360 feedback should not bring any surprises to people. It should help them to understand how their behaviour is perceived by others and confirm the behaviour that is most likely to get results. If implemented appropriately, it can give good information about:

• the difference between the way individuals see themselves and how they are perceived by others
• the differences between the perceptions of different groups of respondents (for example, do the recipient's direct reports have a different view to his or her line manager?)
• helping to make performance management a more objective and fair process.

360 feedback is a sensitive issue. CIPD has come across instances where it has been questioned by individuals, many of which can be traced to inappropriate implementation. In general, if individuals are going to trust the 360 feedback process, practitioners must ensure that:

• Issues of confidentially are clearly communicated detailing who will have access to the data and for what purpose.
• It is clearly stated how feedback will be given and by whom.
• The process for identifying respondents is clearly set out with recipients having some opportunity to input.
• Sufficient time is allowed to pilot the process and to consult with individuals and employee groups on both the design and implementation of the process.
• Both recipients and respondents are adequately briefed on the process, how to complete the relevant forms and the aims and objectives of the exercise.
• Adequate opportunity is given for people to comment and raise their concerns.
• People are not forced or coerced to take part by managers.
• Feedback is never attributed to an individual, that feedback reports and development plans are kept secure and that data protection rules are obeyed.
• The process is constantly monitored and evaluated, all concerns acted on and any changes adequately communicated.

In organisations that do not have a tradition of open feedback or upward communication, it is likely that 360 feedback will be seen with greater levels of mistrust. This can be overcome with sufficient attention to the above issues but may also have to be accompanied with some pertinent challenges to the prevailing culture to establish higher levels of trust.

Generally, an organisation may not be ready for 360 feedback if is in the middle of a change programme which includes downsizing or restructuring and where the aims and objectives can be misinterpreted.

Questionnaire wording

• Questions should be relevant to the recipient's job. If they are not, the recipient will not be motivated to change or understand what changes are required.
• Each question should be concise, use plain English, and omit qualifiers, such as ’when appropriate‘ and ’as necessary‘. Vague, complex questions rarely produce clear feedback.
• Each question should be similar to other questions used to measure a particular competency, and be different from all other questions relating to other competencies. Muddled competencies make muddled feedback.
• Questions should set standards, for example ’Makes decisions‘ is a poor question, because the decisions made could be unclear, late, autocratic, or wrong.
• Questions that ask more than one thing should also be avoided, for example ‘Makes decisions which are clear, timely and well-judged”.

‘Free text’ questions

These provide the opportunity to add comments in support of the answers to the rated questions. They can be enormously helpful. The recipient can look for frequently used words or phrases, and for common themes which explain or expand on the report’s findings. When wording these questions avoid the use of HR jargon and use clear language, for example ’what does the recipient do well‘, and ’what does the recipient need to improve?’

Rating scale

performance scale, from ’poor‘ to ’excellent‘ for example, usually works best. Sometimes a frequency scale is used, (for example, from ’never does this‘ to ’always does this‘). The problem with this type of scale is that it confuses ability with opportunity.

A good report has summary graphs comparing Self scores for each competency/behaviour to the scores in all the other rater categories. It also breaks down each competency with detailed graphs that show each question (or behavioural indicator/statement), again with Self scores compared to the scores by rater category. If the graphs also show the ‘spread’ or range of scores, this will tell the recipient just how much concensus there is (or not) among each category. Other things to look for:

• Comments clearly identifiable by rater category but not by individual name
• Top 10 and bottom 10 questions overall
• Comparison between this recipient’s scores and all others in the same cohort (if relevant)
• It is also helpful if the report leads on to a development planning template.

In simply giving someone their feedback report and leaving them to work out its implications for themselves, not much will change. Most people need the help of a skilled coach to use their feedback to produce a personal development plan that is practical, relevant, short term, and aims for tangible results. The coach will help the recipient to:

• focus on their goals – this gains their commitment to change.
• put the feedback into the context of what is expected of them, and of their goals, and of the skills and abilities they need to achieve those goals.
• work out for themselves the important messages from their feedback report (rather than just telling them what it says).
• identify the things that they need to achieve and to come up with a realistic, short-term, low-cost and engaging plan for doing that. That plan will take into account possible obstacles that they could foresee, opportunities for getting support, how to involve their manager where appropriate, and how they will check on their progress.

