20

Demonstrator 00 00 03 00 07 1.9 10

Office Staff 00 00 00 00 25 1.0 25

Total 13 11 03 07 44 1.88 80


The above table No.4 exposes that 60% (Mean 2.8), 46%(Mean 2.73), 70% (Mean 3.7) Professors,

associate professors and assistant professors respectively opined their acceptance on the performance

evaluation by their peers and subordinates. The demonstrators and Associate Officials opined reversely. In

total the mean is 1.88 that reflects low degree of willingness in the matter.

The above analysis shows that the non executives (Demonstrator and Associates) are not willing to accept

the review of their performance by their peers and subordinates, whereas the executives they were accepting

the system. The mean in respect of the executives is 3.07 which represent average degree of willingness.

Table 5 360-Degree Evaluations Associated with performance



Mean Total

Professor 05 02 03 00 00 3.9 10

Associate Prof

00 10 05 00 00 3.33 15

Asst Prof 05 11 04 00 00 4.05 20

Demonstrator 00 00 08 02 00 2.8 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25

Total 10 23 45 02 00 3.41 80


Table No.5 indicates that 70 %( Mean 3.9) Professors are accepted the affect of performance on the

evaluation of performance of superior, peer, and subordinates. 66% (Mean 3.33) Associate Professors


35

are opined in the same manner as professors. 80 %( Mean 4.05) Assistant Professors have accepted

the impact of performance of the employees on the performance evaluation. Only 20% demonstrators

are disagreed the subject question. 100% associate officials did not opine on the matter.

The total mean is 3.41 that indicate the good degree of acceptance by the respondents of sample

institution regarding the impact of performance on evaluation.

Table No.6 360-Degree Evaluations Associated With attitude/approach



Mean Total

Professor 06 00 00 04 00 3.8 10

Associate Prof 00 10 00 00 05 3.0 15

Asst Prof 00 00 12 06 02 2.5 20

Demonstrator 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25

Total 06 10 37 20 07 2.8 80


That 60% Respondent Professors agreed that attitude and approach is important to secured high

degree. 75% Associate Professors accepted the views of respondent professors whereas 60%

respondent assistant professors did not opined and 40% opined negatively. 100% respondent

demonstrator opined negatively.

From the above it seems that Respondents of Professors and Associate Professors accepting the

impact of attitude and approach on employee feedback system whereas other just reverses their

views. The total mean is 2.8 which are indicating average degree of acceptance in to.


36

Table No.7 360-Degree Evaluations Associated with guidance



Mean Total

Professor 10 00 00 00 00 5.0 10

Associate Prof

08 05 02 00 00 4.4 15

Asst Prof 00 10 10 00 00 3.0 20

Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.0 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25

Total 18 15 47 00 00 3.68 80

Sources: Compiled Primary data

The perceptual views from the respondents regarding the influence of guidance on the

performance of individuals are shown in table No.7. Out of 10 professors all have strongly

agreed that accurate and timely guidance affects the feedback system of the employees. Whereas,

53% and 33% associate professors strongly agreed and agreed the views of the professors. 50%

assistant professors supported the views of professor and associate professors. In respect of

demonstrator and associate officials did not opine on the matter.

The overall mean score in the matter is 3.68 which seem to be good degree of acceptance that

proper and timely guidance to the needy have much important while measuring the performance

by adopting 360-degree performance appraisal system.

Table No. 8 360-Degree Evaluation associated with decision making



Mean Total

Professor 05 03 02 00 00 4.1 10

Associate Prof

15 00 00 00 00 5.0 15

Asst Prof 12 05 03 00 00 4.45 20

Demonstrator 00 07 03 00 00 3.7 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25

Total 32 15 33 00 00 4.05 80

Sources: Compiled Primary data


37

The above table exhibits the perpetual views of the respondents how the decision making

capability of employees associate with, for measuring the performance through 360-degree

appraisal system. 80% (Mean 4.1) professors accepted the importance decision making ability of

an employee. 100% (Mean 5.0) Associate Professors strongly agreed and in respect of Assistant

Professors 60% strongly supported and 25% supported the views of professors. 70% (Mean 3.7)

demonstrator accepted the reality of decision making ability.

