360-degree feedback
The 360 ° feedback (also: 360 -degree feedback survey, assessment or multi-rater feedback ) is a method for estimating the expertise and services of specialists and executives from different perspectives, such as from the employees' perspective, the supervisor, colleagues, team members or customers (principle of multiple perspectives ). The significance of this method results from the fact that learning without feedback is hardly possible.
Method
The assessment of the skills and achievements of individual professionals and managers is a sensitive issue, because the financial, personal and professional future may depend on it. With increasing division of labor, it is for a single person but more difficult, a reasonably objective assessment of the results and make the behavior of others. Therefore Traditional methods work mostly too short.
The greater objectivity of this method arises from the fact that a person rated himself ( self-image ) and is observed and assessed simultaneously from different perspectives. The feedback provider thus control at the external image. To this group belong, among others, supervisors, peers, employees, customers, suppliers. By comparing self-and external image, a very realistic assessment of the performance and behavior of the assessee. From the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses very concrete and practical learning and improvement opportunities can be derived.
The survey is usually done anonymously, with the result that the answers much more "honest " fail. These aspects (more objectivity, anonymity and honesty) have contributed to the 360 -degree feedback has become one of the most important instruments of leadership development worldwide. This is especially true for the effective development of leadership skills.
History
The origin of the 360 - degree feedback is in the army, where it was used as a precursor of the present-day assessment center, the so-called round table, the selection of officer candidates (already in 1930 ). It turned out, among other things, that the opinion of the comrades could predict the front parole better than various test results ( predictive validity).
The behavior during the round table discussion, which took over the management of each candidate, was only a source of behavioral assessment. Added to this was the assessment by senior officers and psychologists, personality tests and outdoor training, where the trainee officers should, for example, build a bridge over a river with the help of a rope. Among other things, skill, body control, endurance, energy, dedication, ingenuity and community behavior were observed. This means that the candidate received an assessment of his abilities, his character and his behavior from multiple sources. This is now called " multi-rater feedback". Such methods were far superior to the method of officer selection with other armed forces.
Thompson examined in 1969 the practice of performance evaluation in some technology companies and discovered that the usual practices at the time were often perceived as unfair, frustrating or even cynical. Also, they have rarely met their actual purpose, namely to corporate success realistically assess the contribution of each individual and to encourage motivation.
Later, the 360 -degree feedback (English 360 -degree feedback ) has been increasingly used in the 1980s in many companies in the United States for the performance evaluation. The term 360 -degree feedback is a non- trademarked name for the methods described above.
Current discussion
One of the first publications in the literature on this subject comes from Nowack from the year 1993. Among the precursors of the 360 - degree feedback may be the work of Levinson 's 1976 ( " Upward Appraisal " ) or by Clark Wilson from the year 1980 ( Multi- level Management Survey) count. Since then, around 290 publications per year appear ( average of the past five years) in German and English business press ( LexisNexis database).
Empirical studies have shown that a 360 -degree feedback does not automatically contribute to the success of leadership development (eg change in behavior or skills improvement). This can have several reasons. For one, it may lead to acceptance problems, especially if the results for the person judged to be negative. On the other hand, the assessed executive of insight, motivation and willingness missing, to change their behavior. And thirdly, it is possible that the assessed executive sees no advantages in the implementation of the results of 360 - degree assessment. Therefore, some conditions must be met. This will include specific development activities such as training, coaching and linking the results with personal and business or organizational goals and metrics ( personal and corporate development ), for example as part of a performance and potential assessment.
General statements on the effectiveness of 360 - degree feedback are difficult because now a large variety of options, methods and intended uses exists, so that one of " the " 360 -degree feedback can not talk. And like any other tool, it may be used more or less professional. The practical utility of the results is therefore not primarily dependent on the instrument, but the quality ( validity and reliability ) of the questionnaire and thus the qualifications of the persons who use it.
Application in practice ( success factors )
With Edward Prewitt can describe the following success factors for the implementation of a 360 - degree feedback summary (see adjacent chart ):
- One should not start with the performance evaluation, but with the personal development - or at least separate the two, because the instrument in many sufferers can cause anxiety when they are not used to deal with it.
- One should start with a small, manageable department, suitable for such an approach appears ( for example, when an open air exists because so a change of culture is connected ). Because only a sufficient basis of trust between the parties provides for reliable and meaningful data.
- It's not about dealing with the past, or " trial " of employees, but the realization of clear objectives of the company that are comprehensible to everyone.
- The implementation requires extensive training of all stakeholders, in particular the handling of the questionnaires used.
- The reports, which are usually created automatically in the form of statistical analysis must necessarily explains how to integrate in the personal development plan and agreed with the supervisor.
- One should not introduce in times of crisis, a 360 -degree feedback, for example, if pending layoffs or restructuring.
Compliance with these recommendations is important so that the advantages and benefits of 360 - degree feedback to be effective. You should also be aware that certain performance conditions, otherwise there is a great danger that the disadvantages outweigh. This tries Figure 2 to illustrate ( Conclusion ).
Demands on the questionnaire
Basically apply to the questionnaire, the same quality criteria ( validity and reliability ) as for any other data collection as well. The most important requirements can be summarized on the following proposals: The competencies collected with the questionnaire should be derived from the objectives of the company or organization. This increases the acceptance of the 360 - degree feedback for both the decision makers (usually line managers ) as well as among the participants, because it is so clear how each individual can contribute to the company's success.
It is also important that the questionnaire competencies with specific behavioral descriptions (and not about leadership styles, personality traits or motives ) are collected. For example, a study by Albert Bandura (Stanford University) has shown that there is virtually no relationship between the ( measured with tests) achievement motive and the actual performance; and a strong power or dominance motive does not say much about whether someone can make responsible use of power.
The collection of personality traits and leadership styles is also very problematic. These constructs have the slightest validity ( predictive validity ), when it comes to changing the future behavior, ie by possible learning success. A major reason here: (successful ) leadership styles, such as the popular theory of situational leadership, which has been observed with other people ( in the past), can not be transmitted to other people as a rule. If you wanted to learn it ( mimic ), authentic behavior is hardly possible. And in the case of personality traits, it is a pragmatic aspect: to change the personality of a person is much more difficult (if not impossible ) compared to a change in behavior. Conclusion: The questionnaire should not abstract styles, motives or character traits collect, but to the specific tasks related skills, such as management or leadership skills.