A quick foursome to help you get the most from your 360 reviews.

Since getting buy-in from management is a key factor in the success of a programme, this is an important part of the planning phase.

“The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” – Oscar Wilde

What is a reasonable price to pay for a 360 feedback service? How do you weigh up the cost against the value you’ll receive.

The old adage that says you get what you pay for has a stronger point than usual in this context. What is a reasonable price to pay for a 360 feedback service? On one level this is a pretty straightforward question and one that applies to anything in life. We all want to think we’ve got a good ‘deal’.

Smart software isn’t the holy grail of 360s. It’s the quality of the feedback service that really counts. 360 feedback is about people – feedback from people, about people, enabling them to improve their interactions with other people. Buying cheap and getting poor quality service is a huge risk.

Trust is paramount

Look at the main reasons for using a 360 system:
360 reviews are conducted to improve individual (and thereby organisation-wide) performance. Often this is done in the context of a development programme or appraisal process. A badly managed process can cause more harm than good. This can result in a disaffected workforce, rifts in the organisation and in worst cases, loss of trust.

Trust is a major factor in the success of a 360 feedback process. For individuals being presented with their 360 report, the ‘what next’ question points to change at some level. Few people feel comfortable with change, particularly if it’s imposed on them, or they’re uncomfortable with the way the message has been delivered. The way in which a 360 review is managed and the support provided throughout the process are critical to the outcomes.

So, when evaluating the price of a 360 review, consider the cost in relation to the value you are getting. Think through the potential results before making a decision. The range of 360 solutions on offer, (and the prices charged) is increasing all the time.
DIY, off-the-shelf cut-price versions are available. But what about that essential backup service? The ‘Rolls Royce’ versions at the other end of the scale, may provide the service but be out of the price range of many organisations.

Think through the risks

It doesn’t make sense to risk damaging the trust in an organisation in order to use a cheap tool. If the price difference between the cheap option and a professionally managed, well-supported system is £50 per person, you could save £50 in the short term, but lose thousands in loss of productivity on each employee in the longer term.

Staff can have a negative experience as a result of
- selecting the wrong development priorities because the feedback isn’t solid enough;
- feeling that their needs have not been met by the process, or
- disbelieving the results because they don’t believe the system is robust enough.

What is the real cost?

At an organisational level, the amount of preparation and planning required to conduct a 360 review may be fairly complex. It involves timing, gaining buy-in, communication, and establishing the next steps. An expert supplier who is being paid a fair rate for the 360 reviews is more likely to be able to provide additional resource and advice within the package. The supplier who is charging a cut-rate fee for their 360 feedback service will either not be able to give the same level of support, or will be charging extra fees somewhere else – negating any saving made on the reviews.

When you’re considering cost, make sure you get the full picture before making a decision. And then ask yourself what price you would put on the motivation and engagement of even one key member of staff. We think that’s priceless.

[Tip: Find out about any hidden costs before making a decision. Free or cheap services may end up costing more later.]

(This article first appeared on the Engauge blog)

Photo Credit: Roby72

A previous message on the blog commented upon the importance of organisations developing in house capacity for 360 feedback as opposed to relying on external support. This brief article aims to share some experience and learning of developing in house capacity and skills in a large public sector organisation.

Rationale for introducing 360

Recognising that the quality of leadership was seen as the answer to many of the challenges it was currently facing, the senior management team of a large public sector organisation agreed to implement a structured approach of 360 feedback to the senior 80 people working in the organisation. The  process and rationale of creating an in- house resource of   360 feedback facilitators was debated and agreed and     some underlying principles as to how the process would be undertaken and introduced in order to allay concerns – (especially about confidentiality) were identified as a starting point. These  principles proved to be invaluable when working with the  feedback facilitators.

Initial principles

• Engage wider management team  colleagues to secure commitment to 360 process and agree core principles
• People would volunteer for the training as feedback facilitators but would have to have experience of facilitation
• Feedback facilitators would not feedback to people working  in their own part of the organisation (this was seen as away of keeping confidence and also developing relationships across she organisation)
• The feedback reports and data would be owned by the person undergoing the 360 and would not be stored on any organisational data base
• The process was to be developmental and not performance driven
• Participants would be encouraged to share learning and development plans with line mangers  (links to appraisal to be clear)
• A quality process was to be developed which included 2.5 development days and follow up support for facilitators
• Ensure all raters understand their role and responsibility to enable timely and useful contribution to the feedback process.
• Plan for evaluation of  the whole 360 process
• Ensure core principles of 360 are understood by those participating and line managers.