A summary 360 feedback report for a group of people, a team for example, or a group of delegates on a development programme, can give a sense of perspective. It can enable individuals to gauge their performance against others, and to assess their group against other groups. In the hands of a skilled facilitator, a good group report challenges thinking, raises new questions, and promotes good decisions. It should enable individuals to make better judgements about their capabilities, personal development and careers.

Traditionally, 360 feedback was collected using pen and paper questionnaires. The opportunity to do 360 feedback online has done much more than reduce the time and effort required to distribute questionnaires and collate the answers.

Questionnaires are now interactive, so that:

• Recipients can choose which competencies to receive feedback on.
• Confidentiality is improved, as questionnaires and reports can be protected by passwords.
• Questionnaire rules can improve the quality of feedback by, for example, requiring that a minimum number of questions are answered, and a minimum percentage of critical feedback, or of positive feedback.
• Accuracy is improved - an online system can ensure that essential data is provided.

Other benefits of online systems are:

• Reports are available online; answers can be collated instantly, so reports are immediately available and up-to-date. Reports can also include comparison with previous feedback.
• The amount of administration required is much reduced. Individuals can be responsible for managing their own feedback, for requesting feedback and for chasing late questionnaires.
• Demographic information can be collected, and the fact that data is held in a database simplifies analysis and the production of summary reports.

Choosing an online 360 feedback provider

Search Google UK for ’online 360 feedback‘ and you'll get over one and a half million matches. There is a huge selection of providers, and no doubt each will do 360 feedback slightly differently. In choosing a provider, it is important to ask the questions that will result in a system that fits your business, and complies with regulatory requirements and best practice.

• Is it an easy, step-by-step process, with clear guidance and online help?
• How flexible is it? Can it use your competencies? Can you choose the rating scale? Can you add your branding, extra supporting information and help pages? Will it cope with the number of users anticipated?
• Is it easy for recipients to own the process, by requesting their own feedback, designing their own questionnaires, being involved in selecting, briefing and following up their respondents?
• How useful are the feedback reports?
• How much administration is involved? Does it minimise the opportunity for human error, and allow those that do occur to be quickly corrected?
• Does it run on the Internet or on an intranet? If the latter, is it compatible with existing software, how will it be affected by changes or upgrades, and what are the maintenance overheads and security implications. If on the Internet, do people have access, and if not, what is involved in setting up access.
• How responsive is the provider to requests for changes?
• How is confidentiality protected?
• Does the supplier offer strong information security? The ISO/IEC 17799 Code of Practice for Information Security Management6 establishes guidelines and general principles for organisations.
• How accessible is the system to people with disabilities? The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) requires service providers to ensure the services they provide are accessible to people with disabilities. The DDA requirement applies to services delivered via the Internet and it applies to all businesses and all public sector organisations.

People may ask ’Has all this effort on my personal development paid off?’ Repeating 360 feedback helps to identify those development options that work and don't work, for example before and after a training course. And it can be a great way of evaluating your investment in 360 feedback.

The process in which you evaluate yourself against a set of criteria behavioural statements (often linked to a competency framework), and you invite a set of colleagues to do the same (typically manager/ peers/ direct reports/ other stakeholders). You receive a gap analysis between how you perceive yourself and how others perceive you. Effective 360-degree feedback processes also include development planning and coaching sessions.

There are two sets of people involved: 1) the person getting the report and 2) the colleagues who contribute their feedback.  Common terms for each set:

• Participant, Recipient, Subject, Ratee
• Rater, Respondent, Feedback Provider

click-360 uses the term Participant for 1) and Rater for 2).

• Knowledge - familiarity with job, industry, company
• Skills - task proficiency
• Behaviours - patterns in relating to the environment (energy, optimism)
• NOT personality traits or styles

Often, the questions are drawn from the competency framework that supports the organisation’s performance management system.

