Multisource Feedback - The Importance of Accountability
The heart of 360-degree feedback is the process whereby managers are rated on aspects of their behaviour by their staff members. Managers then receive feedback on the ratings and make comparisons with their own ratings. Not every individual is likely to make improvements following this upward feedback. For some, performance may actually decrease. Whether an upward feedback process prompts behaviour change depends on the reactions of the participants and actions of the organisation. A recent article in Personnel Psychology by researchers from Arizona State University examined some of the factors. Four key issues they identify are:
Perception of self
Researchers have found that people tend to overrate themselves relative to the ratings of others; some believe that this is observed more often with poorer performers. However, self-ratings have been shown to decrease after a manager has received feedback from staff members. This may result from increased self-awareness, or from a desire to have self and staff member ratings in closer agreement (known as 'Control Theory').
Organisational cynicism
This phenomenon is said to be growing in organisational settings. This refers to the belief that one's organisation lacks integrity, fairness and honesty and instead displays unscrupulous behaviour and self-interest. The cynic therefore believes that serious problems exist and, although they can be solved, they won't be because of self-centred decision-makers, unchanging organisational members and inertia. Researchers suggest that it is difficult for new programmes such as upward feedback to be successful for cynics - they are less motivated to make personal changes. It is also possible that cynicism of staff members might affect their willingness to provide feedback and its quality.
Feedback value
It has been proposed that for upward feedback to be successful, recipients must recognise its value. Individuals who find feedback more valuable and are more likely to set specific, challenging goals have been shown to improve in performance. Motivation to seek additional feedback from staff members who provided the ratings has also been demonstrated to be important. For example, a first step in the goal-setting process might be a follow-up meeting with staff members. Ratings of those who have held such a meeting have been shown to improve more than those who have not.
Commitment to staff members
This refers to the extent to which a manager feels a sense of loyalty toward staff members, agrees with them on important matters, and is willing to put extra effort into helping them succeed. Studies demonstrate that the most cynical are less committed to staff members. The type of feedback the manager receives also impacts upon commitment to staff members; lower ratings result in lower subsequent commitment, higher ratings result in higher commitment.
The way ahead
If organisations want to maximise the return on their upward feedback investment, it is important to remember that individual attitudes toward the upward feedback process are likely to affect the extent to which feedback interventions work.
Although it can be difficult to cure organisational cynicism, it is worth considering that it can impede the success of feedback interventions. Perhaps organisations should assess the degree of cynicism before implementing a feedback intervention. If cynicism is high, upward feedback may not be practical until cynicism is reduced. One way of reducing it might be to demonstrate that other organisational members (including high-level leaders) are not self-interested and are willing to solve problems and to change. Regarding attitudes to feedback itself, it is important that recipients are trained about its value and purpose before receiving feedback.
Reference
Atwater, L.E., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, D., and Cartier, P. An upward feedback field experiment: Supervisors' cynicism, reactions, and commitment to subordinates. Personnel Psychology, Vol 53 No 2, Summer 2000, pps 275-297.
Newsletter: 2003