Implementing a 360 degree feedback process in your organization will either be a destructive and devastating experience, or a developmental epiphany for those involved, depending entirely on how the process is structured and executed. Before undertaking a 360-degree feedback initiative, be sure you plan carefully and are prepared to commit to the following best practices:
1. Avoid these unnecessary distractions by choosing a qualified consultant to host your 360. Ensure your consultant can provide on-line instrumentation, has a strong background in facilitating senior executive work sessions, and a successful track record of executive coaching.
2. Your consultant should collaborate with your senior executives to establish and define the dimensions of excellence for leadership and management in your firm. Based on this input, the consultant designs a well-structured questionnaire that is customized exclusively to your organizational culture. Because those who’ll be evaluated by the mechanism have input into its construction, greater receptivity to the process is secured, greater validity is imputed to the results, and commitment to improve is easier to sustain.
3. The CEO should conduct all-staff meetings to explain why the process is being inaugurated and how anonymity will be protected. The CEO should also inspire staff esteem for the courage and emotional maturity requisite of those who will be going through the process, asking that staff provide constructive but honest feedback.
4. The first time one is 360′d, the results should be confidential, known only to the consultant and the individual. Then, the consultant and the individual will meet monthly to develop and review action plans to remediate undesirable scores. Accountability for improvement is achieved when the second 360 is administered, and those results ARE shared with the supervisor. Because the perceptions of others take time to change, the second 360 should not be done until 18 to 24 months after the first.
What CAN be shared with the supervisor regarding the first set of results is a Composite Report, which combines the scores of all those 360′d without revealing the identity of individuals. Composite reports can reveal shared characteristics of teams or departments, which can form the basis for the targeted improvements of groups. Additionally, those 360′d can compare their individual results to the composite results to see how their scores affect the group.
5. After delivering an individual’s 360 results, the consulting coach should immediately secure a date for a second meeting. Assignments between meetings with the coach are typical, with the first assignment being the prioritization of undesirable scores. Future coaching sessions focus on facilitating the development of and monitoring the progress of meaningful action plans targeted at improving prioritized scores.
6. Three respondents in each rating population is the minimum number required to protect anonymity. Those to be 360′d (perhaps in collaboration with relevant internal colleagues) should identify at least five people in each respondent population, (five superiors, five peers, and five subordinates) from which the consultant then randomly selects three. For purposes of a 360, these need not be direct reporting relationships; instead, a superior respondent can be anyone hierarchically superior to the individual to be 360′d, who works closely enough with that individual to be able to respond to the questions. Similarly, a subordinate need not be a direct report of the individual to be 360′d; the person just has to have worked together closely enough for the subordinate to be able to respond to the questions. Narrative comments must be aggressively sanitized to eliminate any chance of attribution.
7. The best way to ensure the 2nd 360 is completed on schedule is to include it in the initial contract, with a substantial penalty clause for abandonment. This may sound harsh, but avoidance of the following negative consequences provides more than adequate justification for such a step: (1) Without supervisory review of the second 360, accountability for improvement by those who participated in the process cannot be meaningfully imposed, so the entire initiative won’t be taken seriously; (2) Absent the 2nd 360, those who worked diligently to improve their scores won’t have visibility into the results of their efforts, so they’ll be left with uncertainty and lack of closure; (3) Respondents who labored to provide thoughtful input will believe their opinions never really mattered in the first place.
Learn more abut 360 degree assessments at http://www.daltonalliances.com/360surveys.asp.
