Is Your Company Using 360-Degree Performance Appraisals? Share Your Success or Struggles!

Hi all,

I have had this doubt that has been creeping in my mind for a few years. I want to know if your organization is implementing the 360-degree performance appraisal method. If yes, how good are the results?

This is one of those systems I have read about but have not had the chance to implement in any of the companies I have worked in. Please do share your success or failure stories.

Many thanks in advance.

Archna

Dear Ms. Archna,

I have some experience with the people working in companies where 360-degree appraisal is implemented. In my company, it is not being followed, although I suggest that this latest technique should be used. Those who can give approval for implementation also have the fear of receiving low valuation, hence it is not implemented in my company.

My friends also faced some starting trouble. After that, the evaluation is neither objective nor subjective. Hence, it is of no use, as our senior professionals think. If somebody puts the Head of Department (HOD) with a low score, then their rating is considered very low, which could potentially harm their future prospects. Hence, they will admit that this approach is also flawed.

Hi,

Having implemented this in my earlier assignments, the following brief I would like to give.

1) We started this for the people who were at the level 2 of management initially i.e. DGM's and above - This covered DGM, GM, AVP, VP, and Presidents.

2) The attributes to be evaluated from each group i.e. the subordinates, peers, superiors, external customers/external agencies were differentiated based on the grade and the functional area of the assessee.

3) The evaluations were summarized for the subordinate, vendor, and customer groups, and these were anonymous when given to the person undergoing the 360-degree appraisal. The superior's feedback was direct.

4) The weightages for the subordinate attribute and external agencies were unique for people with teams larger than five subordinates and those who are in sales, vendor development, and purchase.

5) The cycle time of 21 working days (compared to the earlier straightjacket method) went up to 45 working days in the first year. But it came down to 30 days in the third year.

6) The people with high ego levels and those in front-line sales and purchase had to bear the maximum brunt as their egos were severely hurt in some cases. There were strong indications and pressure on HR to revert to the old system. However, the system has stayed, and it took seven years to get settled in.

7) The attempts to know the subordinate feedback/vendor feedback and witch-hunting based on opinion formation/wild guesses were the very strong backlashes we faced in the first and second years. These have subsided in the subsequent years.

This was the company manufacturing specialized auto components.

Kind regards,

Dayanand L Guddin General Manager - Strategic HR Endurance Group

Hey Venus and Dayanand,

Thanks so much for sharing your experiences with us here on the forum.

I have a few more queries regarding the successful implementation of the 360-degree feedback:

1. When you implemented this method and the ratings were hidden, do you think it is possible for the higher management to take it sportingly, especially in your case, Mr. Dayanand? As we all know, in Indian organizations, anything that comes from subordinates is not always well-received by the seniors.

2. How successful were you in the implementation?

3. Point number 6 clarified many doubts, but how did you or the HR team prevent them from knowing about the ratings and comments from their subordinates?

If you can, please share your experiences for point number 6 as well. It would make an interesting read for the people in the forum, and we can all learn a lot from this.

Thanks again! Many of my doubts have been cleared by you, Mr. Dayanand.

Regards,
Archna

Hi,

Your observation about the higher management taking it not so sportive sense is well-founded. That is why we had to conduct many sessions to sell this concept. The basic factor was the commitment from the top-most person of the management and his conviction on the kind of naked truth that this would reveal. It requires a lot of courage to take feedback from those whom you consider less equal mortals. But the very conviction of the top person and his readiness to start from his level set the ball rolling.

The issue of persons attempting to know the feedback from specific subordinates and vendors was handled in a firm but sensitive way, indicating that the same could be done at the other end of their bosses as well. The pressures were well withstood about the threats of mass resignations, exodus, etc., with the clear indication that 360 feedback is here to stay.

Also, in cases of severe negative feedback from subordinates/vendors, proper verifications were independently made without involving both parties to know the veracity of the feedback, and then actions were also initiated. The feedback where the issues of favoritism, corruption, harassment were confirmed, people were separated.

Kind regards,

Dayanand

Hi,

Good efforts. All this may sound very interesting, but I can feel the kind of complexities you guys must have gone through in order to make 360 a successful method in your organization. I agree with you that top members of management have to support such causes for their greater success and accomplishment; otherwise, it remains a mere formality to work on such methods and techniques.

But another thing I want to mention here is, this forum has many users, and still, none of them have used 360 in their organization. Even if we say just 10 percent of the total population here is using that method, don't you think it's a failure to have such methods, especially in Indian organizations where ego comes first before anything else?

