Is 360 Degree Feedback Appraisal an Effective Way of Performance Evaluation?

 

Introduction

In contrast to traditional top-down appraisal by supervisors or line managers exclusively, this approach of appraising employee performance incorporates confidential evaluations by colleagues or peers, subordinates, and supervisors or line managers.

Typically, 360-degree feedback is provided in the form of questionnaire responses covering behavioral criteria such as problem-solving ability, adaptability, communication skills, teamwork, supervisory skills, and administrative skills, with each item requiring a rating-scale response,

as well as a few narrative responses to qualitative questions. Employees may rate themselves in some circumstances, and gap analysis reveals the disparity between how they view themselves and how others perceive them. Employees prefer 360-degree feedback to traditional top-down appraisal because it gives them a sense of how their performance is being evaluated.

The concept was coined in 1985 by Mark R. Edwards (born 1948), Chief Executive Officer of TEAMS International, and by the mid-1990s, the technique had spread fast among prominent corporations. Multi-rater feedback, multi-source feedback, 360-degree evaluation, 360-degree review, or upward feedback are other terms for the same thing.

The Purpose  & Time Frame of 360 Degree Feedback

As reasons for using 360 degree feedback, suggest self-improvement, team-building, performance appraisal, strategy development, and remuneration. Attaining business strategy, encouraging individual development, increasing team performance, and recognizing training and selection needs.

A full multi-rater feedback process may take much longer than intended and may be far more thorough than expected. As a result, companies that opt to conduct 360-degree feedback should evaluate the time commitment and be prepared to wait for the findings.

Strengths and Weaknesses of 360 Degree Feedback

Strengths     

a multi-rater feedback system enhances contact between raters and rates. Another advantage of multi-source feedback is that raters may feel powerful by rating their employer (. The ability to rate their employer may provide employees with a sense of power and the right to speak up.

Multi-rater feedback systems are utilized for performance coaching and deliver high-quality feedback from multiple sources delivers more dependable information to recipients about their level of performance.

Weaknesses

The deployment of multi-rater feedback is expensive  This may be viewed as a shortcoming of 360-degree feedback implementation. Levy and  demonstrated how many feedbacks can result in differences due to multiple raters. There has been some criticism of free choice of responses, claiming that receivers are more subject to choose raters who are close to them and like them

Another disadvantage of 360-degree feedback is the risk of overstating receiver performance  When using the multi rater feedback tool, facilitators or managers may emphasize on the appraisees' weaknesses.

Conclusion

The application of 360 degree feedback produces numerous good consequences, far more than other traditional methods. Furthermore, multi-rater feedback is not only a useful way of development, but it is also a great tool for performance evaluation. The conclusion of this research is that, while 360 degree feedback practice is difficult to adopt, when done effectively, the positive effects are extremely fulfilling. 360-degree feedback appraisal is an effective approach of evaluating performance. More research on multi-source feedback as a performance evaluation tool is needed, according 

reference 

 Baron, J. N., & Kreps, D. M., (1999). Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 Carter, A., Kerrin, M., & Silverman, M., (2005). 360 Degree Feedback: Beyond the Spin. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.

Chivers, W., & Darling, P., (1999). 360 Degree Feedback and Organisational Culture. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.

Dewing, J., Hancock, S., Brooks, J., Pedder, L., Adams, L., Riddaway, L., Uglow, J., & O’Connor, P., (2004). An account of 360 degree review as part of a practice development strategy. Practice Development in Health Care. 3(4). pp.193-209.

Gallagher, T., (2008). 360 Degree Performance Reviews Offer Valuable perspectives. Financial Executive, December, pp.61.

 Gitlespie, T. L., & Parry, R. O., (2006). Fuel for Litigation? Links Between Procedural Justice and Multisource Feedback. Journal of Managerial Issues, XVIII,(4), pp.530-546.