The training process

I and another very experienced facilitator / trainer underwent a programme of training for trainers which included undergoing the 360 process ourselves. This was invaluable in enabling us to empathise with concerns associated with the process of feeding back and also receiving feedback. (Additionally we were able to anonymise our reports and we used them as additional reports for training purposes – only revealing after the session that the reports were ours and this willingness to share was really well received by the group ! ) We decided to hold an initial introductory half day session with the initial group of  facilitators  who came from  very different parts of the organisation  (9 in total). This gave us the opportunity to be clear about expectations,  the process of training and subsequent commitment  ( it also gave people the chance to opt out if this really wasn’t for them). Everyone who wanted to train as a facilitator had to undergo 360 themselves and this was set up immediately following the introductory session. Their  reports would be used  as real feedback training material on the final day of training and we needed to ensure people were comfortable with this.

Aims for the initial half day were:

• To ensure understanding of the context for 360 degree feedback in the organisation
• To introduce participants to the 360 tool  and the Leadership Framework it linked to
• To explore the purpose and benefits of 360 degree feedback
• To explain how the 360 process works
• To introduce participants to the 360 feedback tool technical manual
• To set up participant 360 assessments
• To be clear about role and expectation

Additionally we explored the importance of investing in time ensuring that chosen raters understood their role as this would add to the richness of the reports.

Following a 6 week gap we met for days 2 and 3 and on day 2 the training included:

• Facilitators role and responsibilities
• The report
  • format
  • analysing and interpreting the data
• Case study reports
• Feedback process and skills (including facilitation  skills, real listening and powerful and solution focussed  questions)
• Preparation for day 3  using a real 360 report to feedback to another group member

The final day saw the group divided into trios and   working in different groups of 3 they each took the role of

• Feedback facilitator
• Receiving feedback of own 360 report
• Observing and feeding back to colleagues

This process evaluated really positively and had additional benefits:

• The participants became very aware that they perhaps did not give enough feedback  in their usual roles ( a real criticism of leaders in this public sector)
• They found the process very challenging – but because it was so real it was valued and they felt a real sense of achievement
• They especially liked working in trios and liked the feedback from the observer and the facilitators who moved between all groups
• Many of them tried to slip into “tell” modes instead of facilitation and the support structures challenged them (and their perceptions of themselves)
• The organisation was able to run a composite report giving more information on organisation learning and development needs
• The group have stayed together and worked with a facilitator to become a learning set sharing experiences

As facilitators we found the whole process exciting and challenging and our top tips are:

• Invest in the initial half day – you get real buy in
• Do be very clear that people  are facilitating 360  feedback – they are not acting in judgment and therefore investment in sessions on facilitation skills, questioning and listening make  a real difference
• People are up for being  really challenged if it is constructive
• Don’t assume people who say they do -really have good facilitation skills
• Ensure you talk about real listening and sensitive questioning
• There is a lot of information here- even for senior leaders- plan time carefully
• Cake and fruit always go down well between sessions!
• Ensure you have the capacity for ongoing support structures
• Think about how you are going to challenge the real time  feedback if it is not being done well- be clear about your role as trainers  and what people can expect in the interest of learning
• Think carefully about the rooms (we did) – ensure people can be comfortable and have tissues discretely in each room (Many people got emotional about positive affirmation of things they do well)
• Be clear about your links to the senior team  and ensure participants have opportunities to help shape ongoing  processes and principles.

If you found this post useful, please feel free to share it with a friend. You could also subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog, or sign up to receive our blog by email.

This post was written by Kim Jelphs. Kim can be reached at KIJ Limited

Photo credit: Adactio

I think that feedback gathered using a 360° process is a wonderful thing. If you get the process right then you will receive feedback that is fast, confidential, targeted and benchmarked, creating a powerful picture for the individual on how they are perceived by a range of their colleagues.

This feedback picture can be vivid, nuanced and full of insight, but it can never be the truth. The feedback that colleagues give to the individual will always be subjective, it will always be open to bias and some respondents will never have the time and inclination to give feedback that is honest and specific. No matter how much attention you give to the design of your questionnaire, if you are running the process for more than one individual then you will not be able to completely bespoke it for each of those individuals, tailoring each question to the specific demands of their job roles. The point I am trying to make is that the 360° process gives the individual this fantastic feedback picture, but it should not be presented to them as the truth.