Regards,
Archna

So, I attached the PDF file here. If you think anything is important, kindly review it.

Thanks.

Dear Archana,

We have plans to implement a 360-degree performance appraisal system for the top management and senior-level employees as we are studying its benefits. We consider almost everything in our performance appraisal to help our employees deliver their best, rather than ignoring skills or talents that may not be noticed by many. Perhaps I need your guidance to implement the same in the nearest future.

With profound regards

Greetings,

Though we are discussing the implementation of the process here, here's my experience on a process that was already established when I joined the organization. This is what I saw: the feedback was collected on an online questionnaire, but the weightage was not provided to every category.

Suppose the client feedback or the peer-to-peer feedback system didn't have any direct weightage, just as the reporting manager's questionnaire did. This didn't make it subjective, as those feedbacks were purely from a data point of view. I am sure it cannot work like that for every company. Every field required to have weightage, which would finally add up to a score contributing to the final scorecard.

Regards,
(Cite Contribution)

Thank you for the most valuable insights, Dayanand & Namobita. Here, I would like to add that 360-degree appraisals are mostly implemented for every position by big firms. It is a very time-consuming process that not every company can afford in terms of the time or resources required to do it.

Based on 360-degree feedback, these firms have to set assessment centers for this kind of appraisal to be successful. This is done to guide the employees who do not score at the required percentile by these firms. Trained people are required to handle these assessments, meaning that the designated employees who are required to do the assessments must be trained by an expert in behavioral evaluation. These employees must not be from HR itself but can be line managers or senior managers looking after other departments/operations within the organization. This process involves a lot of time and money.

The 360-degree feedback system is mandatory for organizational development and not for salary review. It highlights areas where an individual is lacking or excelling, and these areas are systematically identified and worked upon. This benefits both the organization and the employee in developing the employee's potential in a more positive direction.

Most companies still have 90-degree or 180-degree appraisals, but in some form or another, the presence of 360-degree feedback can also be found along with these Performance Management Systems (PMS). For instance, in all the organizations I have worked for so far, 360-degree feedback was applicable to those employees who are either working at the client's site or are working directly with the client/vendor on some project (specifically in IT and software services). In these instances, it was necessary to know the feedback of the client or third-party vendor to assess the individual's performance and behavior.

I once worked with a large FMCG company where the 360-degree feedback system was present, but only in a form where the managers were being assessed by their peers, seniors, colleagues, and by people who directly reported to the manager. At the end of the cycle, the General Manager provided them with the report. The report did not mention anyone's name or the department of the people who provided the feedback (which was confidential and only available to the GM). It only highlighted different areas where the manager was thought to be good, well, or needing improvement. This approach was very effective; some managers were immediately defensive, some were indifferent, and some were enthusiastic to know the areas of improvement and strength. The commitment of the top management ensured that the process/system was permanent and consistent despite some very aggressive comments from successful managers who wanted to discontinue it.

Looking forward to more interesting additions.

Warm regards,
Sourabh

Very interesting discussion and excellent inputs from Mr. Dayanand, Ms. Archana, Ms. (Cite Contribution), Mr. Saurabh, and others...

What I perceived from the discussion is that this tool definitely involves a lot of energy and resources to implement. I also assume that if managed properly, this can be a very good developmental tool (as Saurabh mentioned about using assessment centers).

Transparency can be an issue! But on the other hand, I also understand that it is the enforcement of desired behavior, be it with customers or the peer group.

Authenticity: If we use it for some departments, how can the overall authenticity of appraisals be addressed when other departments are using different methods?

I have never been part of a system where 360 is implemented or about to be implemented. So, the discussion is triggering various thoughts.

I request the members who have been part of the 360 mechanism to share some long-term implications... how costs and benefits are driven by it (even if it is long term). I will second Saurabh about running assessment and development centers along with 360... but does it work without these? Maybe L&D strategies can be helpful.

I feel that such practices are more welcomed in sustainable and bigger organizations. To me, it also looks like forced standardized desired behavior in the system (I am not opposing it, but managing this would be a big challenge).

Dear Friends,

In our country, it is not possible to implement a 360-degree appraisal system because the work culture is such. Whatever is happening in the office, we all carry it home, and whatever is said during work hours is taken personally. Just like in a Pepsi advertisement, we often say, "Nothing official about it," and perceive everything as personal remarks.

There is a two-line poem:
Rishwat liya - pakada gaya
Rishwat diya - choda gaya

Whatever assessments we make about our superiors are immediately shared with our seniors during tea time by our colleagues themselves. This raises concerns about where we stand. Hence, it is not feasible to implement the same system in our country.

