I was reading a (from I suspect a competitor) blog post - on successful 360 degree feedback implementation.  In summary, they suggest that a successful implementation of 360 feedback uses a generic tool based on generic competencies.   They cite that this works because it keeps things simple, reduces the cost of designing a 360 degree feedback competency framework from scratch and tends to be easier to use because it is a simpler system.

I really believe that ease of use is crucial for a 360 system but I wouldn't link this to using a generic 360 framework.  Rather, I think a tailored framework is generally best but this should be implemented in a very simple way - not too many questions, wording that reflects the company, and plenty of opportunity for narrative responses.  The essential element is that the system itself and the way it presents the to-do list and questionnaires should be very simple to use.

I agree with the principles behind this post - and perhaps our differences come from the way Bowland Solutions have decided to develop our 360 degree software compared to this company.


Brendan

I rarely write about the software side of 360 degree feedback.  While that is a large part of Bowland Solutions offering it isn't what drives us.  It is though what brought the company into being.

360 degree feedback has the potential to be a bureaucratic and administrative problem.  We have a client who gets feedback on 1000 people from 7 respondents in 2 months.  Paper would be achievable but administratively a horror.

360 degree appraisal software should do three things in my opinion.

First, it should make the process simple to administer.  That way the HR team can focus on why they are doing the 360 rather than how.

Second, it should make completion of a 360 form on a colleague a painless process.  That way giving feedback becomes an exercise in considering how best to provide constructive comments rather than a chore.

Finally, it should make the reporting of 360 degree feedback a timely and positive experience.  This allows the individual and the debriefer to discuss the feedback within days of it being collated and to concentrate on the content of the report.

If I were selecting a 360 degree appraisal software provider I would focus on these fundamentals.  Most other things are mere noise that distract from the purpose of 360.

Brendan

I read a great article on the dangers of using 360 degree feedback as part of performance appraisals.  I have to say I almost agree with the whole of this article.

At Bowland Solutions we are very cautious about linking what is essentially a development tool into the performance review process - particularly if there is a subsequent link to pay.

I wholeheartedly recommend a full read of this article.


Brendan

We had an interesting discussion in the office yesterday around how 360 degree feedback could be used to support an initiative to move the management team of an organisation to a different style of management.  It so happened that we had been discussing McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y managers and so the debate was framed in this way.

We discussed how first the behavioural statements and their ratings allow the manager to see how those around them view them.  However, if we have a Theory X manager on our hands the likely response to a low score on "trusts me too.." is "so, what".  And so, the narrative element of the feedback becomes crucial.

In this case we need the narrative element of the feedback to give the impact of the manager's behaviour.  As a coach debriefing the report you are looking to be able to demonstrate that the distrustful, blameful style of management is leading to staff who don't think for themselves and do the minimum possible.

It is unlikely that one 360 degree feedback intervention is going to move a manager between the two opposing views of the world described by McGregor but Bowland Solutions strongly believe that giving feedback to managers allows them to make better choices.  When part of a coordinated training programme, then 360 degree feedback can give a manager a true insight into how their behaviour is leading their  team to act in an undesired manner.  Most importantly when designing the questionnaire for a 360 degree appraisal solution the context for the intervention has to drive both the selection of the behavioural statements and the comments sections.

Brendan

There is a fascinating article in "Non profit quarterly" on Peak Performance: Nonprofit Leaders Rate Highest in 360-Degree Reviews

The article looks at scores for leaders in non-profit organisations and compares them with scores from leaders in profit organisations.

My instinct is that they have found something that is correct but their methodology disturbs me.  First, they have averaged scores over what I assume is categorical data from a 360 degree appraisal.  This is fraught with challenges that I have written on separately. 

More importantly they have assumed that the people rating the leaders are rating them in the same way.  Bearing in mind the nature of the article is to suggest differences between leaders in profit and non-profit organisations they have assumed that the direct reports and peers hold their leaders to exactly the same benchmarks.

When you delve into the article you find that the self-assessments of both sets of leaders are very similar.  The article's authors suggest this is because the leaders are harder on themselves in non-profit organisations.  An alternative explanation is that the self-appraisal in both sides is the accurate one and it is the raters who are rating 'inaccurately'.

The article is extremely interesting - and I do suspect that the conclusions have some merit - but using 360 data in this manner is not something Bowland Solutions would advocate without some health warnings.

Brendan

I read this blog post and it has some good points - the timing section is something I generally agree with.

I would though emphasise the narrative element of the 360 degree feedback.  The behavioural rating scales are useful for giving us a simple view of how people perceive our behaviours but life is more complex that a 5 point rating scale can ever hope to reflect.

The narrative element of 360 degree appraisals gives your colleagues the opportunity to explain their responses and give evidence that allows you to review their feedback in an objective manner.  Bowland Solutions' most common question is "Please provide comments, evidence, examples that support your responses above".  (Originally provided to us through a partner, Peter Hyde ).

The narrative element is used differently by direct reports, bosses, and peers.  The language used be each rating grouping can be quite different.  But that is what we do experience in the work place - and the narrative element of the 360 feedback gives the recipient rich information that supports the indications provided by the rating scores.

One of the reasons to keep the 360 questionnaire tight is to offer time within it for raters to give their narrative feedback - including a final set of questions that allows them to give additional feedback.

Brendan

I was reading a NY times article on line which appears to come from www.allbusiness.com.  The article considers self reviews as part of annual performance reviews.

The key thrust of the argument is that self reviews place the individual in the driving seat of their review and in doing so a more honest appraisal is achieved.  I wouldn't go along with some of the issues identified with the manager appraising, but I would support the hypothesis that the individual themselves is best placed to assess their own performance.

One key benefit not highlighted in the article and one that is pertinent to both annual appraisals and 360 degree feedback is that a person's self awareness is a critical determinant of their abilities at work.  In John Whitmore's Coaching for Performance book he notes that the first key element of coaching is raising Awareness.  Awareness being what empowers the individual to follow the classic GROW coaching model.

By looking at a self review, or considering the relationship between a self appraisal and other feedback in 360 degree appraisals, a coach or line manager gains a great insight into a person's self-awareness.

Brendan

I only want to touch on one element of anonymity today.  The anonymity of the manager.

In most 360 degree appraisal implementations the manager is identifiable.  They have a separately identified line in the behavioural feedback (ratings) and they have a separately identified line in any narrative.  A recent client of ours asked - and we obliged - that the manager's responses were merged with the peers.

I am uncertain about this approach.  It works for this client and is appropriate for a variety of reasons, but in general the relationship your manager has with you is a distinct relationship and bundling their scoring/commentary in with others' is likely to lose valuable information.

Bowland Solutions has to be flexible to client needs but we will retain as best practice that the manager rating is kept separate.

Brendan

I saw this interesting note within a wikipedia link on 360 degree feedback.

'A study on the patterns of rater accuracy shows that how long the rater has known the person has the most effect on the accuracy of a 360-degree review. The study shows that subjects in the group “known for one to three years” are the most accurate, followed by “known for less than one year,” followed by “known for three to five years” and the least accurate being “known for more than five years.” The study concludes that the most accurate ratings come from knowing the person long enough to get past first impressions, but not so long as to begin to generalize favorably'

The original citation is shown on the wikipedia article.  We'll be looking at this ourselves and incorporating it in our own 360 degree appraisal recommendations at Bowland Solutions if it has a strong basis.

Brendan

A large client of ours uses our 360 degree appraisal system to support a large-scale leadership development programme.  The roll-out of that programme is coming to an end and they are looking to use 360 degree feedback on an ongoing basis.

They wish, first, to ensure that the 360 allows them to measure the effectiveness of the training initiative and let the managers involved compare their current 360 feedback against their prior feedback.

Second, they wish to use the 360 as an element of their performance appraisal - linked indirectly to pay.

This latter move has led us to recommend that they stop and immediately review the purpose and principles behind the 360.  While there are well document reservations around linking a 360 degree appraisal with pay it is our role to assist the client in effectively using the 360 and I do not believe a link with pay has to be an impediment to good feedback.  However, a developmental 360 degree appraisal is different from an evaluative one - at least in the eyes of the people giving that feedback.

We are going to host a review session with the client and I am looking forward to reviewing the impact on reporting, communication and process.  As ever, we will start with "what is the purpose of obtaining the 360 degree feedback".

Brendan

In discussing our potential involvement with a leadership 360 process with a new client, anonmity of feedback was raised.  It is a regular topic often influenced by the culture of the organisation we are speaking with, the personal experiences of the key stakeholders, and the belief systems of those involved. 

The key decision is normally whether responses should be anonymous on a report - both the behavioural rating scales and the narrative responses.  Sometimes this drives a decision process on how people's respondents are selected (and whether you can see who has and who has not responded on you).

I see some core principles here; the more open the feedback the better; anonymity should not be used to allow people to give feedback that they would not give face-to-face, and a game of "who said that" is no good for anyone.

I also have some core beliefs that I apply across all organisations we work with; from large banking organisations, through retail operations to law firms.

When giving 360 degree feedback, respondents nearly always

• Are more considered than people expect
• Are more honest and truthful than expected
• Rarely, if ever, write something that would hurt the recipient
• Take the responsibility of giving feedback seriously
• Would not mind the person knowing that they wrote the feedback

This may come about from the effort we make on communicating the process of a 360 with our clients.

