July 15th, 2009
Posted by Ben Dattner, a workplace consultant, an industrial and organizational psychologist, and an adjunct professor at New York University.
360 degree feedback is an increasingly popular tool for executive coaching and leadership development. An individual evaluates him or herself along some predetermined quantitative and qualitative dimensions, providing numerical ratings for the quantitative items and comments for the qualitative ones. This feedback can then provide valuable input into the individual’s strengths and areas for professional development.
Human Resources professionals are often tasked with finding a technology provider for 360 degree feedback, which is most easily collected online and tabulated automatically. Vendors like EchoSpan and SuccessFactors specialize in online performance management and 360 feedback for formal, annual reviews sponsored by the organization. In contrast, Rypple enables feedback to be collected any time on a free, informal, ad-hoc basis, initiated by the feedback recipient him or herself. Some organizations find that testing the waters with Rypple builds interest in, and support for, the concept of bringing in a more formal system like EchoSpan or SuccessFactors.
When it comes to more formal annual reviews or 360s, HR sometimes gets asked by the executives or managers who are going to be participating in the 360 process whether the particular items being asked about the individuals who are participating have been “validated”.
While having concerns about the relevance and utility of the items being asked on a 360 is understandable, there is no need to be concerned about the “validity” of the 360 items. This is because the traditional meanings of validation:
- Extrapolating from a sample to an entire population (e.g. if a political poll is taken before an election, do the responses from the sample provide a valid reflection of how the entire population of voters would vote if the election were held on that particular day)
- Making predictions about the future (e.g. does this personality or intelligence test predict who will be successful).
… are not applicable in a 360 context.
It does, however, make sense to inquire about the utility of the 360, considering questions such as:
- Have people who have received this kind of feedback been able to improve their leadership skills?
- Have teams who have taken a team 360 been able to build on strengths and overcome obstacles?
Whether or not statistical analysis has been conducted on items is much less important than whether those items can catalyze thought and action. The highly popular Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) for example, is not even reliable, much less valid, yet is still the most commonly used assessment in the workplace. As long as it is used to catalyze constructive discussions and not to select employees, the validity of the MBTI is beside the point. Similarly, Rypple’s free service is intended to encourage frequent conversations about what is going well and what could go better, outside of the framework of more stressful and fraught annual discussions about compensation or promotions.
Sometimes, there is also a concern about whether or not there are statistical “norms” for different 360 items, and people want to know how their results compare to some normative standard. While it can be helpful to have a basis for comparison, it is very hard to draw any conclusions based on data collected at other organizations. Even within an organization, comparing the 360 results of individuals at different levels, or in different departments or roles can be problematic. Comparing the results of individuals who work at the same level, in the same department, and in the same role can be potentially useful as a basis for comparison, although data is rarely collected and analyzed at that level of specificity. More useful is an analysis of an individual’s data over time, to see whether he or she is making progress.
In conclusion, a 360 should be a starting point for individuals and teams to reflect on their performance and consider ways to improve it. Whether or not a 360 has been used elsewhere in the past, and whether or not managers in other organizations have taken the 360, are much less important than whether the questions asked, and the way in which they are asked, are relevant to the user’s needs. The only “valid” concern about a 360 is whether or not it can raise awareness and help people improve their performance. However, if there are still lingering concerns about the validity of formal, annual reviews and 360s, Rypple is always an alternative. Ideally, however, organizations can utilize both Rypple’s informal, frequent, ad-hoc feedback and more formal annual reviews or 360s.
Tags: 360 degree feedback, ben dattner, business development, business performance, community, customer outreach, decision support, executive coaching, Feedback, feedback is fundamental, future, HR, leadership development, lessons, meaningful results, peer review, People, Performance Reviews, personal review, product, Questions, quick and easy, quick polls, Rypple, self-improvement, service, team, team review, use, validity, Workplace
Recent Comments