Should 360° feedback be used for personnel and pay decisions as well as for development? (Part 1 of 10) May 26, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, 360 feedback, Development, HR.Tags: 360 feedback, Development, feedback, Salary
add a comment
Here at Talent Innovations our Client Manager, Suraiya, has written a paper challenging the 10 most common best practice topics in 360° feedback. Over the next coming months we will be discussing each topic and would love to hear your thoughts!! For the full paper, download it for free here.
Should 360 feedback be used for personnel and pay decisions as well as for development?
The key debate is two-fold: firstly is 360° feedback suitable for both development and personnel and pay decisions; and secondly if the feedback has been obtained for one purpose can it then be used for the other – the distinction is in the original intended use of the data.
a. Is the 360 approach suitable for development as well as for informing personnel and pay decisions?
Advice by one 360 provider suggests that in order for 360° feedback to be used as part of performance management, there first needs to exist an effective performance management system and culture. This will ensure that input from the 360 process is better understood and best utilised; but how accurate are current performance management processes? A meta-analysis of 50 studies involving a total of 8,341 individuals has shown a merely moderate relationship between objective ratings of performance and individual indicators of performance24. This suggests current processes tend not to be as effective as they could be. There may be many reasons for this, such as rater candour. For example, studies have shown that ratings made for performance appraisal purposes, may be increased if the rater wants a positive influence over reward decisions for the appraisee, or may be decreased if the opposite is desired. Ratings may also be inflated due to a reluctance to highlight development needs, either in the self or others.
“…where this a clear or indeed indirect connection to pay and reward this can have a huge impact on the content, accuracy and emphasis of the feedback and consequently the usefulness of it for the individual.”
Whatever the cause of discrepancy, performance assessment and reward decisions should be based on accurate data gathered using the most appropriate tool/ method. In this light it could be argued that the 360° feedback process was designed for development and, development and assessment are two very different concepts. The distinction between development and assessment lies in what is being measured, competence or results? It could be argued that 360° feedback is better at gathering data related to competence, where it should be results and potential that are rewarded. Furthermore it could be argued that feedback received from 360° ratings make it difficult to make the distinction between individual contribution versus team effort as in the 360 process there is an emphasis on the individual.
An alternative view, which supports the use of 360 for performance development, states that rewarding results without consideration for the methods used to get those results is not sufficient. Managers recognise that results are obtained through working with people and 360 offers a way to ensure results are not gained by compromising on this.
“We know they [managers] can’t achieve them [results] without working through people, so we don’t want them to improve the bottom line and collect bonuses for doing so while discouraging, misusing or burning out the talented people who produced those results. We don’t want them to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.”
One very different view was presented by a law firm during a round table discussion hosted by one 360 provider. They were clear that they did not want to use 360° feedback to influence pay decisions:
“The business imperative is to win business, and it‟s understood that some of the most successful partners are not very nice in the process. Under no circumstances would we penalise them because they are not very nice and don‟t get on with their teams. We‟ll allow that behaviour because they bring in millions.”
It therefore seems that it may not always be appropriate for certain organisations to base pay decisions on the aspects measured in a 360.
Despite the above, research has shown that 22% of private sector organisations surveyed use 360 to support appraisals. Some feel that 360° feedback is a more accurate way to assess performance. Gaining a broader perspective from multiple raters leads to reduced bias; this may increase trust and engagement in the appraisal process as it is seen as fairer. The open comments element of many 360 tools may also help provide concrete examples of behaviour and impact and thus provide more reliable input into reward decisions. Some simply feel that having already invested in the process, using it for assessment as well as development will increase cost effectiveness.
At Talent Innovations we regularly use the 360° approach for performance management purposes. We strongly believe that the 360° approach provides the rounded approach required to make effective personnel and pay related decisions.
b. Can feedback gained for one purpose, then be used for the other?
Although research recognises the differing focus of 360° feedback for development and 360° feedback for personnel and pay decisions, there is limited advice on using data gathered for one purpose and then using it for the other.
What is published focuses on the ethical issues of participants not being fully aware of how their data will be used. Our thoughts at Talent Innovations however, focus on the fundamentally differing decisions that are required for each type of 360 process. For example if used for development we advise that the focus has complete choice over raters, whereas if being used for personnel decision we suggest at least some management input into rater choice.
If however it is decided that the same feedback data will be used for both there are certain criteria that should be met:
• The intended use of the feedback should be made clear from the onset.
• Feedback from the 360 report should not be used in its raw form. It may be more suitable to use the development plan that results from the 360 process. This will help put all feedback into context.
• The 360° feedback should form part of the performance appraisal and should not be the sole source of feedback.
• The manager feedback must be identifiable.
• The appraiser must be clear in how they should use the 360 data and not depend on anonymous feedback to provide the final performance rating.
