Critical Appraisal of the 360-Degree Multi-Rater System of Evaluation - Essay Example

Critical appraisal of the 360-degree multi rater system of evaluation Human resource being an indispensable and crucial part of any organization, it is important to ensure that every individual with their share of contribution to the institution is assessed from time to time. This assessment was traditionally conducted by the superiors of an organization who intended to find out the performance gap (the difference between the actual and expected performance) for every employee and assess them accordingly (Barksdale and Lund, 2001, p.169). Logically speaking, such an evaluation system where the employees need to please only their superiors might not always reveal the true picture about that person and his or her efficiency. A 360-degree feedback method is a multi rater system where there are many (or, multi) raters for every individual. Each employee is evaluated with the help of feedback from himself, his or her peers, subordinates, the customers and the managers or superiors “the systematic collection and feedback of performance data on an individual or group, derived from a number of the stakeholders in their performance” (Morgan, Kannan and Cullinane, 2005, p.644). Thus the feedback comes from everyone around the individual and therefore forms a full circle. This shows an evaluation done from multiple perspectives and helps the employee formulate his own targets for self development. Thus, in the 360-degree feedback mechanism the operation is performed with the worker at the center and the motivation is improvement of his or her performance within the organization. Three basic categories of employees can be distinctly identified by this feedback system. Superkeepers are those candidates who exceed the expectation level to a great extent; they are categorized as the best. Then come the Keepers who also exceeds the level of expectation to some extent and lastly the Solid Citizens who just somehow meet the expectation level. (Berger, 2003, p.120) This method in fact serves the crucial means of bringing about personal development and self awareness instead of a straight performance evaluation. In 2002 itself the system was adopted by about 90 percent of the Fortune 500 companies. (Linman, n.d.) Like any other tool the implementation of this process needs to take certain factors into consideration in order to make its implementation fruitful. Any evaluation tool has its pros and cons but what matters ultimately is the final outcome it generates provided all the necessary pre conditions are maintained. The paper argues using logos (logical facts or the truth) and ethos (evidence) that despite the difficulties and precautions of implementing the 360-degree multi-rater system, it has great prospects for the future and may still be used as a complement to traditional performance evaluation methods. Development of leadership is the key to organizational success in terms of its functioning and operations. Without an effective leader or manager the performance of the resources would suffer. The term management is associated with handling of limited or given resources to achieve the common organizational goals and objectives. The major activities involved are planning, organizing, staffing and problem solving. Leadership is a broad set of personality traits which help in carrying out the activities defined by the term management. In order to understand the rationale behind the multi rater feedback system we may dwell upon the transactional and transformational leadership styles. Transactional leadership refers to the interaction between the manager and the subordinates where the former’s ability is limited to provision of reward and negative feedbacks to a follower according to the latter’s response to his instructions and goals agreed upon. Here the power lies mostly in the hands of the manager whose tasks are limited to the activities mentioned above. In order to grasp the true and complete picture it is essential to empower every employee to a certain extent. The organizations are now encouraging transformational leadership where the leader needs to accept challenge at every steps and might be evaluated by his follower as well. Therefore four components are essential to this leadership style – “charisma”, “intellectual stimulation”, “inspirational motivation” and “individualized consideration” (Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998, p.35). Using charisma the leader embodies a persona which is admired and provides a role model for other to follow. He needs to provide inspiration to the subordinates in order to attain the set goal and motivate them towards it. Intellectual simulation refers to encouraging “individuals to challenge the `sacred cows of the organization, irrespective of their status or level in the organization. They also seek feedback on their own behavior”. Here we might bring in the multi rater system of feedback where a worker or an employee is judged round the circle - by his peers, subordinates and superiors. Here the top down approach is overturned an a leader retains his authority as long as the subordinates or the followers want him there. Thus, the leader despite all the power is not able to disregard the assessment of his contribution by his subordinates. This has been explained by Melcalfe (1998, p.36) while referring to individualized consideration, as follows, “Consistent with the `empowering tone of the model of transformational leadership, modern writers on leadership are almost turning the historical notion of management, as fundamentally a top-down influence process, on its head. Leadership is being conceptualized and extolled as an authority `bestowed on a manager by her/his followers” The multi rater feedback system keeps with this tone and therefore, the transformational leadership which is supposed to be the basis for effective leadership of an organization would be supported by this feedback system. When we talk of intellectual stimulation we find this useful as this is not a biased or unidirectional way of evaluation. The leaders also need to be careful as their intentions and work process might be challenged by the subordinates. Individualized consideration comes into play since this tool empowers every individual to assess the people around him or her irrespective of the individual’s designation. This also