360° assessment is a somewhat silly name for a very sensible process. A person’s work, competencies, knowledge, attitudes, behaviour etc. is appraised and reviewed not just by their boss but by a number of their colleagues (line manager, direct reports, peers and other stakeholders). These various individual appraisals are then combined to give a summary, which although not completely objective, SHOULD be more balanced and fair than a single person’s view.
The trouble with this is that by averaging the responses of a group, the summary report tends to be rather bland and ‘flat’, evening out the more extreme strengths and development needs identified by individual respondents. And this means that the subjects of the 360° assessment get feedback that is itself often bland and non-specific: that they have no particular strengths or areas they can improve.
So what’s the answer? Firstly, ensure that the respondents to 360° questionnaires are briefed and trained so that they clearly identify how the subjects differ from the norm, both positively and negatively. Secondly, make sure that the process is as anonymous as possible, so that respondents feel able to respond honestly without the chance of being identified by the subject. (Clearly this is difficult if there is only small number of respondents.) Thirdly, check that the 360° output reports give all the individual responses as as well as the summary responses. (This is made more difficult, given the need for anonymity above.) Lastly, make sure that the person giving feedback to the subject, and possibly the subject themselves, have some training in how to interpret the reports and tease out the strengths and development needs from the bland numbers.
If none of that helps, some new research reported in Assessment & Development Matters (The Official Publication of The Psychological Testing Centre, part of the British Psychological Society Vol. 3 No. 2 Summer 2011) may help. Rob Feltham, Nik Kinley and Kate Young tell of an attempt to create a different kind of 360° assessment – ‘ipsative’ rather than ‘normative’ – that does not generate flat summary reports. It’s not a perfect alternative but could be a useful addition to an organisation’s HR and performance management armoury. See http://www.bpsshop.org.uk/Assessment-Development-Matters-Vol-3-No-2-Summer-2011-P1472.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment