How to Use 360-Degree Feedback More Effectively
What percentage of the people in your organisation who receive 360-degree feedback make a sustained change in their behaviour? Recent survey results of implementers of 360-degree feedback surveys, indicate that fewer than 40 percent of participants actually make sustained change in behaviour.
We asked among our network and the results were even less optimistic. Most respondents estimated that only 5 percent to 10 percent actually changed behaviours. This kind of return on investment is not typically welcomed in a business enterprise. And yet, the use of that kind of feedback is still as popular as ever.
When asked what the biggest challenge to sustained behaviour change was for these organisations, the overwhelming answer (over 50 percent) was lack of focus on development. Nothing else was even close, including survey implementation issues, communications, technology, or senior support of the initiative.
It is easy for HR development professionals to get caught up in the mechanism of the multirater survey. Whether building one or buying one, the specifications for the instrument, not follow-up, receive the most attention. How many points are on a scale? What gap in ratings is a statistically significant? Can we compare individual scores to industry norms? Will reports compare this year’s scores to last year’s scores? How many ways can the group data can be sliced and diced?
In a recent study, published by DDI, "Multisource Feedback that Effects Changes in Leader’s Behaviour," there are several common problems cited that produce 360-degree feedback's poor track record for change. Most of these common problems play a role in the ultimate failure to focus and act on development.
Here are two of the biggest problems identified in the study:
1. Survey participants see feedback as a “report card” rather than a roadmap for development.
It is natural in the competitive workplace in which leaders live to see multirater results as a “grade.” All the effort to generate a variety of scores from the survey only adds to this perception. “How do I compare with others?” is more important than “How can I improve myself?” “Am I being exposed?” is a greater concern than “Who can I enlist to help me?”
Often the organisation, either deliberately or inadvertently, fuels this attitude. Using “poor” results to blame, demote, not promote, or not compensate will turn your 360 degree feedback into a game of mistrust and manipulation in a hurry. Letting your multirater results become your performance management system will garner the same results. And might get you sued.
The true end game is increased performance through effective development. This only occurs by creating a culture where feedback is welcomed and safe. Research shows that when the recipients of feedback understand that feedback results will be used for development rather than for promotion or compensation, change is more likely to occur.
Development goals, not multirater results, should be built into performance expectations. Generating energy for people to seek help and ongoing feedback will pay out many more dividends than creating evermore ways to compare and analyse 360-degree scores.
2. Recipients of feedback don’t involve their manager or others in choosing development goals, planning skill acquisition, and implementing development plans.
The nature of this problem swings two ways. In some cases, 360-degree results are purely the property of the recipient. No manager involvement is required or expected and the individuals are left to follow up (or not) as they see fit. The other extreme is when only the manager will get a person’s feedback and becomes the sole filter and interpreter of the feedback.
The best practice lies between these two approaches. Feedback should be “owned” by the individual, but with the expectation that a manager gets involved to help a person understand the results and plan effective development strategies. This discussion is far more important than any scale, score, or norm.
Left on their own, people tend to choose too many development goals and ones that are easy, convenient, or socially acceptable. Managers, along with coaches or mentors, can help by targeting goals with the greatest impact for the individual and the organisation. Development goals that have a tangible benefit to the business are less likely to be cut or ignored.
Managers can also assist with execution of the development plan, providing cover from the many disruptions or challenges to completing development activities. Finally, peers can be enlisted to help with development by offering expertise or providing ongoing feedback. This creates a win-win-win scenario. The individual develops skills, the manager builds talent in key competencies while promoting teamwork within the unit, and the organisation realises improved performance.
Implementing multirater feedback can be a powerful, long-term process for continuous performance improvement. The simple, yet clear conclusion from the research is: don’t get so wrapped up in the survey itself that the true purpose — focused development — takes a back seat.
Introducing multirater feedback as an instrument of possibility, rather than one of measurement, can be the key to creating a feedback culture that encourages people to acknowledge and address growth opportunities.
Use it for development only, then communicate this intention and champion the proper outcomes. Get managers involved in developmental discussions. Have senior leaders model the behaviour. As people in the organisation gain trust — not only in the survey itself, but also in the development activities that follow — participation will increase dramatically. And so will performance.
From GLNow
Further reading:
The 360 Degree Perfomance Review