360 degree performance appraisal (1)

7/30/2019 360 Degree Performance Appraisal (1)

1/18

360 DEGREE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

An outlook


2/18

Contemporary 360-degree methods have roots as early as the 1940s, however,there is some disagreement regarding the exact genesis of the technique.

Despite these disagreements, one point that most scholars can agree on is 360-degree performance appraisal has historical roots within a military context.

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

At the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, the midshipmen used a

multi-source process calledpeergreaseto evaluate the leadership skills of theirclassmates.

In the corporate world during the 1960s and 1970s, organizations like Bank ofAmerica, United Airlines, Bell Labs, Disney, Federal Express, Nestle, and RCA

experimented with multi-source feedback in a variety of measurement situations.


3/18

For example, subordinate assessments of a supervisors performance can providevaluable developmental guidance, peer feedback can be the heart of excellence in

teamwork, and customer service feedback focuses on the quality of the teams or

agencysresults.


4/18


5/18


6/18

SUPERIOR

S

SUPERIORS

Its Contribution:

The 1st line supervisor is often in thebest position to effectively carry out thefull cycle of performance management.

The supervisor may also have thebroadest perspective on the work

requirements and be able to take intoaccount 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 theirerformance.


7/18

Self-ratings are particularly useful ifthe entire cycle of performancemanagement involves theemployee in a self-assessment.

The developmental focus of self-

assessment is a key factor.

Approximately half of the Federalemployees in a large survey feltthat self-ratings would contributeto a great or very great extent to

fair and well-rounded PA.

Self-appraisals are particularlyvaluable in situations where thesupervisor cannot readily observethe work behaviors and taskoutcomes.

Research shows low correlationsbetween self-ratings and all othersources of ratings, particularlysupervisor ratings. The self-ratingstend to be consistently higher. Thisdiscrepancy can lead to defensivenessand alienation if supervisors do not use

good feedback skills.

Sometimes self-ratings can be lowerthan others. In such situations,employees tend to be self-demeaningand may feel intimidated and put onthe spot.

Self-ratings should focus on theappraisal of performance elements, noton the summary level determination. Arange of rating sources, including theself assessments, help to round outthe information for the summary rating.

Its Contribution: Cautions to be addressed:


8/18

Employees report resentment when they believe that their extra efforts arerequired tomakethe boss lookgoodas opposed to meeting theunitsgoals.

Peer ratings have been an excellent predictors of future performance andmannerofperformance.

The use of multiple raters in the peer dimension of 360-degree assessmentprograms tends to average out the possible biases of any one member of the groupof raters.

The increased use of self-directed teams makes the contribution of peerevaluations the central input to the formal appraisal because by definition thesupervisor is not directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the team.

The addition of peer feedback can help move the supervisor into a coaching role

rather than a purely judging role.


9/18

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 assurehonest feedback. But, in close-knit teams that have matured to a point whereopen communication is part of the culture, the developmental potential of thefeedback is enhanced when the evaluator is identified and can perform acoaching or continuing feedback role.

It is essential that the peer evaluators be very familiar with the teammemberstasks 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 theresults in progress reviews.

Depending on the culture of the organization, peer ratings have the potential forcreating tension and breakdown rather than fostering cooperation and support.


10/18

A formalized subordinate

feedback program will givesupervisors a morecomprehensive picture ofemployee issues and needs.

Employees feel they have agreater voice in organizational

decision-making.

The feedback from subordinatesis particularly effective inevaluating the supervisorsinterpersonal skills. However, itmay not be as appropriate or

valid for evaluating task-oriented skills.

Combining subordinate ratings,like peer ratings, can providethe advantage of creating acomposite appraisal from the

averaged ratings of severalsubordinates.

The need for anonymity is essential when

using subordinate ratings as this will ensurehonest feedback.

Supervisors may feel threatened and perceivethat their authority has been undermined whenthey must take into consideration that theirsubordinates will be formally evaluating them.

Subordinate feedback is most beneficial whenused for developmental purposes. Butprecautions should be taken to ensure thatsubordinates are appraising elements of whichthey have knowledge.

Only subordinates with a sufficient length ofassignment under the manager should beincluded in the pool of assessors. Subordinatescurrently involved in a disciplinary action or aformal performance improvement period shouldbe excluded from the rating group.Organizations currently undergoing downsizing

and/or reorganization should avoid this sourceof PA.

Its 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 andworking relationships.

It is a time-consuming

process.


12/18

Bellcore

International

Ltd(1998)

Johnson &

Johnson

Ltd(1980s)Wipro

Technologies Ltd

(Dec17th 2002)

Xerox (1980s)

IBM (1980)

Bell Atlantic (1980)


13/18

According to Mr. Pratik Kumar.

The mission and the objective of the feedbackmust be clear.

Employees must be involved early.

Resources must be dedicated to the process,including top management's time.

Confidentiality must be assured.

The organization, especially top management,must be committed to the program.

Pratik Kumar

Corporate VP HR,

Wipro Technologies

Limited- One of the

pioneers of 360

degree PA in India.


14/18

To the individual:Helps individuals to understand

how others perceive them.

Uncover blind spots

Quantifiable data on soft skills

To the team:

Increases communication

Higher levels of trust

Better team environment

Supports teamwork

Increased team effectiveness

To the organization:

Reinforced corporate culture by linking

survey items to organizational leadershipcompetencies and company values

Better career development for employees

Promote from within

Improves customer service by involving themConduct relevant training


15/18

"SARAH reaction:Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance, Help".


16/18


17/18


18/18

360 degree performance appraisal (1)

Documents