Keep an eye out for the next part discussing whether individuals should choose their own raters…….
Now What? May 20, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, 360 feedback, Career planning, Coaching, Development, HR, Performance Management.Tags: 360 degree feedback, benchmark, coaching, Development, SMART, strengths, training
add a comment
A key question on our clients’ lips is, now what? I have a 360° process that works; it shows me the behaviours within my organisation both on a holistic and individual level. I can see where the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps are but how do I move forward and use this information to facilitate transformation?
If this is a question you have, here are a few points to consider:
1. Be clear where you are and where you want to be. For example there may be clear areas that are not as strong as others but are they required for success in your organisation/ in your career? A way to gain a greater understanding of this may be to benchmark yourself against other similar organisations/ individuals – what are their strengths, do you need them to be your own? From an organisational level this may also involve conversations with the board – where do they see the gaps that will impact future success?
2. Create a plan and set SMART milestones for achievement of the ‘to be’ state. E.g. Sales capability is low across the organisation, your 6 month goal is to have a ‘sheep dip’ approach and get basic skills up to date through online training for 75% of the organisation. Your 24 month plan may be to identify a core sales team who’s role is at least 50% sales focused, that will receive more focused training from and external sales consultant and on-going mentoring and coaching from internal regional sales leads.
3. Get clear on the training, mentoring, coaching and other personal development facilities and individuals available to you. Do you have the resources to fill the identified gaps? If not start to investigate what external resource you may need.
4. Up-skill line management to coach and mentor their staff and have open, ‘safe’ development conversations.
5. Ensure employees take responsibility for their own personal development and understand their contribution to achieving overall corporate goals and development needs.
6. Ensure senior management walk the talk and are visibly taking personal development seriously. This may involve up-skilling them to do this.
7. Make the process ‘easy’ and transparent, with clarity of expectations at all levels.
8. Keep the momentum going, lots of promises and then no action will have a detrimental effect.
9. Ensure individuals see the way forward and know that their dedication to personal development will be recognised and rewarded.
10. Make it self-driven, you cannot force an individual to develop and change at a rate that does not suit them.
Suraiya Rasheed
Starting 360 at the top sounds like a good idea – but how do you make sure your CEO gets the feedback they need? July 28, 2010
Posted by isabellecg in Uncategorized.Tags: 360, career, CEO, coaching, Development, feedback, inspiring, succession planning
4 comments
Starting 360 at the top sounds like a good idea – but how do you make sure your CEO gets the feedback they need?
Yesterday I had the privilege to give feedback to the CEO of a client organisation. He is no ordinary CEO – he is world famous – in the press and internationally known and highly regarded. His 360 data was extraordinary too – as you might imagine – ratings were very high on many competencies. It clearly showed up the weaker areas but the open text feedback was the most stunning part – the answers to “What do you like about…?” reports/peers/external parties had written specifically lengthy points of praise and acknowledgement. I have read hundreds (over a 1000?) reports and I have never been moved to tears of awe by this section before.
I was nervous – unusual for me – but everyone around him was clearly worried for me and it was catching! “Let me know how it goes” they said – with concern?! He is known for his critical tongue as well as him international expertise! He sat down and said “so, how can I help?” – that threw me for a moment but I soon recovered and said that I normally start with looking at where you are going in the job and your career. It felt a little cheeky but he just started talking – he’s been a Director for 37 years and has already over-achieved on his 10 year plan for the organisation but has more to deliver before he leaves, and some significant challenges facing him.
He has a clear and inspiring vision. We discerned the challenges he’s facing and I asked what of the 360 data was relevant to these challenges. He was reflective and open to my input. He had absorbed nearly all the data with accuracy so I focused on ensuring he had understood the 3 key points I judged to be important:
- Respect and awe for him was significant, but there was a downside to this re accessibility/visibility – he was not always seen to value others
- His personal weaker areas (management and planning) are mirrored through the whole organisation – again with an impact on others
- People were requesting a tougher stand re conflict and under-performance
In addition I raised a question of succession planning Re next CEO – to be sure he knew most people were wondering and unclear about this.
He was open to seeing all these points and exploring these perceptions further. I asked him which 2 areas would make the most difference to him and after minutes of silent reflection, he said:
- Delegation
- Communication/visibility
On being asked how the process went for him he said it was extremely useful and that, now he has seen how useful the open text comments were, he wanted to encourage people to write more. He left clear that he wanted to have a conversation with the others doing 360 to ensure he could contribute as much as possible. Awesome!
Elva Ainsworth
Performance Management Tension April 14, 2008
Posted by talentinnovations in Performance Management.Tags: Annual Review, Development, Performance Management
1 comment so far
For a while now we’ve had a performance management module in our software. We think it’s pretty good – it links the person’s annual review with their 360 scores by competency, and allows HR managers to monitor everything easily. We developed it for one particular client, and they’ve recently had a bit of trouble with their ‘annual review politics’.