This is the first point in my mind when I use 360° feedback as the basis for a coaching session, however that doesn’t mean that I feel wary about how the session is going to unfold. Instead, I feel excited, as I believe that this kind of feedback represents a powerful opportunity for the coach and coachee.to generate insight and self-awareness.

Self-awareness is very rarely easily achieved, especially in relation to how we are perceived by those around us and it is not surprising that we shy away from examining how our behaviour impacts on others. Even if we are prepared to put aside our fears of being judged, then collecting meaningful feedback from our colleagues can be an awkward process, for instance, walking around the office asking each person in turn ‘so then, what do you really think about me?’ is just going to make you feel more odd, rather than enlightened.

The 360° feedback will provide a powerful, if imperfect, picture of how an individual is perceived by their colleagues, focusing not just on their areas for development but also their qualities and their particular talents. This gives the coachee a rare opportunity to generate powerful insights into their behaviour and raise their levels of self-awareness. It is worth reminding them however, that this all within the context of their working environment. They are not being given feedback on their worth as a human being, rather they are being granted insights into say, what the people they manage think about their ability to set meaningful objectives, or what their own manager thinks about their strategic skills.

Here lies the rub. For many of us, the tendency when we’re presented with this vivid picture of feedback will be to pick out the negative points, the stark scores or statements that stand out and prick at our pride. Sure we’re happy that our colleagues value our open and positive communication style, but we CANNOT BELIEVE that they don’t think we’re quite so hot on delivering projects on time. How DARE they! It’s natural to indulge in some self-flagellation, but it isn’t going to get us any further down the road. So this is where I think the coach needs to work really hard to ensure that the 360° process remains a useful process for the coachee.

I feel that if I’m coaching someone through a 360° feedback session, I need to ensure that we have a really strong and robust structure to our conversation. At the beginning, when we set our ‘contract’ together, I’ll be sure to let them shape their outcomes for the session and the areas that they want to explore, but I’ll also be a little bit directive and establish that as well as taking a look at the areas where they feel they want to develop, we’ll be exploring what the feedback tells us about their key strengths, their qualities and the talents that their colleagues feel they bring to the workplace. I will propose that we take a forensic approach to all the feedback that has being generated, establishing which is strong, honest, accurate and focused – the stuff that we can work with and which can be of use to the individual. That’s the good stuff we want to pick out the key themes from, getting us closer to the truth. The rest will be of no use to the coachee and they can take the decision to discard it.

I will be clear that some of the feedback will be of no surprise to the coachee and that it may be more beneficial to focus on the themes that contain fresh insights and new understanding, rather than treading on old ground. And I will also offer the idea that you cannot please everyone all of the time, that there maybe aspects of the coachee’s behaviour or work-style that don’t go down well with some individuals, but that those choices are made for the sake of the organisation and shouldn’t lead to knee-jerk reactions.

Finally, I will emphasise the context within which the feedback has been created, reminding them that the 360° process is powerful yet imperfect and does not represent the truth, rather it represents an opportunity for the coachee to find their own truth.

These are the kind of parameters that I want to build into this kind of session. They underpin the conversation and help provide a supportive and positive space within which the coachee can explore all the marvellous feedback that has been collected for them. With any luck, they will gain new understanding, recognising where they might build on their existing strengths and where they might try new ideas and strategies in their drive for self-management. As the coach in this kind of session, I would be seeking to understand what learning needs the coachee had identified for themselves and the opportunities they would grasp in order to meet those needs.

My final thought around using 360° as a coaching tool is that I would be surprised if you can tie up all the themes that emerge in just one session. After such a powerful barrage of feedback, the coachee is going to need some time for reflection and let these new insights and ideas settle into the mind and it may take one or two follow-up sessions before they’ve really absorbed everything that has been handed to them by their colleagues.

To conclude then, I believe that the 360° process is a powerful coaching tool that if handled carefully, can enable the recipient to reap some rich rewards in terms of self-awareness and new insights.

Over to you. What do you think?

If you found this post useful, please feel free to share it with a friend. You could also subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog, or sign up to receive our blog by email.

The enticement to a ‘free trial in minutes’ for something like this is quite frankly, very scary. The potential for damage is enormous. The real cost far exceeds the price you would pay for a 360 review designed and managed by an expert.

I wrote a post about this on our company blog which may give some insight into what’s out there, and what lessons can be learned from it.

If you found this post useful, please feel free to share it with a friend. You could also subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog, or sign up to receive our blog by email.

