This page shares some thoughts about 360 degree feedback and gives
you some links for finding information on its promises and pitfalls.
I have also included some links of companies I've seen on the net that
deliver products supporting this effort. This page does not advocate
any particular vendor for any particular product. I've only posted
a few of the many thousands of companies simply because they were easy
to find and convenient to post.
Personally, I object to attaching salary determinations, bonuses, and
other monetary rewards to the performance appraisal system. "WHAT?",
you think, "THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE FOR!" When
involved in giving a performance appraisal, have you heard the tapes in
your head that say
"Don't hand out too many good evaluations because there is only so
much merit money to hand out." OR
"Don't hand out too many good evaluations because there are only so
many promotions to give." OR
"Don't hand out too many good evaluations because you might appear
to be too soft." OR
"Don't hand out too many good evaluations because you have to give
people something to strive for." OR
"Only 20 percent of my people should be getting excellent evaluations."
Then, the horns and halo effects take their toll on the positive purpose
behind the appraisal.
Let me ask you these questions?
IS THERE SOME NATURAL PHENOMENON THAT SAYS NOT EVERYONE
CAN PERFORM EXCELLENTLY AT WORK?????
ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE THAT WANTS TO PERFORM WELL AND SOMEHOW
ITS YOUR JOB TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE ELSE DOES??????
DO PEOPLE COME TO WORK AND NATURALLY WAIT FOR A MANAGER
TO DEFINE FOR THEM WHAT PERFORMING WELL MEANS????
ARE MANAGERS SOMEHOW THE ONLY ONES WHO KNOW WHAT PERFORMING
WELL MEANS???
Feedback is so very vital to your management formula. Destructive hits like the ones listed above, can come back to haunt an organization system wide. All the above "taped messages" have a tremendously destructive effect on people in organizations. They all involve dishonesty, unfairness, mistrust, and deceit. Talk about value driven systems? We say things and mean others. The key to understanding why I object to attaching money to performance appraisals is in what Herzberg says about motivation. Money is a dissatisfier and recognition/self esteem and the other concepts associated with performance appraisals are satisfiers. Mixing the satisfiers with dissatisfiers creates for dangerous repercussions.
The lack of communication surrounding performance appraisals astonishes me. On the average, when I ask these questions:
Have you ever asked your employees for feedback on how you manage?
Have you ever filled out a special recognition form from the State
RAPP system?
I get a no 95% of the time for both questions. This scares me!!!!
The business of performance appraisals should be an ongoing effort of two way communication about how we can improve our processes by building on our strengths. The process should be positive and conducted in a way that presents no surprises. It should focus on objectives for meeting goals that contribute to the mission of the organization thereby connecting all of us with the organizational strategic plan. It should convey a genuine caring message about how we contribute to the mission. It should be directly related to previously agreed to MUTUAL expectations. It should be more about recognition as it is about how we can improve and "How we can improve" should not be about correcting deficiencies but rather improving strengths or cultivating talents. It should be timely. It should involve all parties in discussion and celebration. It should be scheduled in advance and conducted informally without interruption. It should be done face to face as part of a two way coaching relationship. AND it should never be about the FORM...
A climate must be present to promote best use of the information.
Discussions of performance should be anticipated favorably in this environment.
Performance appraisals should be opportunities for all parties to learn
how meeting our mission can be improved. Managers must create a supporting
climate in this process. The Likert system 4 organization represents
the climate of which I'm talking. System 4 organizations produce
the best climate for meaningful performance evaluations.
360 evaluations have had mixed results. They can fit into
any organizational climate, but seem to lend themselves best to a system
4 organization. All the basic principles listed above apply to the
360 performance evaluation process. So, if you have problems with
your current system you will probably have the same problems implementing
a 360 performance evaluation system. Its the culture of the organization
that supports or hinders the implementation of a system. To change
to 360 and make it work better than your current system you have to address
the culture. Likert system 4 presents a model picture of organizational
culture. The change to 360 may help you change culture but in slight
measures. Start by supporting positive values and introduce 360 as
a way to move in that direction. 360s can be done face to face, with
forms that identify the rater, by anonymous forms, through the mail, secret
box, over a computer network, or the Internet.
Organizations thinking about 360 or using 360
http://www.fws.gov/r9mat/projects/360feedback.html
A Denmark Company's
experience (Written in Danish)
Books on 360
http://www.cupa.org/bookstor/details/360.htm
http://www.nefried.com/360/
Also offers related links
http://www.amanet.org/books/catalog/00326.htm
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/pert/other/tools/360bib.htm This is a bibliography on 360
Computer based
http://www.centerpointsystems.com/TLSsoftware.htm
http://www.tregistry.com/perform.htm
http://www.nefried.com/360/
Offers a four product comparison article.
Internet based
http://www.ccl.org/products/360bd/
http://www.panoramicfeedback.com/
Companies
http://www.rnatraining.com/
http://www.foxlawson.com/ServicesGovernment/3.html
MORE TO COME!