The document discusses using 360 degree evaluation methods in employee evaluations. It defines 360 degree feedback as evaluating an employee from multiple sources including peers, direct reports, supervisors, and customers. The document outlines several pros and cons of the 360 degree method, such as obtaining different perspectives, increasing employee accountability, and potential issues with rater bias. It provides guidance on implementing 360 degree evaluations, including developing appropriate questions, ensuring rater anonymity, and giving feedback to raters to maintain trust in the process.

1. USING 360 DEGREE
EVALUATION METHODS
IN EMPLOYEE EVALUATIONS
Susan M. Cypert
Associate VP for Human
Resources, SLU

2. PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS
A PROCESS OF COMMUNICATION
-NOT A SINGLE EVENT

3. AGENDA
1. Introduction / overview
2. What is the 360 method?
3. Questions
4. How to do a 360
5. Questions
6. Samples
7. Questions - Wrap-up

4. Why we shouldn’t be surprised
that this is a challenging issue-
 How good are we at honest evaluation? Candid
feedback?
 In our homes?
 In schools?
 In relationships?
 Politics?
 Social organizations?
 So why would we expect to be any better at
work?

5. Opinions range …
 from, zero support for performance
evaluations … to … traditional must-do
annual evals
 Not really in conflict – all opinions agree
that feedback to employees is needed –
HOW it is done makes the difference

6. Continued …
 Call it
 Coaching – developmental feedback-
 Constructive criticism –
 Appreciation – appraisal –
 What is needed is fair – regular – frequent
enough to be effective – honest, positive
when possible

7. PERFORMANCE
EVALUATIONS
When done as a cooperative
conversation
between supervisor and
employee

8. Performance evals continued …
 Provide a basis for coaching to improve
employee performance
 Assist in setting goals for employee
development
 Assist in making systematic judgments
 Provide feedback to the employee from
multiple sources
 Assist in realigning the culture of a
department or organization

9. WHAT WORKS?
 Mutual goal setting rather than criticism
 Day to day coaching rather than “flu shot”
 Participation by the employee (self evaluation,
mutual development of process) = greater
ownership
 Setting specific goals which are better than vague
or general ones
– Ex: Vague: Improve customer service.
Specific: Send out confirmation reports daily.
– Include a time dimension for goals
– Goals should be challenging but reachable

10. WHAT DOESN’T WORK?
Straight criticism, especially without
agreement on WHAT is important, or
without examples
An evaluation that has poor credibility
will = defensiveness
Direct tie to salary [surveys tell us $$
has little or short term impact]

11. The 360 DEGREE PERFORMANCE
EVALUATION PROCESS
What is it?
 NOTE: 360* [degree] feedback*
is a registered trademark of
TEAMS, Inc.

12. The 360 – what is it?
The 360 degree evaluation process
provides information to an
employee from multiple sources
- a circle of stakeholders –
peers – supervisor – direct reports –
higher mg levels – internal
customers – external customers –
vendors – consultants –others
= “360”.

13. Two lines of thought: Use the 360 for
 1) Developmental purposes only. The
information is gathered by neutral entity
– not the supervisor – and shared only
with the employee.
OR
 2) Evaluation. The supervisor is
involved in designing, gathering
information, and in communication with
the employee.

14. CONSIDER THIS…
 Because a good evaluation IS about
development – if done correctly a 360
is good for both development and
evaluation.
 Because a good evaluation should
focus on developing strengths a 360
can be a very good approach because
the information gathered is from so
many sources.

15. IN MULTISOURCE EVALUATIONS -
 Peers and direct reports: will see how
things are going
PLUS
 Supervisor: will see what is being done
=
 The 360 provides a way to integrate the
two views
 Surveys show employees prefer multi-
source feedback to supervisor only
feedback Edwards & Ewen, pgs. 182-183

16. PROS AND CONS RE THE 360
PROCESS from Jones & Bearley, pg. 11
 Shaver (1995, p. 13) points out that the
360° assessment helps people
– uncover expectations, strengths, and
weaknesses that are news to them…
– broadens the perspective on evaluating an
individual by using multiple data sources
– provides ratings that can become benchmarks
in the feedback recipient’s performance-
evaluation process
– may promote people becoming increasingly
accountable for their own growth and
development….

17. PROS with credit to EDWARDS AND EWEN,
pgs. 3 - 23
 Multisource feedback can get at issues
the supervisor might miss
 Peer opinion can change behavior
 Multisource feedback is more diverse:
As organizations diversify by gender,
ethnicity, age, disability, race, etc., more
pts of view are needed for accurate
assessment [same principle can apply in
using committees or teams in
recruitment and selection]

18. PROS with credit to EDWARDS AND EWEN,
pgs. 3 - 23
 Can be tailored to the individual’s needs
 In planning the 360 the supervisor and the
employee can come to a clearer
understanding of what each believes is
important, which furthers the process of
developing a common language within the
department and the organization
 The quiet high performer might not be
getting noticed by the supervisor

19. PROS with credit to EDWARDS AND EWEN,
pgs. 3 - 23
 The choices regarding what is important to be
appraised can be tied into an organization’s goals
such as a need for change or new emphases such
as safety, diversity, or creativity
 Probably less costly than other methods, though
that can depend – but contrast it to getting the
evaluation wrong, or to mis-applied training costs
 Involves many stakeholders, valuing their
opinions is an important message about their
importance [customers, vendors, unions]

20. Interviews
 The questions should be developed based
on what has been identified as important.
 Will the interviewer be trained and open-
minded?
 Who will process the results?
Collins in Thin Book recommends: get
examples of good work to illustrate the
qualities you want to understand better

21. Validity concerns:
 Rater bias and fear can lead to inflation –
raters are afraid to be truly candid
 In a truly anonymous situation with good
safeguards the fear is reduced and the bias
of friends and enemies can cancel each other
out as potential inflation and deflation.
NOTE: Ratings are relative, open to
interpretation. A “good”, doesn’t mean the
same to everyone: but for most people there
is internal consistency.

22. COMMENTS ON FEEDBACK:
 Examples are important, but don’t focus on the
unusual unless the single event is unusual or very
important. Look for patterns.
 Critical incidents – a single event that is
outstandingly good or bad, or very important for
some reason.
 THE OUTLIER FEEDBACK: There may be one
interviewee who has very different responses from
everyone else – the “outlier”. Don’t discount the
outlier. The feedback of the outlier could be a signal
of a new and important but so far uncommon
quality, such as risk-taking. Or it could be a sign of
concern.

23. THESE ELEMENTS ARE CRITICAL :
 Clarity about purpose & process
 Trust - the MOST important element – runs
through everything
 Consistency in methodology
 Dependable anonymity and safeguards

24. FINAL IMPORTANT STEP:
 Get feedback to the raters – important to
maintain their trust in the process

25. RESOURCES
 Buckingham, Marcus and Donald O. Clifton,
Ph.D., NOW, Discover Your Strengths, The
Free Press, 2001
 Collins, Michelle LeDuff, Ph.D. The Thin Book
of 360 Feedback: A Manager's Guide, Thin
Book Publishing Co., 2000

26.  Edwards, Mark R. and Ann J. Ewen, 360
Degree Feedback: The Powerful New Model
for Employee Assessment & Performance
Improvement, amacom – American
Management Association, 1996
 Jones, John E., Ph.D. and William L. Bearley,
Ed.D., 360° Feedback : Strategies, Tactics, and
Techniques for Developing Leaders, HRD
Press & Lakewood Publications, 1996
 Peiperl, Maury A., Getting 360-Degree
Feedback Right, Harvard Business Review,
January 2001