The overall mean (4.05) on the perpetual views indicates the good degree of acceptance of

respondents the employees’ performance measurement which inter alia mostly linked with the

decision making ability at the needy moment.

Table No.9. 360-Degree Evaluation associated with Cooperation



Mean Total

Professor 02 06 02 00 00 4.0 10

Associate Prof

05 03 07 00 00 3.4 15

Asst Prof 00 00 20 00 00 3.0 20

Demonstrator 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25

Total 07 09 54 10 00 3.8 80


The table No.9 exposes the importance of cooperation with each other inside and outside the

workplace. That 80% (Mean 4.0), 53% (Mean 3.4) Professor and Associate Professors

respectively accepted that 360-degree evaluation is associated with cooperation among the

employees. Whereas Assistant Professors and Associate Officials did not opine on the subject,

but 100% demonstrators presented their views negatively.

The overall mean score is 3.8 i.e. degree of acceptance is good with regard to the cooperation is

concerned in and out of the institution.


38

Table No.10 360-Degree Evaluation associated with sociability



Mean Total

Professor 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10

Associate Prof

06 00 00 09 00 3.06 15

Asst Prof 00 08 10 02 00 3.3 20

Demonstrator 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10

Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25

Total 06 08 35 31 00 2.67 80


With regard to the sociability and its association with 360 degree evaluation in an institution the

perpetual views of the respondents are shown in the table No. 10. 100% professors opined

reversely on the matter. Whereas, out of 15 only 40% Associate Professors have opined

positively and 60% did not accept the formals’ view. 100% demonstrator viewed negatively and

associate officials did not comment on the matter.

The overall mean score is 2.67 i.e. average degree of acceptance. From the above it can be

perpetuate that in all the times scalability is not considered as the major factor for measuring the

performance of an employee.

Findings

Senior Officials are having full knowledge about the performance appraisal system.

The traditional evaluation is not so beneficial to the employees.

Senior Officials are expressed their willingness to evaluate Superiors, Peers, and Subordinates

as well as from peers and subordinates

All have agreed that 360-degree performance measurement is well associated with the

performance, decision making, guidance and cooperation.

Junior Officials did not agree that the approach and attitude of the employees associated with the

Performance appraisal.


39

Limitation of the study

Despite the maximum efforts, that has been made by the researcher to make the study a perfect

one, in overcoming difficulties, which were experienced during investigation. The respondents

who were busy in their official matters were neither easily available nor even prepared to spare

time for answering the questionnaires. It became too much time consuming and the research was

delayed. Some executives were also hesitant to give their frank opinion on different aspects with

an apprehension of difficulties like victimization in future. However, most of them were

cooperative and encouraging for whom the study was completed.

A sincere attempt was made to put forth the facts relating to the topic in detail. But this is not the

end by itself. Being a vast subject and due to its changing perspectives no study can be

considered as complete by itself. The researcher expects further researches on the topic to reveal

more facts and to help developing new ideas on 360-degree performance appraisal system with

more practical and feasible direction.

Conclusion

The 360- degree feedback system can be very sensitive in nature. A person not well prepared

for it could be thrown out of balance. It can also create some new issues in an organisation. If

not designed and conducted well, it possess the potential danger of a candidate developing

wrong perceptions or notions about one or more of his assessors and developing new attitudes

towards them. It is therefore, necessary and important to manage the process well and make it

fool proof. The first important step is to determine whether the organisation is ready for it or

not. The second important step is to determine if the candidate is ready for it. Even if, it is the

opinion that for growth and development of personnel and the department will be more probable with

the adoption of 360-degree feedback performance appraisal system. More so, the implementation

of 360-degree performance appraisal systems in the educational institution is very much

essential. It will help the students as well as the employees for their internal and external

development and growth by knowing their lacuna. It can help the management to arrange need


40

based development training programmes for their employees at the emergency changing

environmental situation. It will enhance the skill of individuals in all aspects. 360-degree is the

newest alternative for performance appraisals measurement system. Feedback is almost always a

sensitive subject. People are often cautious, sometimes fearful, and occasionally emotional

about it. A good facilitator or administrator recognizes and appreciates the sensitive nature

surrounding 360 degree feedback and takes serious steps to insure the integrity of the process

and support of the individual. Once the process has been breached by any of the above actions,

it will be difficult to recover. Spend the time upfront doing the home work necessary to make

the process successful. The results will be more than worth it. Whatever it may be while

writing something as an appraiser, the person concern should take into consideration the

following five components that must be present in any performance appraisal system are: (a)

