While reading Kolp and Rea (2009) regarding 360-degree performance evaluations, I began to think – do I really want to know? If one of the keys to being a servant leader is openness to followers feedback, wouldn’t I want my employees to evaluate my performance as a leader? A variation of the 360-degree evaluation tool was conducted last year in my agency. I can recall how uneasy I was as I sat with my supervisor and studied the ratings and the comments I had received. In the end it was a beneficial experience, giving me a reality check. For the most part I had achieved the impact I intended. There were a couple of individual criticisms that initially stung and then assisted me in my growth as a leader. In a June 2002 HR Magazine article, Pfau and Kay emphasize that 360-degree evaluations are not effective and may even be detrimental to the employee, as well as the company’s performance, unless people are trained in how to give appropriate feedback. It is also important that the results are used to develop an action plan that includes follow up. My agency did not use the 360-degree feedback to create professional goals. I, however, felt compelled to make my own adjustments based on the feedback I received.
Kolp and Rea (2009) suggest that it is prudent for leaders to be informed about how others see them. Ideally we would learn what others appreciate and also what areas need improvement. Would this type of evaluation tool also cause people to be on their best behavior, not knowing who may be writing an evaluation on them? I know the year that we used this tool in my workplace; it was a little nerve racking to think that there were a few people taking notes on me. Then I started to think, all of the 18 people I supervise probably feel that way every day, as I document my observations and conversations with them. Many of the staff that works with me have various specialists and consultants giving feedback on their performance as well. Supervisors, directors and specialists are rarely observed by their supervisors on the job, as they work with line staff. This type of disparate treatment is easily spun into an “us versus them” mentality, which can result in low morale. As I take the time to reflect on this subject, I am struck with the realization that in order to be a true servant leader, I will need to have the courage to accept open and honest feedback in regards to how I am doing in my work. Who better to evaluate me than those whom I am serving? I can handle the truth!
~ TR
Just curious, is this used as an evaluation tool (like annual review?).
My experience with 360 was that I got to choose who fills it the assesment of me. The challenge lay in facing the desire to only choose people who thought well of me. But, I decided that this was a tool for my growth – I’d better ask some people with whom I didn’t have such a smooth relationship. Of course, organizationally, this was possible to do b/c the 360 is not used as an annual review tool, but as a leadership development tool. After we receive the 360 back, we attend a workship in which we create developmet goals and objectives based off of our 360 feedback.
Your conclusion that yes, you can handle the truth, and value the feedback of those who know your professional side best, says a lot about your work ethic: You care about those whom you serve as leader, and need to measure what you espouse against what they perceive. You know the nature of your intentions; but do others understand them as such?
Having never been on the receiving end, I’ve thought little about 360 degree evaluations. I’ve contributed to some, but never knew how it impacted those managers. I think it would have been interesting to know how they rated compared to other managers across the system. Does that sound inappropriate? I think it’s important that evaluators, those that have been selected to contribute their time and mindful reflection, receive some sort of report validating their participation. If it’s important to an organization to garner the evaluations of employees, then reporting the results back to them—in some form—should reify the value of their participation and membership.
I appreciated this entry and the related comments because it gets to the heart of being human: our perception of ourselves vs. the reality check of others experience of us (be it positive or negative), and the discomfort of vulnerability when being truly “seen” added to the effort and emotions required to behavior change. Ahhh, life. The two key takeaways, from my point of view, is that if one is asked to receive 360 degree feedback (as I believe all staff should equally), the person delivering the feedback should be trained to provide it in an effective and compassionate way, and there needs to be a formal outcome (goals, growth plan, or related), as well as clear follow up. Thanks for helping me to recognize the importance of that more clearly!
I really value and appreciate your honesty and vulnerability in your post. I recall once doing a personal (as opposed to professional) 360 review. Some of the feedback was helpful, some of it was not. I recall thinking I should have asked different people, and yet, also walked away with insight that was valuable – even if I hadn’t really wanted to see it. This type of review process ties into the Temperance conversation that Kolp and Rea (2009) started as well. It was the review itself that started me down a track of learning how to become more disciplined – and temper some habits and behaviors that I hadn’t realized were getting in my way. I admit though, the idea of doing another 360 – even a more professional one – is one I shy away from. I enjoy feedback immensely, but I’d rather have someone talk to me face to face than write it out anonymously. Unfortunately, I think the feedback itself changes depending on the forum in which we’re allowed to express it.
I bet you can handle the truth! It seems to me, that if anyone approaches their job with humility, humor, compromise and energy i would imagine that their feedback could only be positive and helpful. Tiffany, i am sure you do all of these things in your work.
I wonder about the overall reach of a tool like this. The 360 degree too seems like it might be least effective in an environment with the most problems, and in need of the most help. A hostile, toxic environment that is run in a state of fear probably won’t yield many helpful suggestions. Everybody would be too fearful to participate with honesty. On the opposite end, a very positive and well-run system would possibly generate good ideas and helpful feedback into a culture already rampant with good ideas and helpful feedback. Are these type of supervisor reviews done with some sort of facilitation? Possibly a neutral third party might impart the wisdom of the tool in such a way as to maximize its reach?
I think one of the benefits of a 360 is having an accurate interpretation of self. We can think all we can about ourselves, but what is the image we are presenting to others? In my younger years I had to fire someone. I had never done this and was completely nervous it did not go well. (Although I must state that in the role playing I practiced with my supervisor, it did not include her throwing her arms up to the ceiling and loudly calling on her lord to soften my soul and see the way. True story.)
At any rate, I was embarrased by my flustered silence and in retelling the story to my boss, I embellished to make myself appear stronger and more assertive. It completely backfired, and I was instead reprimanded for my lack of empathy.
We, as humans, may present ourselves in a manner inconsistent with our truth due to fear, inexperience, or just plain not knowing.