The basic problem is this: there is an inherent tension in doing performance reviews between consistency and openness. There are basically two ways of doing it:
- Have the review reflect an honest conversation between the manager and the individual about the individual’s performance over the year
- Have the review reflect a ‘calibrated’ measure of performance that fits correctly with everyone else’s performance reviews (and which can therefore be used to feed into bonuses / raises / etc.)
If you go for option 1 then the obvious thing to do is for the manager to only decide on the review score at the end of the review meeting. Whereas if you go for option 2 then it is important that the review score is agreed with other people (e.g. among the department leadership team) before the review meeting even happens.
Our client’s managers were using option 1, but then they all got together and realised that some managers had been far too generous, and so they had to ‘recalibrate’ everyone’s reviews, which was obviously very disappointing for some individuals who thought they were in line for fantastic bonuses! In other words, the reality (that performance reviews have to be consistent and agreed among many stakeholders) undermined the ideal (that performance reviews reflect the conversation between the manager and the individual).
So anyway, we’ve been thinking people could potentially redesign their performance management tools more closely around a new sort of process that would try to overcome this problem. You could actually have 2 separate review scores – one which is ‘what the manager thinks’, and another for ‘what the company thinks’. To avoid confusion, the two scores would deliberately be on different scales (e.g. the first on a 4-point scale and the second on a 6-point scale) in order to avoid one devaluing the other. You’d be making explicit something which is usually hidden – that a person’s final review score arises from their manager making their case to the other people who control the finances.
We think it might be a great idea, but can’t help wondering whether people really want to be made so aware of the truth?
Mark.
Do qualitative comments relate to improved performance? (Part 4 of 10) June 17, 2011
Posted by talentinnovations in 360 degree feedback, Performance Management.Tags: 360 degree feedback, coaching, Development, qualitative comments
add a comment
4. Do qualitative comments relate to improved performance?
Best practice advises that qualitative comments are provided by raters to expand on their numerical rating scores but how accurate and beneficial are they, do they relate to greater improvements in performance?
Qualitative comments fill in the gaps left by numerical ratings alone and can be particularly beneficial when creating a development plan. They can provide specific examples of where an individual‟s current behaviour has worked well, as well as showing the consequences of when it has not.
“The real colour of a 360, the brilliant insights, are obtained from the qualitative comments.”
The ability of qualitative comments to provide these benefits will of course depend upon their quality; and it could be argued that really helpful qualitative feedback is hard to come by. There may be many reasons for this, such as inadequate guidance or lack of time but organisational culture may also be a key factor. If an individual is supported in, and rewarded for providing in depth feedback they are more likely to take the time to do so. “High quality and constructive feedback takes significant time and effort from the individual providing it – including moral courage and resilience. In today’s KPI driven and short term numbers focused environments, little time, support and recognition is given to those who make the effort to give vital feedback. There seems to be greater emphasis in reducing cost than there is on focusing on staff, and many business leaders find it difficult to relate time/effort spent on people development (especially performance management) to the ‘bottom line’ or indeed other more pressing financial targets.”
Even if constructive, specific comments are made the focus may reject them if they feel they are inaccurate or from a source they do not trust. In addition to rejection of feedback, there are alternative negative reactions that could follow from qualitative comments. An individual may become pre-occupied with identifying who the comments came from by analysing perceived „give aways‟ of a raters identity such as typical wording or spelling errors. An individual may also become pre-occupied by negative feedback. Each of these negative reactions will cause a hindrance in moving the individual through to acceptance. The negative impact of these reactions could be reduced by a number of measures discussed in this report, such as use of a professional coach, removal of qualitative comments for particular groups e.g. when showing the report to managers, provision of the feedback report prior to coaching session, or checking for overly personal or inappropriate comments prior to release of the report.
The consensus view seems to state that qualitative comments are beneficial as long as they are of a high quality and are constructive. Our view on qualitative comments at Talent Innovations is that more is better. They provide the context and the real learning points that help an individual understand their perceived behaviour. However we do feel it is important for an independent party to review comments prior to the feedback report being released. This both ensures that comments are constructive but also allows time to plan for particularly difficult feedback sessions – which in our experience are few and far between.
Regardless of the feedback method chosen by our client we offer the support of a trained career coach when needed and this offer is typically accepted for the most difficult of cases. Remember it is essential that all those who take part in a 360 benefit from the experience and follow through into acceptance of the data. Although infinitely valuable when approached correctly, if a 360 is not managed well the negative impact can be detrimental and long lasting.
Part 5 discusses whether a 360 feedback should provide surprises….
For the full paper, download it for free here.
Share this:
Like this: