DOSSIER
360-degree Feedback
Appraisals, traditionally
conducted to assess pay rises and
opportunities for job assignment,
transfer, or promotion, have
become a dirty word for
managers and employees alike.
● managers don’t like to
deliver negative messages
and employees do not like to
receive them; may affect a
person’s career particularly if
committed to writing
● no sense of ownership
not involved in the design or
administration of the system;
rarely trained to use it; reactions
to the system seldom solicited
and acted upon
● there are few formal rewards
for taking appraisals
seriously
and probably no informal
rewards; there are many informal
rewards for not delivering
unpopular messages; no incentive
for follow-up
● poor work by subordinates
may reflect badly on a
manager’s own ability
lack of candour in employee
evaluation is one way of hiding
“dirty laundry”
From appraisal to
performance
improvement
Traditional performance
appraisal can be subjective,
simplistic and political. There is
no way to know whether an
employee is an effective all-
round performer all the time,
or only when the boss is around.
‘Performance improvement’ is an
ongoing process using coaching
skills, counselling, feedback,
tracking, and recognition. The
aim: people learn, grow and
develop using a feedback loop
that helps them change their
behaviour, and close the gap
between what is expected of them
and their current performance.
For organisations this means
● creating an environment where
feedback is viewed as a
resource to develop people, and
● employees are trained to use
the feedback to manage their
own careers
‘360-degree feedback’ is fairer
than the traditional appraisal:
employees can’t hide as easily
because peers and subordinates
know their behaviours best
and insist on giving more
valid ratings.
Focus on the
customer
Used properly, 360-degree
feedback can provide rich
customer intelligence to develop
unique products and services for
that customer.
One caution: shouldn’t survey
external clients excessively;
client may feel uncomfortable,
especially if it’s a new situation.
When possible, can use existing
customer satisfaction data or
other quantifiable measures of
performance.
360-DEGREE
APPRAISAL
Feedback delivered to an
employee from internal
and external “customers”.
● Internal customers:
boss, top management,
subordinates, co-
workers, people from
other depts
● External customers:
clients, suppliers,
consultants, anyone
with useful information
on how the employee
does the job
The range of customer
feedback produces a
much more complete
picture of an employee’s
performance.
Key principles
360-degree appraisal is a
powerful development tool that
depends on several assumptions:
● the key to leadership is self-
awareness: awareness of any
discrepancy between how we
see ourselves and how others
see us enhances self-awareness
● the creation of an atmosphere
that makes people comfortable
© BULLETPOINT – JANUARY 1996
to offer an honest critique;
managerial retribution must be
off-limits
● managers must take feedback
to heart and try to improve
their styles, even if only slightly
TEL: 01737 767181 FAX: 01737 767868 7
DOSSIER
JOHNSON & JOHNSON ADVANCED
BEHAVIOURAL TECHNOLOGY
Used a 360-degree appraisal
to obtain information
about a manager from her
direct reports. The feedback
revealed that the direct
reports believed the manager
was not listening to them
and was also being overly
Structure
● establish the programme’s
goals
organisations usually
incorporate the system into their
management and leadership
development programmes
● secure full support and
commitment of top
management
link to business objectives and
strategy eg explain that it
creates a high-involvement
workforce, supports team
initiatives, facilitates change
● plan and prepare employees
employees and managers should
be clear on the intent of the
system, and trained on the
specifics of the process: must
define who is the customer, peer
and manager; involve
knowledgeable employees in the
planning process to provide new
ideas and help ensure buy-in;
train employees on giving
feedback in a productive, non-
critical manner; also how to
© BULLETPOINT – JANUARY 1996
take constructive feedback
● design questionnaire
involve employees in
development of the criteria
and process
8 TEL: 01737 767181 FAX: 01737 767868
critical towards them;
allowed the manager to
take corrective action. Prior
to the appraisal she could
rely only on grapevine
murmurs and her own
limited observations of the
employees.
● pilot test the system before
implementing it throughout
organisation
work out the bugs, and establish
communication process
● select people to do rating
less than 5 ‘raters’ limits
perspectives on employee; greater
than 10 makes system too
complex and time-consuming
● communicate the ground
rules
ensure that:
O people willingly provide
honest feedback
O data remains confidential
O accuracy of data is verified
O subjects can use the data to
improve their performance
DEC
Organised largely into self-
directed work teams.
All ratees have knowledge of
various raters’ comments
and ratings.To help make
system work there is a rule
that no rater can give
negative feedback in the
appraisal unless the rater has
previously given the feedback
directly to the ratee.
● distribute and collect
questionnaires
questionnaires distributed and
completed anonymously;
employee then given a composite
evaluation to read which is then
discussed with the superior
● manage feedback
feedback is most useful when it
is specific, descriptive and
constructive; not all feedback
can be taken at face value, eg
when only one rater has given
highly positive or highly
negative feedback; key is to look
for trends and patterns in the
data; if ambiguous, solicit
additional feedback from the
same or new raters
● maintain anonymity and
confidentiality
it takes time to develop open
and effective 360-degree
appraisals; organisations should
start with confidentiality until
sufficient understanding,
maturity and trust is achieved
Survey: “would you have rated
your boss any differently if
feedback had not been given
anonymously?” 24% of the 53
subordinates said yes.
● follow-through on
development
some people are upset by what
they learn about themselves,
either because the news is bad
or because they are defensive;
must coach to help individuals
figure out what they could
actually do to behave differently
● continually reinforce goals
of the 360-degree appraisal
tying the appraisal results to the
company’s reward and
recognition systems can provide
added motivation for
employees; be ready to change
the process when needed;
maintain momentum
 DOSSIER