Relevance (b) Sensitivity (c) Reliability (d) Acceptability and (e) Practicality. Rele va nc e

refers to a correspondence between the elements identified as critical to job performance and

performance standards. Sensitivity refers to the extent to which the appraisal instrument can

distinguish between good performance and poor performance. Reliable instruments result in

similar scores. Acceptability is the under similar conditions extent to which the process is

accepted by supervisors and employees. Finally, practicality means that the instrument can be

used and understood by both management and employees.

Suggestions

If 360-degree feedback is implemented, the following is very essential for its success.

1. The appraisee and appraisers should have comprehensive knowledge of 360-degree

feedbacks or organization has to make understandable by providing specific trainings.

2. All raters are assured anonymity.

3. The ratings to be kept confidential.

4. The evaluation should be fairly short.


41

5. Should be able to be completed within an hour

6. There should be a minimum of three evaluators.

7. The evaluation program to be evaluated periodically.

8. Modifications are essential according to the requirement.

Reference

1. London M.& Beatty, R.W.(1993),“360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage”,

Human Resource Management,Vol.32,pp.352-373

2. London, Manuel and Richard W.Beatty, "360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive

Advantage"-Human Resource Management 32(2&3) 1993

3. Bracken,D.W.Dalton, M.A.Jake, R.A.McClauley, C.D.Pollman, V.A, and Hollenbeck,

G.P.(1997) Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes?

Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership

4. Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources, New York: McGraw-Hill,1995..

5. Tornow,W.W.(1993a),“Editor’sNote:IntroductiontoSpecialIssueon360-

DegreeFeedback”,Human ResourceManagement,Vol.32,pp.211-219.

6. Kaplan, R. E., and Palus, C. J.,(1994).Enhancing360-DegreeFeedbackforSenior

Executives. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership.

7. Hegarty,W.H.(1974),“UsingSubordinateRatingstoElicitBehaviouralChangesin

Managers”,Journal of AppliedPsychology.Vol.59,pp.764-766.

8. Mc.Evoy,G.M.&Buller,P.F.(1987),“UserAcceptanceofPeerAppraisalsinanIndustrialSetti

ng”, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.40,pp.785-797

9. Atwater,L.Roush,P.,&Fischtal,A.(1995),“TheInfluenceofUpwardFeedbackonSelfandFoll

ower RatingsofLeadership”,PersonalPsychology,Vol.48,pp.35-59.


42

10. Smither,J.W., London,M., Vasilopoulos,N.L.,Reilly,R.R.,Millsap,R. E.,& Salvemini,N.

(1995),“AnExaminationoftheEffectsofanUpwardFeedbackProgramOvertime”,Personnel

Psychology,Vol.48, pp.1-34

11. Johnson,J.F.,&Ferstl,K.L.“TheEffectsofInter-RaterandSelf-

OtherAgreementonPerformance Improvement Following Upward Feedback”,

PersonnelPsychology,Vol.52,pp.271-303.

12. WalkerA.G.&Smither,J.W.(1999),“A Five Year Study of Upward Feedback: What

Managers do with their Results Matter”, Personnel Psychology,Vol.52,pp.393-423.

13. Bose,Manab(2003)“360-Degree feedback as an Intervention”, in T.V.Rao and Raju

Rao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback & Performance Management System, NewDelhi:

ExcelBooks.PP65-75.

14. Wakhlu, Anu (2003), “Leadership Development using 360-Degree Feedback Process -

The Pragati Approach“, in T.V.Raoand RajuRao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback and

Performance Management System, NewDelhi:ExcelBooks,pp.58-64.

15. Rowland, Virgil K. Evaluating and Improving Managerial Performance New York

McGraw-Hill Publishers,1970

16. Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality

Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:39-51

17. Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources New York McGraw Hill, Inc 1995

18. Fleenor,C.P. and M.P.Scontrino. Performance Appraisal: A Manager Guide, Dubuque:

Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company 1982

19. Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality

Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:49

20. Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall,

Inc.

360-degree feedback performance appraisal … · 360-degree feedback performance appraisal in...

Documents