The 360 Review — A Powerful Performance Tool

I was administered my first 360 review as a Senior Manager. I was instructed to hand out forms to my direct reports that would be collected and scored. HR would let me know when the results were in. The day of reckoning came and I found myself in a room of other Senior Managers and the Head of HR. We were given an envelope containing our scores. As we opened our feedback sheets there was dead silence. Some people went pale, others got angry, there were many “whats!!!!,” a few seemed quite content. Everyone then stood up, left the room, and that was the last I ever heard of or discussed my 360 review.

I share this with you because as an executive coach who has administered many 360 reviews, I know my first experience was an excellent example of what not to do. Over the years I believe I have discovered some of the basic elements of a successful 360 review process.

1. One-on-one interview-type reviews vs electronically distributed reviews. Face-to-face, one-on-one interview-type 360 reviews, with a coach, while time consuming, paint a detailed picture and are generally more effective. When electronically distributed, people can easily give “average” scores to every question, try to save time, and be non-committal. It makes you look like you’re a team player even when you actually could care less. Of course because of this type of behavior the feedback is void of relevant information, viewed as another HR initiative “that won’t work” and at times is an easy, anonymous, platform for spewing venom (an important sign of a much more serious systemic problem). Despite these facts, most organizations still use electronic 360 reviews. I only administer the interview-type.
2. Off the shelf instruments are expensive and too generic. Starting with a basic template can work but without customizing the questions to the culture of the organization and the level of the people being rated, the feedback becomes too general and often misses the mark. Instruments should have simple, easy to understand, Likert scale score options using terms around “effectiveness” or “satisfaction” not merely numbers. There needs to be opportunity for comments with every question for increased clarification and to give a rater a voice. Why companies spend tens of thousands of dollars on generic electronic products is beyond me. Designing your own is easier than you would think and far more enlightening.

3. Engagement of raters is critical. 360 review scores are only as valuable as the effort that is placed in their gathering. Just as in any type of interviewing, the person performing the interview must have the trust of the information giver. Knowledge of the person’s job, background, as well as the culture of the organization, will give the listener context and leads to clarifying questions. The style and temperament of the interview is important as they can encourage fuller participation.

   As the person becomes known throughout the company it is communicated to teams making each interview easier and probably more honest. I believe a neutral third party, such as a coach or consultant, is best at this. Generally, their skill and experience level is higher, their tone less charged or prejudiced, and confidentiality easier to guarantee. I also believe they have better control over constructive criticism versus blaming or accusing.

   Speaking of confidentiality…

4. Confidentiality is essential. It needs to be the opening conversation of each encounter and must be clear and truthful. The confidentiality conversation needs to include listening to and overcoming any objections, as well as give the rater the right to opt-out. If participants think they will be identified either by name or omission, no one will be honest or frank. When there is a small group of raters, it is strongly recommended you do not designate responses by level. If a person has two direct reports, they can easily figure out who said what. Retribution is feared on all sides.
5. Narrative and summary. While many people like the ease of numerical scores, the gems are generally found in the narratives after each question and in the summary comments. Some people are just better with words; others may have felt the questions really didn’t hit the mark. Narrative also avails the rater another time to praise. 360 reviews are painted with a negative brush. This should not be the case. In many instances the most useful feedback goes to highly effective, well-regarded, people who never get the accolades and recognition they deserve in their day-to-day interactions. It can be an important retention device as people hold on to and remember the positive comments.

6. Delivery of feedback. Unlike my experience where I opened an envelope and read my feedback, proper 360 review feedback should take on a formal, guided, approach. Time needs to be set aside, the deliverer prepared, and the receiver given adequate time and encouragement to react, absorb, and possibly refute ratings. I like to focus on the good news first — though that is often hard for some people to hear. There also can be the distraction of trying to figure out “who said that,” which needs to be redirected to the general information.

   In a good feedback session the person leaves the meeting with a balanced view — not strictly the negative, nor the sugar coated. It can be a motivator, validator, and confirmation of where one stands and what the opportunities could be.

7. Actionable goals come out of the feedback. How to progress with the positive and how to soften the rough edges or increase skills, all with measurement and timelines. These should come from the person being rated, with the support and guidance of the coach, and then with the buy-in from the supervisor. These next stages are the true value of the entire 360 review process.

There are people who disagree with me. Meg Halverson in her New York Times article “360 Reviews Often Lead to Cruel, Not Constructive Criticism” shares her view in a very provocative way. While I agree some of the behavior can be allowed to occur in the process, the 360 review is not the cause, strictly the messenger. Any organization where this type of behavior manifests needs to take a look at the entire organization’s culture and code of conduct. A good place to start would be a 360 review initiative with all the senior leaders.

Designing, engaging, delivering feedback, creating goals and objectives takes time and uses resources. It also can be a valuable tool for performance evaluation, retention, and employee feedback. Consider a 360 review as another powerful performance tool for your organization.