360° feedback programs, in which feedback about an individual is gathered from multiple others (generally bosses, employees, peers/colleagues, and customers/other key stakeholders), have been in use in the corporate world since the middle of the 20th century. People inside and outside the HR function have a variety of opinions on their effectiveness – some feel strongly that a 360 was one of the most impactful formal development experiences they’ve had in their career, while on the other side of the spectrum are those who had a negative experience (mainly due to the design and purpose of the program they were a part of).
To ensure your program strikes the right chord, avoid these “seven deadly mistakes” of designing a 360-degree feedback program below.
Mistake #1 – Linking the program to consequences.
When raters know that their responses matter beyond feedback/personal development, it adjusts their approach. Those with strong relationship with the subject inflate their ratings, and those that have a bone to pick use it as their perceived opportunity to inflict consequences. Subjects are also much more likely to pick friendly raters, skewing their feedback.
Solution? Divorce your 360 program from any consequences (it should not be a performance management, succession planning, or compensation determinant).
Mistake #2 – Failing to protect the confidentiality of the data.
The data should be ‘owned’ by the person being rated. (In conjunction with their coach, if one is used.) This ownership means it is their decision who to share the information with, how, and when. If the resulting data from this process is outside their control (e.g. it goes into an HR system, or is made available to bosses or their teams), it has a similar chilling effect to mistake #1.
Solution? Use an outside vendor to improve the sense of confidentiality. And use a coach to aid with delivery and action planning to guide the subject on what to share with who and when to turbocharge their development in a safe and effective manner. Don’t pollute (either real or perceived) the delivery with company HR personnel or systems.
Mistake #3 – Failing to protect rater anonymity.
Raters often begin from a place of distrust regarding anonymity. And this is amplified if there have been incidents at the company, real or perceived, where rater feedback is thought to have been personally identified. Even if data is kept anonymous, sometimes subject will communicate things after the assessment that will make it appear as if it was not.
Solution? Ensure your communications and the instrument you select make clear in their messaging and design how rater feedback will appear. And use a trained coach to aid with delivery and action planning to ensure a subject doesn’t go on a comment “witch hunt” with their raters.
Mistake #4 – Asking raters for feedback on aspects of performance they haven’t seen.
Nothing pollutes data worse than forcing responses from people who may have limited interaction and experience with the person and area they are rating.
Solution? Ensure you have options that allow people to skip rating aspects of performance where they don’t have enough information, which will avoid data pollution on the ultimate 360-degree feedback report.
Mistake #5 –Using flawed competencies (too complex, too academic, not observable, mis-matched to performance, too broad, too many, etc.)
Competency models (or other labels for the aspects that may be rated on a 360° survey) are the foundation of an effective 360-degree feedback program. If they are difficult to interpret or rate (which can be for a variety of reasons I’ll discuss in a future post), it creates muddled feedback data.
Solution? Create a simple and clear competency model, with enough skill coverage and separation between definitions so raters are able to place positive and constructive feedback in the appropriate competency containers.
Mistake #6 – Treating the feedback as the event, rather than the event being the action plan and ensuing development.
The overall purpose of a 360-degree feedback program should be the improvement of the leaders that are the subjects of the assessment. Although the feedback report itself can be a helpful checkpoint, if it does not spur associated developmental action your program could become yet another human resources initiative without tangible results.
Solution? Spend more than half of the resources (staff time, budget) to the developmental activities (action planning, coaching, check-in meetings post feedback delivery) to ensure the program causes the positive impact you are seeking.
Mistake #7 – Focusing on weaknesses/flaws.
If your program ends up as an exercise in telling people what they are doing wrong and where they have gaps, and then asking them to fix their problems, it will ultimately become an uphill battle in year two and beyond to keep the momentum of the program. Participants will share their experiences with others, positive or negative, and so your program should be designed to cause positive experiences more often than not.
Solution? Use a program/process for delivery that focuses on strengths, and goals for the type of leader participants want to grow into. What could they become, versus what flaws they have currently.
360-degree feedback programs can be very effective (and comparatively low-budget!) tools in your development and talent management arsenal. That said, like any intervention, improperly applied they can potentially do more harm than good. By following this guidance above, you should be able to launch a program that gains positive traction in your organization.