SAMPLE CUSTOMER FEEDBACK SURVEY FOR A DEPARTMENT

Rules of thumb: Keep appraisal simple using 1-2 page form with 10-25 questions taking 10-30 mins to complete; can also use focus groups
in designing content; questions should be as relevant as possible, based on areas with which the rater is familiar; include open-ended
questions to put flesh on the bones of the ratings, and increase chances of getting through to the recipient. Ensure that appropriate raters
are selected, preventing the ratee from stacking the deck with supportive customers who give high ratings.

What level of service What level of service

should be provided? did you receive?
EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
High Low High Low
5 4 3 2 1 n/a 5 4 3 2 1 n/a
SERVICES PROVIDED
(List actual service provided)
COMMUNICATION EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Tells when service will be performed
Listens to customer
Provides updates/follow-up
Explains procedures/services/results
Seeks feedback
RELIABILITY EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Provides service that is promised
Consistent in service delivery
Dependable
Takes responsibility for their service
Accuracy
FLEXIBILITY/CREATIVITY EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Use of alternative methods to meet needs or solve problems
Adaptable to special situations
Can make decisions when normal procedures don’t apply
KNOWLEDGE/UNDERSTANDING EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Understands how their efforts relate to overall service
Understands customer needs
Knows how to provide requested service
Sensitive to client needs
Provides advice and consulting
ACCESS EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Can talk to someone to get questions answered
Convenient office hours
Someone available to provide service
RESPONSIVENESS EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Prompt service
Provides answers to questions
Can take quick action
Meets deadlines
Returns phone calls
CO-OPERATION EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Helps customer reach shared goals
Follows directions
Willing to help
Willing to deal with special requests
Easy to do business with
GROUP RATING EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE
Rate the OVERALL service provided by this department

© BULLETPOINT – JANUARY 1996

What one item listed is the most important item for this group to improve upon?

What are the major service quality issues facing this department? List below, or attach another page

TEL: 01737 767181 FAX: 01737 767868 9

DOSSIER
Issues
● managers may focus on
pleasing subordinates to get
higher ratings; subordinates
may inflate ratings to gain
points from the manager
● authority and status of
manager could be undermined
by low evaluations
● subordinates lack ability,
aptitude, training, or
necessary job information to
provide valid ratings
● employees being pushed the
hardest by their superiors
may rate those managers
more harshly
● managers may be confused
about how to interpret
subordinate appraisal relative
to ratings from others, such
as their boss
● huge time commitment to
select raters, fill out forms,
and analyse the variety of
information
360-degree Goal Setting
A natural companion to the
360-degree appraisal, involving
an employee or department and
their internal and external
customers.
360-degree goal setting differs
from traditional Management
by Objectives:
● MBO: managers assume the
primary responsibility for
setting goals with little
subordinate input; set goals
apart from the customer’s
expectations; employees
accountable to the manager
© BULLETPOINT – JANUARY 1996
● 360-degree goal setting:
customer expectations drive
the goal setting process;
employee and department are
accountable to the customer
10 TEL: 01737 767181 FAX: 01737 767868
xc
Advantages
● breaks down barriers
between departments
often departments don’t have an
in-depth understanding of other
departments’ roles and objectives
● clarifies expectations
many departments often set
unrealistic expectations of one
another; joint goal setting
reduces differences in perception Issues
of what people should be doing ● more time consuming and
complex to administer than
● can connect departmental traditional goal-setting
goals
enhances cross-functional team ● expectations of multiple
working by identifying links and customers can be confusing
dependencies to achieve goals and conflicting
employees also develop ● changing goals can present
●
more rapidly difficulties; as customer goals
a group of peers can suggest and needs evolve, work
more insightful feedback on objectives change
work objectives than a single ● obtaining input from internal
manager; identifies multiple
and external customers a lot
skills of the employee
of effort
● goals can be precisely ● employees may set overly
measured detailed and complicated goals
employee’s performance can be out of fear of not living up to
specifically evaluated by expectations of peers and
customers in their performance people in other departments
appraisal making employee
more accountable ●●●●
REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING
Companies Evaluate Employees From All Perspectives John F Milliman
et al Personnel Journal November 1994
Customer Service Drives 360-Degree Goal Setting John F Milliman et al
Personnel Journal June 1995
Human Resource Management Special Issue on 360-Degree Feedback
Fall 1993, in particular:
Attitudes of First Line Supervisors Towards Subordinate Appraisals H John
Bernardin, Sue A Dahmus, and Gregory Redmon
The Impact of 360-Degree Feedback on Management Skills Development
Joy Fisher Hazucha, Sarah A Hezlett, and Robert J Schneider
360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage Manuel London and Richard W Beatty
Other People’s Expectations Joel Moses, George P Hollenbeck, and Melvin Sorcher
Practical Alternatives to Performance Appraisals George Eckes
Quality Progress November 1994
Research and Practice in Performance Appraisal: Evaluating Employee
Performance in America’s Largest Companies Steve L Thomas and Robert
D Bretz, Jr SAM Advanced Management Journal Spring 1994