Hi,

Thank you for giving me the chance to discuss some points related to the HR topic of 360 performance management tools. This method is effective for multinational companies, large-scale companies, and even government agencies and departments if they choose to adopt it. If government departments adopt this method, the performance of these departments can be enhanced. While there may be some reservations, it is fair to acknowledge that everything has some flaws. Moreover, people's training within the organization can also be determined by this method.

Thank you.

Thank you, Saurabh, for explaining the system very well. I completely agree with you that 360 can work as an assessment tool.

Thanks, Rahul, for your inputs and thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. Simhan, for sharing wonderful links. I really like them a lot, especially the second one.

Let us see if we get any more valuable inputs from other members on this, their experience while working on the 360 tool – failures and successes.

Regards,
Archna

In my previous company, we had 360-degree appraisal. It was successful in achieving its objectives from a business perspective. The appraisal process was in place, however, individuals who had been with the company for 15-20 years showed minimal change. While the appraisal was beneficial for the business, it did not significantly contribute to improving the company's overall atmosphere or culture. Moreover, it tended to encourage office politics to a large extent. Therefore, there are several drawbacks that one should be mindful of.

Another important aspect to consider is how to effectively utilize this appraisal tool. It is true that in family-owned businesses, this approach may not yield the desired results. Therefore, it may be necessary to limit the use of this tool to professionally owned companies.

Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences.

Advantages of 360-Degree Feedback

• Combined opinion gives an accurate, objective, and well-rounded view.
• Some skills, such as leadership, are best judged by subordinates and peers rather than superiors.
• Comments are difficult to ignore when expressed by a number of colleagues.
• It can lead to positive behavior changes, such as more openness and honesty.
• It can be motivating for people who undervalue themselves.

Disadvantages of 360-Degree Feedback

• It is time-consuming and costly, so the technique is often restricted to management levels.
• If too many appraisers are used, the results can be difficult to interpret.
• It can be destructive unless handled carefully and sensitively.
• It can generate an environment of suspicion unless managed openly and honestly.

Action Checklist

1. Decide which behaviors you want to measure and whom to assess. Consider which sets of knowledge, skills, and abilities you want to measure: for example, should they be competency-based, job-related, or behavior-related? Remember that 360-degree appraisal can be used at any level of the organization, so decide if you want to assess specific individuals, particular teams, particular levels, or the whole organization. Is it important that everyone who takes part as an appraiser should also be subject to appraisal?

2. Design a feedback questionnaire. It is common to use a written questionnaire to collect appraisals, as this is the least time-consuming method. Devise the detailed questions or, if you do not have the necessary expertise in-house, consider buying a ready-made questionnaire or employing a consultant. Check that the questions are phrased to elicit a descriptive, rather than a judgmental, response, as the former is less likely to give offense and more likely to provide information for the appraisee to act upon. Also, avoid asking questions that the majority of the likely appraisers are not qualified to answer or which contain terms that might be open to misinterpretation.

3. Communicate the scheme and prepare participants. Explain the purpose of the scheme and encourage the airing of worries and objections. If necessary, circulate a pilot questionnaire asking employees, for example, for their views on managers in the organization in general. This will serve to demonstrate how the scheme will work and to give reassurance. Appoint a manager to act as a facilitator and publicize his or her roles and responsibilities. This person should be widely respected and have a good reputation for fairness and honesty. If it is not appropriate to nominate an internal manager, consider using a consultant.

4. Train all appraisers in giving, and appraisees in receiving, critical feedback. Encourage appraisers to be constructive, positive, and specific, rather than being critical, negative, and general. In describing a colleague's behavior, for example, "I notice that you rarely acknowledge us when you arrive in the morning" is more helpful than "I think you are a bad communicator." "I note that you need time and space to yourself but when you get it you can really produce the goods" pinpoints the message in an acceptable way, which should be better received than "You're too much of a loner." Do not allow the appraisal to become an opportunity for subjective gripes. If you do, critically appraised people will tend to get their own back when appraising others, especially if they are identified or identifiable.

5. Let the appraisee choose their appraisers. Allow the employee to select who is to appraise them from an agreed pool, but ensure that those chosen include people with whom they do and don't get on: the aim is to achieve a rounded appraisal. Set limits on the number involved in each appraisal, as otherwise the exercise can become an administrative nightmare. Instruct appraisers to return their questionnaires to the appointed facilitator. If it has been agreed that all comments will be treated anonymously, reassure them that their views will not be attributed specifically to them. Minimize the gap between collecting the data and giving the results.