Firstly, there’s an overriding message that feedback, and particularly 360 degree feedback, is here to stay. Given that this was written 15 years ago, a prediction that was clearly right on the button.

Secondly, I really liked the anecdotal evidence of its impact from some pretty powerful and experienced business people. From presidents of multi-billion dollar corporations to AT&T team managers, they all became more aware of their own performance, or discovered their colleagues had noticed the competency areas they weren’t working on. “Most people are surprised by what they hear. Only a fraction of managers have a good grasp of their own abilities.” These surprise revelations ranged through temper outbursts, standing too close to people, body language, poor writing skills (when the recipient actually prided himself on excelling in this area) and more. In each case, behaviour could easily be adapted to remove the sticking points and working with others could be improved relatively easily.

Senior manager who are seen as “Disciplined, demanding, smart, sometimes intimidating, not a back patter” are often amazed and sometimes quite perplexed to discover colleagues perceive them that way – because they see themselves quite differently. They assume that people know when they’re pleased with the job done. In one instance, a great sense of humour was hidden from colleagues, meaning something that could be an asset when building relationships wasn’t at all apparent. These managers communicate the factual and the negative information – and very seldom think about letting people know that they are doing well. That sort of feedback is deemed to be self-evident. Well, no, why should it be? If you need to communicate the negative, for heavens sake balance it with the positive messages too.

The article also highlights a fairly even divide (a third each) between managers who see themselves quite realistically, those who consistently underrate their performance, and those who regularly overrate themselves.  From our experience that probably hasn’t changed much in the last 15 years, although the broader adoption of 360 feedback may mean some of those who initially overrate themselves will adjust their perception more readily than they might have when the article was written. It is those inflated self-raters who often cause the most disruption in the business and who are generally considered less effective by their peers and subordinates. Managers who underrate themselves are seen more positively, possibly, the article speculates, because they work harder at improving.

Although quite long, and slightly dated in the first paragraph given the subsequent progression of 360 degree feedback, I found this piece thought provoking and worth reading. If you’d like to read the whole thing, here’s the link to the original article.

If you found this post useful, please feel free to share it with a friend. You could also subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog, or sign up to receive our blog by email.

Photo credit: Lamerie

For 360 feedback to be of most value, it must be honest and specific. Take either of these factors out of the equation, and the value diminishes dramatically.

So, if you’re planning to use 360 feedback in your organisation, bear these in mind when considering the details. Make sure your 360 feedback system provides reviewers with the safety of being able to review anonymously, and clear information about how the results will be used.

Design the questionnaire  in a way that provides the candidate with relevant information about their performance on which they can base their decisions about future actions. Excellence in questionnaire design is an art in itself – the subject for another post.

If you found this post useful, please feel free to share it with a friend. You could also subscribe to the RSS feed for this blog, or sign up to receive our blog by email.

1. Overall Experience – does the supplier have a reasonable level of overall experience in the field? If you use a pure software provider, do they understand the ‘people’ factors that are so important in this area. Equally, a supplier with a wealth of people experience may be short on technical background and experience.
Questions to ask may be:
o What are the technical qualifications and experience of the lead developer?
o What specific experience does the senior team have in this area?
o What evidence do they show of their experience in this field?

2. Culture – what is the ethos of the supplier organisation? Is it a ‘stack-em-high, sell-em-cheap’ supplier who operates through price alone? Alternatively, do the people in the organisation focus on understanding client needs and building lasting customer relationships?

3. Focus – is the supplier trying to be all things to all people? Focus on core skills creates a better service. A supplier that specialises in assessments, and particularly on multi-rater systems may be a better prospect for you.

4. Quality of support – this factor cannot be stressed enough! There is nothing more frustrating for a user (and more guaranteed to cause dissatisfaction) than lack of support, or bad quality support, just when assistance is needed. Make sure the supplier can provide a support facility for candidates, reviewers and for project supervisors. Check the quality of support – a bad answer may be worse than no answer at all.

5. Hidden costs – This goes directly to the question of price. It’s reasonable to expect to be charged for any development or tailoring. Equally, a per-candidate fee is a standard way of charging for the service. Outside of that though, check whether there is a setup fee, an additional fee for support, or for any backup documentation that may be provided. What would the cost be if you just wanted to run a single 360 review for one employee? Know what the real price is that you will be paying at the outset.

6. Backup documentation – part of the value you should get from a supplier is in the backup they can provide for the management of the review process. They should be able to supply backup documentation to help you with the briefing process, as well as guidelines assist candidates and reviewers. They should have the experience to assist with templates or guidelines for any other aspects specific to your individual projects.