To the individual:

• Perception is reality and this process helps individuals to understand how others perceive them
• Uncovers blind spots
• Feedback is essential for learning
• Individuals can better manage their own performance and careers
• Provides quantifiable data to individuals on soft skills

To the team:

• Increases communication between team members
• Makes it ok to give and receive feedback generally (ie outside of the formal 360 process)
• Higher levels of trust and better communication as individuals identify the causes of conflict
• Better team environment as people discover how to treat others in the ways they want to be treated
• Supports teamwork by involving team members in the development process
• Increases team effectiveness

To the organisation:

• Reinforces corporate culture by linking survey items to organisational leadership competencies and company values
• Better career development for employees
• Aids succession planning – leads to promotions from within
• Improves customer service by having customers contribute to the evaluation process
• Provides quantifiable data to organisations on soft skills
• Leads to relevant learning & development solutions

• Participants were originally senior executives.  Now 360 is open to individuals at all levels of the organisation
• Delivery method used to be paper or scanned forms.   Now 360 is paperless, using web-based surveys
• Surveys used to be rigid and inflexible.   Now they are locally customised by the user organisation or third-party provider
• Feedback used to focus on numerical ratings.  Now there is targeted commentary provided for each survey item (qualitative as well as quantitative data)
• Cost used to be expensive.  Now it is scalable and affordable.
• click’nmix from click-360 is the only UK product to allow completion of questionnaires for several participants at the same time (on the same screen), thereby speeding up the process as well as allowing for relative as well as absolute scoring

By conducting a 360 readiness review, you can determine if your organization is ready to conduct 360 degree feedback. The review should include topics such as:

• 360 awareness - understanding of 360 and how it works
• Support - belief that the organisation and manager would support development processes
• Feedback climate – there needs to an environment of trust that the information would be used for development purposes and that people would be fair (belief in confidentiality and usage)
• Openness - willingness to give and receive feedback

• Style tools measure traits or behavioural preferences, while 360 measures people’s perceptions of a colleague’s competence
• Style explains how you are likely to behave, while 360 describes how you actually behave.

From anecdotal evidence gained through the many articles on 360 published over the years it would seem likely that by now nearly all Fortune 1000 companies have either already implemented a 360 process or plan to shortly. Our own survey conducted in early 2010 revealed over 60% of organisations canvassed are using 360 and out of the remainder, 50% intend to do so within 12 months. The increasing affordability of 360 has allowed many small to mid-size companies to undertake 360 for individuals and groups within their organisations. In fact, 360 has become so well established that often individuals in companies without a formal process in place will seek outside means to run 360 on themselves.

Given that people need time to make changes following a 360 and that it takes a little while before others perceive that change has taken place, we have found that six to twelve-month intervals are most appropriate. However, some organisations choose to conduct surveys before and then shortly after a leadership, management or team development programme.

• Length of time the respondent knows the feedback recipient
• Amount of contact with feedback recipient
• Understands the full nature of what the feedback recipient does
• Select some individuals who work well with the feedback recipient and some who do not (in other words, feedback should be sought not just from people who the participant gets along with, but also those who are likely to challenge them).

The feedback recipient should be the only person who gets a copy of the report – his/her coach will often share the feedback in a closed session.  The manager gets group and organisational data, but no individual data.
While giving the manager a copy of the report may increase accountability and allows the manager to quantifiably track progress, there are a variety of pitfalls to it, such as:

• People will fear the process
• Feedback comments will not be as constructive
• Scores may be higher
• Data can become a weapon, not a development tool
• Manager may lack the ability to interpret the data appropriately
• Manager may reprimand the employee for not doing well

Participants should however be encouraged to seek clarity and depth from their manager (and indeed other colleagues who contributed anonymously) to help understand their reports and should share their goals and action plans.  In this way, managers can act as ongoing coaches, guiding the individual to higher performance levels.  When managers get the reports they often miss underlying core issues by focusing too intently on the lowest rated items or may act as judges, focusing on specific scores and comments and using them as a weapon during the performance review.

To ensure that people take adequate time to consider each question and provide positive and constructive feedback, the survey should contain as few questions as possible. If survey items are carefully researched to ensure relevance, the number of questions should not exceed 50. More importantly, the time to complete should not be more than 30-40 minutes per questionnaire, although with modern online tools this can be broken into more than one session.

It really depends on what you are trying to measure. A standard survey can be utilised effectively if all of the questions are relevant and all of the critical behavioural areas are included, although more and more surveys are customised to the organisation’s competencies and values. This increases the likelihood that people will be developed to support the organisational culture and mission. Pre-work in designing an appropriate survey pays-off in the long-run.