enfolds a self assessment component where the individual assesses himself through the feedback process. Again the anonymity of the raters helps prevent bias in the evaluation as well as prevents negative impact on employee-employee relationships. We might relate this system with the Johari’s window which illustrates the way we perceive the world around use and the manner in which we are evaluated by the surrounding. The following diagram shall explain this: Known to Self Known to Others Known to Self Unknown to Others Unknown to Self Known to Others Unknown to Self Unknown to Others (Korotov, 2006, p.4) The ‘Known to Self/Unknown to Others’ component is narrowed down with the help of the multi-rater feedback system. It initiates from known to self/known to others area and extends to cover what is unknown to the self but know to one’s peers, subordinates and/or superiors. (Korotov, 2006, p.4) Thus the self assessment component is enhanced when one comes to know of the 360-degree evaluation about him or herself. Self assessment helps in self motivation instead of the latter being externalized via rewards and incentives. Thus, “facilitating self awareness” (Fletcher and Bailey, 2003, p.396) is the second rationale of the feedback system. Several studies have been undertaken to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the multi-rater feedback system of evaluation. More than 50 percent of the firms who had adopted this system reported its failure and backed out. However the promise which initiates the implementation of this tool is the potential benefits showered on the stakeholders – customers, executives, team, leaders, supervisors, compensation professionals and finally the organization as a whole. For instance, it helps the executives to understand the performance of employees working at a geographical distance, gives a voice to the customers regarding the quality of products and services delivered, empowers the employees with a participatory role in the decision-making process, an opportunity to assess the way others view personal leadership skills of a leader and provides the organization a scope to ensure better control over quality and also a justification for the promotions approved. Edwards and Ewen (1996) reveal that it is far more convenient than traditional surveys which required long questionnaires and large sample. The authors also cite some practical instances where the rating system did not work properly owing to certain infrastructural or organizational issues. These took place due to “fatal errors”. For instance a hospital failed in effective implementation because the employees were untrained in the different aspects of the tool and therefore was not equipped to participate effectively. An hierarchical organization, autocratic in nature failed to implement this system successfully because the upward feedback process were rejected by the managers who managed to use their influence and discontinue the system, fearing that it might reveal their flaws. These errors might be taken not simply as facts but the real picture which comes before us is that these errors should be taken care of before implementing the system and appropriate measure should be taken. -A study undertaken by Morgan, Cannan and Cullinane (2005) shows that introduction of the 360-degree feedback system in civil service organization proved to be a failure. The purpose was to critically look at the underlying assumption of self awareness generation via multi-rater system by drawing upon the experience of the Patent Office of UK which introduced this system though a Leadership and Management program (LAMP). (Morgan, Cannan and Cullinane, 2005, p.667) The data was gathered through use of survey questionnaires and the opinions of management and the participants were collected regarding the implementation of the tool and the final consequence. The findings brought out that the use of the feedback tool could not facilitate self awareness as expected. The feedback system was not designed to keep up to the plans for development and also did not address the core areas of competencies of the organization. Also the individuals complained that it did not benefit them in any way. The authors concluded that this tool might have some rationale with respect to the wider civil service area provided the “agenda for organizational efficiency, target setting, and performance improvement gathers momentum.” The authors also discuss an empirical study conducted by DeNisi and Kluger (2000, p.130) who derived that 38 percent of the impact of this feedback system was negative on the performance of the employees. (Morgan, Cannan and Cullinane, 2005, p.666). However the literature gathered by the authors also cites Ward (1997, p.39) as follows: “if you don’t know of the pitfalls in advance you are more likely to fall into them unawares”. (quoted in, Morgan, Cannan and Cullinane, 2005, p.666). The performance might not be improved despite a successful evaluation because the further step after the feedbacks are obtained is often not followed. Finally Morgan, Cannan and Cullinane, (2005) conclude the study by inferring about the Patent Office performance with respect to the multi-rater system that, “The system as piloted relies heavily on development plans and corrective action being undertaken through participant led initiative but many participants took no such actions as they apparently expected the organization’s HRM systems to undertake this planning for them” (p.678). Therefore, the effectiveness of the tool relies on the subsequent actions being taken in the direction of improving performance. If this part is not ensured then there is little utility in implementing the tool. McCarthy and Garavan (2006, p.907) undertook a survey in an Irish Financial services firm which is engaged in foreign operations and has around 9000 employees from Ireland. The idea was to find out “the predictors of acceptance of multisource feedback (MSF) by managers”. (McCarthy and Garvan, 2006, p.903) When the study was undertaken to assess the managers’ perception, 778 managers from ten different levels had completed the feedback process. There were 550 respondents (response rate was 67 percent). The multi source feedback process was designed in a manner such that the managers could assess their leadership abilities and competencies with respect to people management. Measures were established according to