7. Strong technical skills (not just in the development team) – Where do the technical skills lie in the organisation? Are they only with the technical team? The technical team must have strong qualifications and experience to be able to develop a robust system. An indication of the level of expertise you will be getting is the breadth of knowledge shown by the main members of the team. Anyone dealing directly with clients should have a level of technical skill that enables them to impart a sound understanding of the basics of the system.

8. Track record – this provides an assurance of success. A supplier who provides a high quality of service priced to deliver value for money, will be able to demonstrate that in their track record. Ask who they have worked for in the past. Ask what proportion of their client base has used their service continuously for 3 years or more. A loyal client base is a valuable endorsement. Don’t be afraid to ask for references. If they are proud of their service, they will be happy for you to talk to their customers.

9. Rapport – is there a good ‘fit’. Do you get on with the people in the organisation? Are they easy to deal with? Do you trust them to do a good job with your company’s most valuable asset?

This list of aspects to consider may seem daunting. Hopefully it will help with the decision process, and instil ideas on what to consider.

Supplier should recognise that their service won’t be right for everyone. For the client however, it’s vitally important to get just the right service at a reasonable price. After all, you are placing your staff – your most valuable asset in their hands.

[Tip: If you are a trainer, your reputation is in the hands of your supplier when you sub-contract. Make sure they are a credit to you.

If you are an HR manager, the trust of your employees, and the performance of the organisation is at stake. Make sure you choose someone who has the experience to enhance your programme.]

(This article first appeared on the Engauge blog)

Photo Credit: Jean-Francois Chenier

The subject of confidentiality often comes up when 360 degree feedback is used. The generally accepted practice is to maintain confidentiality for all peers and direct reports. Clearly, its true and right that a manager should be able to give feedback openly to any direct report. But I am utterly convinced that removing that protection for other reviewers results in compromised feedback.

I found it disturbing to read recently that a supplier was recommending companies adopt a process which reveals the identity of reviewers. The premise that people should be willing to put their names to their feedback is wonderful – in an ideal world. But we all know that its naive to approach this sort of thing as if the company culture is perfect. No company has that sort of ideal relationship between all staff, and the potential for damage is enormous if this is misjudged.

Any company that conducts feedback in such a way as to reveal the identity of respondent who are not the line managers of the reviewee cannot claim to have a robust system. And the larger the organisation, the more this applies. Critical reasons for protecting staff identities in this process are the potential for retribution should a manager of a colleague not like the feedback they receive, and the associated fear of this very behaviour which can produce feedback which is at best a washed-out version, and at worst outright nonsense. Only in a protected environment can a subordinate or a colleague be sure that less-than-glowing feedback will not cause negative repercussions for them.

Picture yourself in this position:

You have been asked to give feedback on your boss, who is a difficult person to talk to. You would love to give the feedback that more approachability (amongst other things)  would make it easier to work with them. BUT, the 360 supplier has agreed with the HR department that as the company has such an ‘open’ culture, it will be appropriate for all feedback to be attributed to the staff member who made it.
Now you have a real dilemma:
- If you don’t submit any feedback, and everyone else who has been invited does so – it will be clear that you didn’t respond, thus raising questions about your commitment to the firm in this wonderful open culture.
- On the other hand, if you submit your honest feedback, and its attributed to you, there’s a real chance that you are going to have some issues with your boss.
- Of course, there is a third, more comfortable, solution. Give feedback, but don’t say anything that your boss might find uncomplimentary.
How many people would be brave enough to take anything but the third option? There are some, but in organisations that don’t protect their staff’s identities in this process, who would know how many. There is no way to tell, but you can see how it would also be almost impossible to ensure that everyone gets really honest feedback that gives them a true picture of their performance in the eyes of all their colleagues and direct reports.

(It must be noted that companies where the management team believes firmly that a transparent, open, no-blame culture exists may be mistaken. It sometimes looks very different from the lower levels of the organisation!)

Of course, if a reviewer chooses to reveal their identity, there are ways of doing so within a system that protects confidentiality. You can simply elect to add your initials at the end of your comments.

[Tip: One of the key benefits of using a specialist external supplier for 360 feedback or employee surveys is in fact, the guarantee of anonymity for all users. That, and their expert advice are some of the ways they add most value.]

(This article first appeared on the Engauge blog)

Photo credit: Katie Spence