6. Decide how feedback is to be presented. Work out how the results are to be collated and presented by the facilitator: is your objective to allow employees to be able to compare their own performance over time, compare themselves with like employees, or compare themselves against a set of competencies? Consider whether feedback on particular actions is to be linked to a consensus on how important that action is to the job. If so, the results will have to be weighted accordingly.

7. Provide counseling and assistance. Decide whether improvement actions should be left to individuals or whether they should be offered solutions. If you wish to load the emphasis for improvement onto individuals, don't show the results to their boss without their approval. The facilitator or another trained person such as a psychologist should be available to help employees deal with feedback, particularly to advise on how to deal with diverging views. Consider whether to hold development sessions in which appraisees can offer support to each other.

8. Set action plans for improvement. Follow up appraisal with a program of suitable training. This may range from attending a course, or sitting with a colleague, to internal or external secondment. Remember that learners will have different needs and preferences.

9. Evaluate the use of 360-degree feedback. Examine the appraisal, taking into account the thoughts of all participants, including any difficulties that arose in completing the appraisal questionnaire or in analyzing the data from it. Compare the results of using 360-degree feedback with previous appraisal schemes. Details from the evaluation should be acknowledged when undertaking the next appraisal.

Dos and Don’ts of 360-Degree Feedback

Do:

• Make the exercise non-threatening by focusing on strengths as much as weaknesses.
• Respect the confidentiality of respondents' replies—if this has been agreed.
• Prepare and support people for their different roles—as appraiser, appraisee, and facilitator.

Don’t:

• Allow appraisers to drift into personal attacks.
• Treat it as a one-off exercise or leave long gaps between appraisals.
• Forget that employees may find the introduction of 360-degree feedback both threatening and challenging.

Glossary of Terms Related to 360-Degree Feedback

Peer appraisal: Employees are evaluated by their colleagues and their supervisor.
Team appraisal: Team members assess their own team's performance. Feedback should preferably also come from representatives of clients of the team and from a supervisor.
Upward feedback: Managers are appraised by those who work under them.
540-degree appraisal: Two further perspectives are used in addition to those in 360-degree appraisal: customers and suppliers. Where the majority of a manager's time is spent with either of these two groups, inclusion of their observations makes feedback more useful and believable to the individual.

Advantages of 360-Degree Feedback

- Combined opinions give an accurate, objective, and well-rounded view.
- Some skills, such as leadership, are best judged by subordinates and peers rather than superiors.
- Comments are difficult to ignore when expressed by a number of colleagues.
- It can lead to positive behavior changes, such as more openness and honesty.
- It can be motivating for people who undervalue themselves.

Disadvantages of 360-Degree Feedback

- It is time-consuming and costly, so the technique is often restricted to management levels.
- If too many appraisers are used, the results can be difficult to interpret.
- It can be destructive unless handled carefully and sensitively.
- It can generate an environment of suspicion unless managed openly and honestly.

Action Checklist

1. Decide which behaviors you want to measure and whom to assess.

Consider which sets of knowledge, skills, and abilities you want to measure: for example, should they be competency-based, job-related, or behavior-related? Remember that 360-degree appraisal can be used at any level of the organization, so decide if you want to assess specific individuals, particular teams, particular levels, or the whole organization. Is it important that everyone who takes part as an appraiser should also be subject to appraisal?

2. Design a feedback questionnaire.

It is common to use a written questionnaire to collect appraisals, as this is the least time-consuming method. Devise detailed questions or, if you do not have the necessary expertise in-house, consider buying a ready-made questionnaire or employing a consultant. Check that the questions are phrased to elicit a descriptive, rather than a judgmental, response, as the former is less likely to give offense and more likely to provide information for the appraisee to act upon. Also, avoid asking questions that the majority of likely appraisers are not qualified to answer or that contain terms that might be open to misinterpretation.

3. Communicate the scheme and prepare participants.

Explain the purpose of the scheme and encourage the airing of worries and objections. If necessary, circulate a pilot questionnaire asking employees, for example, for their views on managers in the organization in general. This will demonstrate how the scheme will work and provide reassurance. Appoint a manager to act as a facilitator and publicize his or her roles and responsibilities. This person should be widely respected and have a good reputation for fairness and honesty. If it is not appropriate to nominate an internal manager, consider using a consultant.

