360 Degree Performance Appraisal 176

8/8/2019 360 Degree Performance Appraisal 176

1/18

360 DEGREE PERFORMANCE

APPRAISAL

An outlook

Presented By:

Bharat Mahajan07-MBA-09


2/18

Background

Contemporary 360-degree methods have roots as early as the 1940s, howevethere is some disagreement regarding the exact genesis of the technique.

Despite these disagreements, one point that most scholars can agree on is 36degree performance appraisal has historical roots within a military context.

During the 1950s and 1960s this trend continued in the United States withithe Military service academies.

At the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, the midshipmen usedmulti-source process called peer grease to evaluate the leadership skills of theclassmates.

In the corporate world during the 1960s and 1970s, organizations like Bank oAmerica, United Airlines, Bell Labs, Disney, Federal Express, Nestle, and RCexperimented with multi-source feedback in a variety of measurement situations


3/18


4/18

The Process


5/18

The Appraisers


6/18

Superiors

SUPERIOR

S

SUPERIORS

Its Contribution:

The 1st line supervisor is often in thebest position to effectively carry out thefull cycle of performance management.

The supervisor may also have thebroadest perspective on the workrequirements and be able to take intoaccount shifts in those requirements.

Cautions to be addressed:

Superiors should be able to observe and measure

all facets of the work to make a fair evaluation.

Supervisors should be trained. They should be

capable of coaching and developing employees

as well as planning and evaluating their performance.


7/18

Self-ratings are particularly useful ifthe entire cycle of performancemanagement involves theemployee in a self-assessment.

The developmental focus of self-

assessment is a key factor.

Approximately half of the Federalemployees in a large survey feltthat self-ratings would contributeto a great or very great extent to

fair and well-rounded PA.

Self-appraisals are particularlyvaluable in situations where thesupervisor cannot readily observethe work behaviors and taskoutcomes.

Research shows low correlationsbetween self-ratings and all othersources of ratings, particularlysupervisor ratings. The self-ratingstend to be consistently higher. Thisdiscrepancy can lead to defensiveness

and alienation if supervisors do not usegood feedback skills.

Sometimes self-ratings can be lowerthan others. In such situations,employees tend to be self-demeaningand may feel intimidated and put onthe spot.

Self-ratings should focus on theappraisal of performance elements, noton the summary level determination. Arange of rating sources, including theself assessments, help to round outthe information for the summary rating.

SelfIts Contribution: Cautions to be addressed:


8/18

PeersIts Contribution:

Employees report resentment when they believe that their extra efforts arerequired to make the boss look good as opposed to meeting the units goals.

Peer ratings have been an excellent predictors of future performance and manner of performance.

The use of multiple raters in the peer dimension of 360-degree assessmentprograms tends to average out the possible biases of any one member of the groupof raters.

The increased use of self-directed teams makes the contribution of peerevaluations the central input to the formal appraisal because by definition thesupervisor is not directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the team.

The addition of peer feedback can help move the supervisor into a coaching role

rather than a purely judging role.


9/18

Peers(continued)Cautions tobe addressed:

Peer evaluations are appropriate for developmental purposes, but to emphasize

them for pay, promotion, or job retention purposes may not be prudent always.

Generally, the identities of the raters should be kept confidential to assurehonest feedback. But, in close-knit teams that have matured to a point whereopen communication is part of the culture, the developmental potential of the

feedback is enhanced when the evaluator is identified and can perform acoaching or continuing feedback role.

It is essential that the peer evaluators be very familiar with the team memberstasks and responsibilities.

The use of peer evaluations can be very time consuming. When used in PA, thedata would have to be collected several times a year in order to include theresults in progress reviews.

Depending on the culture of the organization, peer ratings have the potential forcreating tension and breakdown rather than fostering cooperation and support.


10/18

A formalized subordinatefeedback program will givesupervisors a morecomprehensive picture ofemployee issues and needs.

Employees feel they have agreater voice in organizationaldecision-making.

The feedback from subordinatesis particularly effective inevaluating the supervisorsinterpersonal skills. However, itmay not be as appropriate or

valid for evaluating task-oriented skills.

Combining subordinate ratings,like peer ratings, can providethe advantage of creating acomposite appraisal from the

averaged ratings of severalsubordinates.