I always recommend that reticent organisations start with a relatively high degree of anonymity and then carefully move to openness.  This reduces fear - particularly that of key stakeholders and ensures a safe introduction of 360 degree feedback.

Bowland Solutions' online 360 degree feedback system handles varying degree of anonmity and openness in reporting.  Flexibility is crucial in moving organisations through to an open approach to feedback.


Brendan

We recently acquired Sky+ .  As an example of unintended consequences, we are now building up a great archive of Cagney and Lacey repeats.  It turns out this is my wife's favourite programme of all time.  So, we were watching another "classic" last week.  Cagney (not the one married to Harvey) had recently been made sergeant and the Lieutenant asked her to complete the annual appraisal on her colleagues / subordinates.

What followed was a classic list of stereotypical responses to the appraisal process.  Bearing in mind this was recorded in the 80's I had to smile at some of the predicaments Cagney found herself in.

Half of the people immediately started to ingratiate themselves with her.  Victor (muscular guy who always makes a play for Cagney) being the worst example.  It turns out that under the appraisal system, Cagney has to rank the people in order.  This creates a tension.  Initially Lacey is ok about the whole process as she "trusts Cagney to be fair".  This ends badly though as Cagney feels then need to be harder on her friend so that noone suspects her of favouritism.

What is the point of these ramblings?  Well, one it is to show that over a 20 year period the wrong way of doing an appraisal hasn't changed.   Also,  that the human condition - even when dramatised in a US sitcom - hasn't changed a great deal either.

To get appraisal right you have to set the system (by which I mean process rather than online system) right.  If you don't then you set everyone up to fail.

Getting online appraisal systems right is something we work very hard to achieve.  Whether for a 360 degree appraisal or the annual appraisal it is the process that will matter....then the people can be free to "do the right thing".

Right, back to the next Cagney and Lacey!

Brendan

We often get asked to compare two sets of 360 degree feedback - normally this year's against last year.  We have a general aversion to using numbers in our reports so we like to avoid bar charts and other averaging mechanisms.  I've written before on the futility of someone saying they are 68% at Managing People.  And it gets worse if you start arguing that you have gone from 60% to 80% at Leadership. 

But it must be useful to compare one year with the last.

In working with one of our 360 clients recently, we came up with two options. 


This example retains our favoured block report style which identifies who said what.  And simply overlays the various years.  This is simple and powerful.

We also tried out a spidergraph report.  Although the averaging still gives cause for concern, I have to say that this report is graphically appealing and at a competency level gives a very effective high level overview.



While we are limited graphically here, the two charts give a simple method of comparing high level movement.

It is often Bowland Solutions role to draw out the best practice in this area and I believe we are working up some great solutions.  As ever, we always recommend using the rating scores as a method of highlighting areas.  The real 360 degree feedback will remain in the narrative section of the report.

Brendan

I don't normally concentrate on process.  I believe that that should be the simple part - the key element is ensuring that a 360 degree appraisal or performance review is going to work for the recipient.

But sometimes our clients impress me enough to comment on the process.  We have just started JCB's annual 360 degree appraisal process.  They have over 1,000 people go through a 360.  As they have 7 people giving feedback, this requires over 7,000 appraisals to be completed.  In fact it normally gets near to 9,000.

Yesterday, we sent out 1,500 email invitations to people to say "please give  feedback on the following list of people".  We are used to working with a large scale but that is still a big moment for us.

Within 48 hours (actually just over a day) we have 1,000 appraisals completed.  I've touched on the best methods of handling this scale previously - today, I just want to express some admiration for a company that takes 360s so seriously and is able -ok, with some of our help - to pull it off each year.  Last year a 95% completion rate was achieved in just over a month.  I'll keep you update.

Brendan

We are doing some work on refreshing our system and how people work with the tasks that are thrown up from 360 degree appraisals and performance reviews.  Our appraisal systems allow our clients to run both a 360 and a performance review at the same time with various levels of integration.

The issue is whether we should show a combined task list for the 360s and the performance review.  You could then see the 360 that your peer wants you to complete alongside the performance appraisal you have to complete on your direct report.

We'll probably do something like this for convenience.

The issue it brought to me was that they are different tasks requiring different mindsets.  Even if we do create a combined task list for convenience, I would not propose working down that task list in a hurry.

A 360 requires that you consider behaviours and comment on the impact of these behaviours.  Although an appraisal may (should) include some element of this activity it's purpose is different.  A 360 is developmental and annual appraisal is by necessity judgmental.

OK, back to looking at how best to implement this difference.

Brendan

We often advertise how flexible we are with the way we report or score 360 degree appraisals.  We do not dictate whether you use spider graphs, bar charts, frequency maps, or a myriad of report formats.  We also avoid constraining people on their rating scales.