Confidentiality is important to both the participants and the raters. If the feedback recipient is not guaranteed that the results will remain confidential, they will tend to feel anxiety about the purpose of the process and the use of the data. If the raters are not guaranteed that their names will not appear on the report or be linked to specific comments or ratings, then they may not provide accurate responses and be completely open. To ensure confidentiality:

• Select a neutral administrator (e.g. an external consultant or human resources representative)
• Print only one report per person
• Educate the raters in the best ways to provide comments
• User-names & passwords should be required to access the survey and the response data should be encrypted
• Ensure that online systems are encrypting the data and storing the results on a secure server

360-degree feedback and performance appraisals can complement each other, but should not be linked. If 360 is linked to compensation decisions, it loses its power as a development tool. When compensation is the outcome, individuals will quickly learn how to play the game, "I'll scratch your back, if you scratch mine." Further, if people do not get satisfactory ratings, morale can decrease when 360 is linked to performance appraisal results, but low scores when 360 is used purely for development tend to be viewed as constructive because there’s more to go at.

As William Swan & Philip Margulies summarize in their book “How to Do A Superior Performance Appraisal”, EEOC guidelines state that "an organization must demonstrate that its appraisal process is valid, that it is job related, and that it accurately measures significant aspects of job performance. The organization must demonstrate that the appraisal system is the best available method, that no other system is less discriminatory." This in turn requires that the raters can be identified with the ratings they provide. Given that raters are anonymous in the 360-degree feedback process, revealing raters would violate confidentiality. Ultimately, organisations could be at risk if 360-degree feedback scores are utilised for decisions arising from an appraisal process.

Questions about validity are most important with psychological testing instruments that were developed with the purpose of measuring things that cannot be observed directly, such as values, attitudes, styles and traits. 360-degree feedback survey items should always be based on concrete, observable behaviours.

To establish face validity, show the survey to a representative group of people who will be giving and receiving feedback and ask the following questions:

• Are the questions clear or ambiguous? (Have each person restate the questions to see if interpretation is consistent)
• Are the questions relevant to the feedback recipient's job?
• Are the major items addressed?

Just because a survey was validated in the context of another population, does not mean that it will be valid for your organisation. For this reason, customisable assessment platforms are preferential, because they can be adjusted to align with local conditions.

There is a checklist of 7 criteria used in constructing a good 360 survey:

• Does the item utilise an ACTION VERB?
• Does the item describe an OBSERVABLE behaviour?
• Does the item describe ONLY ONE behaviour?
• Is the item described in CLEAR LANGUAGE?
• Is the item described as a POSITIVE, desired behaviour?
• Does the item describe a behaviour that is IMPORTANT for the individual and/or organisation?
• Does this item, taken together with all of the other items, SUFFICIENTLY DEFINE the category?

Every organisation, even those within the same industry, has a distinctly different culture and set of values. What is important in one organisation may be relatively unimportant in another. Additionally, most participants affirm that comments, not numerical ratings, give the most meaningful feedback. For these reasons, we have found that comparing individual results to national norms, while indeed is interesting to consider, is not as relevant as comparing one's scores to local norms (the scores of one's direct peers and organization as a whole).

We have found that scales of five-points or less can be too small to provide a clear delineation between core strengths and behavioural challenges. Our 100-point scale provides for an even greater spread of responses and therefore increased accuracy. Further, raters should be encouraged to utilise the entire range.

• Start at the top with the most senior management
• Conduct a pilot
• Directly address, up front, the issues that are at the source of the resistance
• Focus on the benefits for the individual or group
• Utilise an external consultant to minimize fears of confidentiality and inappropriate data usage
• Ensure that the feedback for the senior managers is given by an experienced, psychologically-qualified coach.

Yes, when:

• The person receiving feedback is too new to the group or organisation
• There are not enough raters who truly understand the full scope of the individual's responsibilities
• During a time of major change such as just before or after a merger or acquisition, or where the organisation is undergoing (or has recently undergone) a restructuring and/or a re-sizing
• In an environment where there is a high degree of mistrust

Lyle Spencer and Charles Morrow in The Economic Value of Competencies: Measuring ROI, found that 360-degree feedback systems could yield a Return on Investment as high as 700 percent.

How can I get more information on the 360 process?

Check out the About 360 page on this site, or email us at info@click-360.com or call us on +44 (0) 845 313 3357 and ask for Colin Newbold.