The need for anonymity is essential whenusing subordinate ratings as this will ensurehonest feedback.

Supervisors may feel threatened and perceivethat their authority has been undermined whenthey must take into consideration that theirsubordinates will be formally evaluating them.

Subordinate feedback is most beneficial whenused for developmental purposes. Butprecautions should be taken to ensure thatsubordinates are appraising elements of whichthey have knowledge.

Only subordinates with a sufficient length ofassignment under the manager should beincluded in the pool of assessors. Subordinatescurrently involved in a disciplinary action or aformal performance improvement period shouldbe excluded from the rating group.Organizations currently undergoing downsizing

and/or reorganization should avoid this sourceof PA.

SubordinatesIts Contribution: Cautions to be addressed:


11/18

CUSTOMERS

Its Contribution:

Customer feedback should

serve as an anchor for

almost all other performancefactors.

Including a range of

customers in PA programexpands the focus of

performance feedback in a

manner considered absolutely

critical to reinventing the

organization.

Cautions to be addressed:

Generally the value of

customer service feedback is

appropriate for evaluating teamoutput (there are exceptions).

Customers, by definition, are

better at evaluating outputs as

opposed to processes and

working relationships.

It is a time-consuming

process.


12/18

Companiesusing360degree performanceappraisals

Bellcore

International

Ltd(1998)

Johnson &

Johnson

Ltd(1980s)Wipro

Technologies Ltd

(Dec17th 2002)

Xerox (1980s)

IBM (1980)

Bell Atlantic (1980)


13/18

Important factorsin360degreefeedbacks

According to Mr. Pratik Kumar.

The mission and the objective of the feedbackmust be clear.

Employees must be involved early.

Resources must be dedicated to the process,including top management's time.

Confidentiality must be assured.

The organization, especially top management,must be committed to the program.

Pratik Kumar

Corporate VP HR,Wipro Technologies

Limited- One of the

pioneers of 360

degree PA in India.


14/18

Advantages

To the individual:

Helps individuals to understand

how others perceive them.

Uncover blind spots

Quantifiable data on soft skills

To the team:Increases communication

Higher levels of trust

Better team environment

Supports teamwork

Increased team effectiveness

To the organization:

Reinforced corporate culture by linking

survey items to organizational leadershipcompetencies and company values

Better career development for employees

Promote from within

Improves customer service by involving them

Conduct relevant training


15/18

Problems

It is the most costly and time consuming type of appraisal.

These programs tend to be somewhat shocking to managers at first. Amoco's Bill Clover described this as the"SARAH reaction:Shock, Anger, Rejection, Acceptance, Help".

The problems may arise with subordinate assessments whereemployees desire to get the boss or may alternatively scratch theback of a manager for expected future favors.

The organization implementing this type of performance appraisal must clearly define the mission and the scope of the appraisal.Otherwise it might prove counter productive.


16/18

Problems (continued)One of the reason for which 360 degree appraisal system might fail is because theorganizations attempt to assimilate the 360-degree method within a traditionalsurvey research scheme. In traditional survey research, investigators attempt tomaximize data collection with as many items/questions as possible and withlarge sample sizes. In the case of 360-degree appraisal, creating measurementinstruments with many items will substantially increase non-response errors. In

addition, large sample sizes are not typically possible considering that perhaps 4or 5 sources will rate an employees performance. As such, statistical proceduresthat rely on large sample sizes in order to ensure statistical validity might not beappropriate.

Organizations must consider other issues like safeguarding the process fromunintentional respondent rating errors.

The culture shock that occurs with any system that creates change. And especially with a modern system like 360 degree performance appraisal; must betaken care of.


17/18

ConclusionBecause many of the more conventional performance appraisal

methods have often proved unpopular with those beingappraised and evaluators alike, 360 is gaining popularity with

many managers and employees.

It offers a new way of addressing the performance issue.When used with consideration and discipline, feedback

recipients will feel that they're being treated fairly.

In addition, supervisors will feel the relief of no longercarrying the full burden of assessing subordinate performance.

The combined effect of these outcomes should result in

increased motivation, which in turn improves performance.


18/18Thank You

Any Questions???

360 Degree Performance Appraisal 176

Documents

Transcript of 360 Degree Performance Appraisal 176