While it is correct that Bowland Solutions should not restrict our clients I do think some restraint is required in the interests of the recipients.  Unless there is a standard rating scale in your organisation that everyone is set to, then a simple set of responses (e.g. Strength, Appropriate, Development Need) is clear and clean.  If you require some form of scoring for team based reports or organisational analysis then 1, 2, and 3 work very well.

We are seeing an increasing trend to complicate the scoring (ignore scores below 2, 1/2 point scoring, percentages that are not percentages).  While this may suit the corporate requirement it can only complicate the feedback for the individual.

I re-iterate that we make no constraint on the client requirement and there are often very good reasons why a complex scale is required...but if I was starting with a clean piece of paper I would keep the rating scale very, very simple. 

Brendan 

I mentioned in a previous post the my wife recently completed a 360 degree appraisal on the managers in her childrens nursery.  She gave some valuable feedback on the process which I will share here.

First let me explain how our self service 360 system works.  With Peter Hyde,  we have developed www.myown360.com .  Peter produced a comprehensive competency framework across a range of competencies and their associated behaviours.   The client selects the competencies that best suits them (if they just want feedback on themselves) or their team.  A selection of respondents is chosen and everyone completes the feedback.

Here is my wife's feedback

• The managers were nervous coming into the process
• The managers did though want to get the feedback and felt valued to be part of the process
• The respondents took great care over their behavioural rankings and over the narrative elements of the feedback
• They struggled a little with the language (a learning point for us as we had reduced the jargonese but not far enough)
• The feedback sessions were extremely powerful
• To do it properly (preparation, discussion, completion, review, create development plan) takes a significant investment of time
• You had to follow itup with a development plan

When I read this list I realise that the size of the organisation has not in any way affected the feedback.  I am also reminded of the power of a well run 360 degree feedback process.

 

Brendan 

About twice a week we get some paper forms from a client that we review.  Often we consult on how the forms or designed and of course we regularly are asked to quote for an online 360 degree feedback solution or a performance review system . Our solutions are interchangeable but there are pros and cons to whether we consider the forms to describe a 360 or an annual appraisal.

The reason this is an issue is that increasingly we are seeing multi-rater feedback (usually an academic's phrasing for a 360) being used in an annual appraisal. A good example is law firms who wish to get feedback on how various pieces of work (matters in the lingo) have been performed over the year.  Those matters will have had different lead partners who should be invited to comment on the individual's contribution.

I like to keep 360 degree feedback and performance appraisals separate in my mind though. I consider a 360 degree feedback to be behaviours driven - and be essentially developmental in nature. An appraisal is more around 'what got done' with a 360 considering how it got done. That a performance appraisal may have some elements that require more than one person to input on them is a secondary issue.

Although this is only terminology it does matter to recipients of 360s or performance appraisals that we are clear on the purpose. In particular, where you are asking for feedback from peers and direct reports everyone needs to be very clear on how the information they provide will be used.

Brendan

When Bowland solutions are bidding for a new client the features (and benefits for the marketeers amonst you) clearly are important.  Although we would shy away from being described as a product supplier, our online 360 degree appraisal system does have to stand up to the competition from the more traditional suppliers.  So, we have a stage of "can the system do this....?".  Today I want to briefly discuss an area for which the answer is "yes, but do you really want that?".

Putting a 360 online - or even a performance appraisal - helps reduce the administrative burden and that is a good thing.  But, in an effort to reduce the burden, you shouldn't lose the human element.  So, yes our system can send emails to people all of the time reminding them of what they need to do next, and yes we can email line managers to remind them that they need to conduct appraisals.  But, our most successful clients, with the highest completion rates and the lowest burden are those that leave the feedback recipient - or the appraisee - with the responsibility of getting their feedback completed.

They sit next to most of the people who are giving feedback to them and so having a system send an automated message loses something rather than gains it.

Brendan 

 

I have a range of interests in todays post.  My wife owns and manages Endon Kindergarten; a children's nursery in Staffordshire.  She was interested in getting 360 degree feedback for her management team.

Now family loyalties didn't stretch to us setting up a fully customised solution for just 4 managers.  And frankly, she didn't want to design a competency framework from scratch.  I do however believe that 360is valuable in smaller organisations and for this reason we built a "pay as you go" online 360 called www.myOwn360.com .

Over time I'll share a range of feedback I had through this process but the key one I want to share today is that although people may be nervous of a 360 particularly in a small, close-knit team it works very, very well.  The management team found it highly valuable.  Like in a larger organisation it is a real commitment of time and effort to do it properly but the value you will gain is significant.

We have learnt a great deal from building this solution that we have transferred over to our main online 360 degree appraisal solutions .  I learnt that 360 is effective in many different organisations.

 

Brendan