360 feedback

Developing and Implementing a 360 Feedback Process Best Practices

Draft for review only.
To be published in The best of Leading Authorities,Hawkins, 2008

Over the last 18 years we have worked with over 35 organizations developing and implementing 360 processes. Our database currently exceeds a million people. Our experience has been that assessment can be a powerful tool when coupled with feedback and coaching from a trained professional. There are, however, practical and legal issues to consider in maximizing the impact of the process.

Practical Issues
When a 360 is used as a performance appraisal tool, the whole nature of the assessment can (and frequently does) change. The raters will be less forthright, and less likely to provide honest feedback. Motives to get someone removed or to enhance someone’s position can be consciously or unconsciously born out when raters know that their feedback will impact a boss or peer’s review, pay, or advancement potential. Furthermore, knowing that a 360 review is coming up and that a bonus or pay increase can be impacted may also --- consciously or unconsciously--- motivate behavior in your leaders that is not necessarily in the best interest of the company (but which they may feel will get them higher ratings).

Legal Issues
If decisions ARE made on the basis of 360 feedback (i.e. promotion, demotion, salary treatment of any kind) the company is vulnerable in the event someone feels the results are unfair and they decide to take legal action. Unless the company has gone to the trouble and expense of validating the 360 instruments for every position in which is it is being used, then defending a lawsuit would be costly and probably futile. It does not matter that the instrument has face validity, and is based on well-accepted leadership competencies. To be legitimately used to impact pay or promotion opportunities, the results on the 360 ‘s Property of Hawkins Consulting Group must show a correlation with some type of outcome measure(productivity, turnover, etc.) and show that there is no bias (race, sex,national origin, etc.) This can be done, but is so costly and time consuming that few organizations choose to do it.So with all these potential “land mines” why do 23 of the top 25 companies in Fortune Magazine’s “Most Admired Companies in America” in 2005 use the process? Because it is probably the most effective tool available to senior management to align their organizational expectations to individual goals and performance expectations of the people who must implement the plan.

What Works
Although there are a number of good “generic” leadership models available, the vast majority of successful companies choose to develop a custom leadership profile. This profile is typically composed of two parts.

The first part centers on the values or principles that are held near and dear to senior leadership of the organization. Johnson and Johnson calls these the “Credo”; American Express identifies them as their “Blue Box Values”. This is the element that defines and reinforces the culture of the organization.

The second part identifies a set of core competences and leadership behaviors critical to the future success of the company. These competencies may not have been that important for success in the past. But as the leadership of the company looks to the future, it is clear that this set unique behaviors and competencies will be critical for success.

Holding People Accountable
To hold people accountable for improving (which is the goal of a 360 process),we suggest using the 360 as a developmental tool -- keeping the results from the survey confidential. This process virtually assures honest feedback from responders. The person receiving the 360 feedback (with the assistance of an outside coach) then picks one or two areas for personal growth and development. This may be an area of perceived weakness that needs improvement or a strength to be further developed and maximized. An action plan for improvement in this targeted area is developed and a customized mini survey created to measure improvement over a specific period of time, usually 6 to 12 months.