highest inter item correlations and factor analysis was done via principle component methods in order to test the construct validity of the measures constructed. The average age of the participants was 44 years with 81.2 percent male and 18.5 females whle.3 percent did not disclose their gender. Hierarchical regression method was applied for testing the hypothesis while the analysis for cynicism (an individual level variable which determined the acceptance of the system and it indicates negative personal attitude), locus of control (refers to the way managers would implement the feedbacks in the process of development) and procedural justice (need for appropriate context and environment for the implementation of the feedback system is captured by this variable) were carried out exclusively. The findings of the study reflect the following about procedural justice, “there is further scope to investigate the role of perceptions of procedural fairness in predicting acceptance of multisource feedback by managers. Procedural fairness incorporates issues related to the perceived fairness of the selection of raters, the design of the multisource feedback instrument, and the way in which the process is communicated to managers”. (McCarthy and Garvan, 2006, p.914) Also, the results showed that cynicism towards the organization can significantly impact the acceptance of the process of multisource feedback. However locus of control did not have much significant over the acceptance of the system. Linman weighs the pros and cons of the feedback mechanism and in this respect discusses certain comments of experts. For instance Alan Hoffmanner of AGILEdge implemented the system and states the positive outcome as follows: “I received frequent feedback that it had an overall positive effect on the organization since as employees broadly evaluated their managers on people, personal effectiveness and attitudes; it raised the consciousness on these issues such that they observed changes/improvements in their culture/relationships...” (Linman, n.d., p.2) The positive benefits highlighted here relate to the social connectivity of the employees where the workers feel closely associated and responsible towards each other at the professional level apart from being committed to the shared goals and objectives. An instance of Hewlett-Packard and Agilent Technologies is cited by Linman where no new information was revealed in the feedback process. The feedbacks given were generalized and diplomatically framed. The reason was the open nature of the survey or lack of confidentiality. Thus the climate of the organization plays a great role in making the feedback process a success. Similarly the system proved futile in IBM where it was used for annual review owing to the internal politics which affected the results. Although logically speaking the tool is undeniably a strong means of evaluation, evidences have reflected otherwise. The concerns about implementation may be presented in the words of Dr. John Sullivan from San Francisco State University, “There is no data it actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances or that it is superior to forced ranking and standard Performance Appraisal systems. It sounds good but there is no proof it works other than a lot of companies have tried it” (Linman, n.d., p.2). From the above study of literature we may feel that success of implementation of this multi-rater feedback system would depend a lot on certain pre requisites or organizational requirements. The studies make it clear that the disadvantages of the system mainly lie with its implementation and future actions with regard to the feedbacks obtained. However the disadvantages which essentially have been revealed through facts and practical application might be taken positively as they point out the organizational fallacies which exist. However the studies also point out the organizational fallacies which need to be taken care of. The prime requirements include an environment which favors individual growth, a flexible outlook where criticism are utilized effectively towards improvement, feedback methods are formulated properly and with procedural justice, maintenance of confidentiality, the feedback tool designed on the basis of organizational values and goals, scopes for comments included in the feedback tool, proper training of workers regarding the use of the tool (Goldstein and Ford, 2002). In order to comprehend the benefits unfolded by the use of the multi rater system despite all the constraints discussed, the Johari’s window might prove to be an important tool. The window which was referred before contains four quadrants. The first quadrant is open, then hidden, the third one being blind and the last is called unknown. The first or the open quadrant represents the various issues which both person and the people surrounding that person are aware of. The employees who are more interactive in nature and share a cordial relationship with his or her peers, superiors, subordinates and the customers have a larger open quadrant. This shows that more the person lets other enter their world, with their awareness of course, more interactive he or she will become. This process is also called self-disclosure, where a constant attempt on the part of the individual is made to let other people know more about him or her. The blind quadrant on the other hand makes the surrounding more aware of certain things than the individual. These are the aspects which are often reflected in the 360 degree feedback form. The individual may do certain things or act in certain manner which the other members surrounding him may perceive in a different way and can assess him. They can make out certain aspects of the individual’s character that the individual himself is unaware of. Thus we can see that the 360-degree feedback program is a tool which uses this concept to make the employees of the organization aware of the surroundings so that they reform or reconstruct their behavior accordingly. Another quadrant is the hidden quadrant where in the individual knows about certain aspects of his behavior but his surrounding is unaware of it. The 360-degree feedback results of any employee also show how successfully if at all, he has maintained the hidden quadrant. (Connor, and Pokora 2007, p.137-8) The circular nature of the feedback normally tries and find out all the interactive aspects of the