Discussion: View Thread

The subject of 360 degree "feedback" is discussed regularly on several
discussion lists. I'm generally familiar with the nature as well as the pro's
and con's of multi-rater or 360 degree "feedback" but I am led to pose a
question of a slightly technical nature.

The term "feedback" is in general use as a catch-all term for just about any
kind of information. Jo walks up to Lou and says, "Let me give you a little
'feedback'." In the case of multi-rater or 360 degree "feedback" we are
talking about information from several sources.

But in relation to what?

Technically speaking, feedback is information about actual conditions with
respect to some goal or reference condition. Information about how we are
perceived by others isn't really feedback, then, unless we have goals
regarding those perceptions. Otherwise, information about how we are
perceived might qualify as news, or unwanted criticism, or irrelevant noise,
but it isn't feedback unless a goal state is involved.

So, my question is this: Do multi-rater or 360-degree "feedback" systems
attempt to assess the perceptions of others in relation to goals set by the
person being rated or are the perceptions of scales set by someone else? (In
the latter case, multi-rater ratings strike me as a way of forcing the
individual to set such goals.)

Example: I might not really care about certain perceptions; however, if they
are reported as part of a multi-rater system, and if I am expected to act on
them (in the same way senior executives sometimes try to raise the marks on
employee surveys), then I have a goal, all right, but it's not one of my
making. I'm off playing some kind of PR game but I'm not in hot pursuit of
any goals I've set.

Looking forward to comments from those more knowledgeable than I...

Fred Nickols
fnickols@ets.org

Fred,
I don't know about being more knowledgable but ....here's my two cents' worth
anyway.

I agree that feedback only achieves its aim when it is for a purpose and is
against some measurable criteria. I would even go one step further and say that
feedback only achieves its purpose when it is called for - not when it is offered
but when it is actually asked for. To my mind this is the only way that we can be
assured that both the person receiving the feedback, and the person/people giving
it, are doing so for the same purpose and against the same criteria. To do
otherwise is both unfair and, in my opinion, downright cheeky.

I think a process such as 360 degree feedback can only work when perceptions
rather than fact are used as the basis for the feedback. For example, an employee
might perceive that his/her supervisor is always slacking off when in fact he/she
is working on issues important to someone higher up the chain. Similarly, a peer
might have the perception that a fellow manager is treated more favourably, and
therefore works less industriously, because he/she is the boss's son or
daughter-in-law. If either of these were to be given the same facts (or criteria)
that the next person in the chain of command has then this might either skew their
feedback (because they aren't as 'in the picture' about certain issues) or force
them to give feedback that they don't honestly believe is true. At least with
perception it is always true.

I'm looking forward to this new thread.

Phil Rutherford

Forwarded response from Manuel London <mlondon@sunysb.edu> . Manuel is
co-author of Maximizing the Value of 360-Degree Feedback (Jossey-Bass,
1998). Manuel writes:

Regarding your question:
Do multi-rater or 360-degree "feedback" systems attempt to assess the
perceptions of others in relation to goals set by the person being rated or
are the perceptions of scales set by someone else? (In
the latter case, multi-rater ratings strike me as a way of forcing the
individual to set such goals.)
Thanks for your inquiry. You ask a good question. As you know, 360
degree feedback is a process, so the recipient's interpretation and use of
the results go beyond the survey itself. To be more specific,...
* The questions (often written by a representative group of employees with
input from top executives) should reflect performance dimensions that are
important to the organization--because of the management climate the
organization wants or because of the organization's strategic goals.
* The results often present group norms so recipients can compare
themselves to others.
* Hopefully, the results are used by recipients to prompt discussions with
their supervisors, subordinates, and peers about performance expectations
and development needs and opportunities.
* Hopfully too, respondents use the results to set goals for themselves,
which can be measured by changes in subsequent administration of the survey
as well as other outcome measures.
So I agree with you that feedback by itself means little. Goal setting
alone means little if there is no tracking and follow-up. The two go
hand-in-hand to enhance performance.

Manny