4. Train all appraisers in giving, and appraisees in receiving, critical feedback.

Encourage appraisers to be constructive, positive, and specific, rather than being critical, negative, and general. In describing a colleague's behavior, for example, "I notice that you rarely acknowledge us when you arrive in the morning" is more helpful than "I think you are a bad communicator." "I note that you need time and space to yourself but when you get it you can really produce the goods" pinpoints the message in an acceptable way, which should be better received than "You're too much of a loner." Do not allow the appraisal to become an opportunity for subjective gripes. If you do, critically appraised people will tend to get their own back when appraising others, especially if they are identified or identifiable.

5. Let the appraisee choose their appraisers.

Allow the employee to select who is to appraise them from an agreed pool, but ensure that those chosen include people with whom they do and don't get on: the aim is to achieve a rounded appraisal. Set limits on the number involved in each appraisal, as otherwise, the exercise can become an administrative nightmare. Instruct appraisers to return their questionnaires to the appointed facilitator. If it has been agreed that all comments will be treated anonymously, reassure them that their views will not be attributed specifically to them. Minimize the gap between collecting the data and giving the results.

6. Decide how feedback is to be presented.

Work out how the results are to be collated and presented by the facilitator: is your objective to allow employees to be able to compare their performance over time, compare themselves with like employees, or compare themselves against a set of competencies? Consider whether feedback on particular actions is to be linked to a consensus on how important that action is to the job. If so, the results will have to be weighted accordingly.

7. Provide counseling and assistance.

Decide whether improvement actions should be left to individuals or whether they should be offered solutions. If you wish to load the emphasis for improvement onto individuals, don't show the results to their boss without their approval. The facilitator or another trained person such as a psychologist should be available to help employees deal with feedback, particularly to advise on how to deal with diverging views. Consider whether to hold development sessions in which appraisees can offer support to each other.

8. Set action plans for improvement.

Follow up appraisal with a program of suitable training. This may range from attending a course, or sitting with a colleague, to internal or external secondment. Remember that learners will have different needs and preferences.

9. Evaluate the use of 360-degree feedback.

Examine the appraisal, taking into account the thoughts of all participants, including any difficulties that arose in completing the appraisal questionnaire or in analyzing the data from it. Compare the results of using 360-degree feedback with previous appraisal schemes. Details from the evaluation should be acknowledged when undertaking the next appraisal.

Dos and Don’ts of 360-Degree Feedback

Do

- Make the exercise non-threatening by focusing on strengths as much as weaknesses.
- Respect the confidentiality of respondents' replies—if this has been agreed.
- Prepare and support people for their different roles—as appraiser, appraisee, and facilitator.

Don't

- Allow appraisers to drift into personal attacks.
- Treat it as a one-off exercise or leave long gaps between appraisals.
- Forget that employees may find the introduction of 360-degree feedback both threatening and challenging.

Glossary of Terms Related to 360-Degree Feedback

- Peer appraisal: Employees are evaluated by their colleagues and their supervisor.
- Team appraisal: Team members assess their own team's performance. Feedback should preferably also come from representatives of clients of the team and from a supervisor.
- Upward feedback: Managers are appraised by those who work under them.
- 540-degree appraisal: Two further perspectives are used in addition to those in 360-degree appraisal: customers and suppliers. Where the majority of a manager's time is spent with either of these two groups, inclusion of their observations makes feedback more useful and believable to the individual.

Thank you all for sharing great knowledge on 360 Appraisal. I am a little late for this discussion, but I am a new implementer of this process. I have completed the framework but have encountered a hurdle with the evaluation procedure.

Evaluation Procedure Challenge

In the given scenario, an employee is being appraised by the following individuals with their respective weightage: Director (10%), Team Leader (20%), Direct Report 1 (25%), Direct Report 2 (25%), Colleague 1 (10%), and Colleague 2 (10%). Feedback has been collected from all these individuals, with a total of 25 questions rated on a scale of 1-100. Now, I am seeking guidance on how to calculate the final result out of 100, considering the aforementioned weightage criteria.

My current thought is to forego the specific rating criteria (20, 40, 60, 80, 100) and instead consider feedback within the range of 1-100 from all parties. Alternatively, I am open to other suggestions.

Appraisal Score Criteria

In line with our appraisal score criteria, the grading scale is as follows:
- S
- A+
- A
- B+
- B
- C
- D

I have mapped the scores according to the criteria above. Could anyone please provide me with some ideas on how to proceed?

Please find the case study on the 360-degree performance appraisal of PepsiCo.

Regards,