individual. The blind quadrant represents those unknown aspects which both the individual and the surrounding are unaware of. There are certain folds in human interactive behavior which are revealed only at the occurrence of some incidents. If during the periodic assessment of any employee an irregularity is being observed it can be believed that this quadrant of the Johari window may be exposed. So we see that companies when study the individual interactive behavior and the impact the individual is having on the others, this theory actually lays the foundation of all these. The feedback necessarily depends on the ways and means by which an individual opens up one of his quadrant. It is a continuous process by which an almost correct assessment of an individual can be made, which will provide value addition to the primary goal of setting up such feedback system. The process also identifies the areas on which they need to work on and the periodic assessment gives them an update on how they are improving on the line they are work on. On the other hand people with low self-awareness always find the feedback to be biased and wrong and they show a negative attitude towards work. (Fletcher and Bailey, 2003, p. 396) So for the company’s point of view it is very essential to develop an unbiased system where self-aware people get a proper response and work towards the company’s broader objectives and long term goals. In conclusion we may say that despite the problems associated with the implementation of the multi source feedback system, one might find it useful once the implementation oriented complicacies are resolved. The advantages conceptualized are logical and rational especially in the modern perspective. The only issue is personal attitude of an individual and above all, procedural fairness. At the same time, the time invested in the process will go to vain if the feedback obtained is not utilized successfully. It is not yet time to reject the old methods of appraisal but this might be useful when implemented as a complement to the old methods. Selection of the instrument of feedback is very vital to the success of the process. The questionnaires need to be designed in such a fashion that answering them would take as little time as possible. The best way of conducting the feedback process is via mail where a spread sheet may be passed on to each individual containing the names of people for whom the feedbacks need to be sent. A multiple choice framework is most effective designed on the basis of scale assigned for each answer. Then again for each competency that has to be identified specific questions has to be designed such that the answers directly contribute to the result the management looks for. Another important aspect to be kept in mind from the point of view of the management is that the results should include both quantitative as well as qualitative data. This is due to the fact, that this survey, as mentioned above is more generally focused on the behavioral qualities of an employee. Thus to find an appropriate result the qualitative aspects should also be kept in mind. After choosing the correct instrument and addressing these issues the implementation of the 360 degree feedback should aim at developing an overall performance management system. (Rao, 2005, p.98) Hence, this calls for a “behaviorally anchored rating scale” where the qualitative information might be captured through multiple choices as much as possible (Jones and Bearley, 1996, p.102). Another positive factor associated with its implementation failure is that this failure itself might raise questions about the probable flaws within the organization and therefore help in identifying them and improving the necessary areas. Therefore, the multi rater 360 degree feedback system might provide a benchmark for every modern organization. The system is theoretically and conceptually very advanced and modernized and hence every firm might try to implement this atleast once for the evaluation of their human resources. If they succeed then nothing is wrong but if they fail in implementing it successfully then the other procedural aspects may be reviewed and recovered with due measures. References 1. Alimo-Metcalfe, M. (1998) “360 Degree Feedback and Leadership Development”, International Journal of Selection and Management, Vol. 6, no. 1, pp.35-44 2. Barksdale, S. and T. Lund (2001) Rapid Evaluation, American Society for Training and Development 3. Berger, D. (2003) The talent management handbook, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York 4. Connor, M. and J. Pokora (2007) Coaching and Mentoring at Work: Developing Effective Practice, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York 5. DeNisi, A.S. and Kluger, A.N. (2000), “Feedback effectiveness: can 3608 appraisals be improved?”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 129-39 6. Edwards, M.R. and A.J. Ewen (1996), 360-degree feedback: royal fail or holy grail?, Career Development International, 1/3, pp.28–31 7. Fletcher, C. and Bailey, C. (2003) “Assessing self-awareness: some issues and methods”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 395-404 8. Goldstein, I. and Ford, K. (2002). Training in Organizations (4th Edition). Wadsworth, Belmont, CA 9. Jones EJ, Bearley W. (1996). 360 feedback, strategies, tactics, and techniques for developing leaders, Human Resource Development press, MA 10. Korotov, K. (2006) “Preparation for 360-degree Feedback in Leadership Development Programs andExecutive Coaching”, European School of Management, available at: http://www.esmt.org/fm/13/Preparation%20for%20360-degree%20feedback_watermark.pdf (accessed on May 28, 2009) 11. Linman, T. (n.d.)” 360-degree Feedback: Weighing the Pros and Cons”, Menu of Intervention, available at: http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/ARossett/pie/Interventions/360_1.htm (accessed on May 28, 2009) 12. McCarthy, A.M. and Garavan, T.N. (2007) “Understanding acceptance of multisource feedback for management development”, Personnel Review, vol. 36, no.6, pp.903-917 13. Morgan, A., Cannan, K. and J. Cullinane, (2005) “3600 feedback: a critical enquiry”, Personnel Review, vol. 34. No. 6, pp.663-680 14. Rao R. (2005). The power of 360 degree feedback,maximizing managerial and leadership effectiveness, SAGE, London 15. Ward, P. (1997), 3608 Feedback, Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Read More