360-Degree Feedback: The Accuracy of Ratings
360º feedback is an increasingly popular method for gaining feedback on performance from the people with whom an individual interacts. On the face of it, it appears a useful method for obtaining a full picture of how the candidate performs in their differing roles of 'manager' and 'member of a team'. If there are any major gaps identified in the feedback, the candidate can take steps to develop these areas of performance.
Whilst a lot of research has looked at the difference in ratings between the various groups of participants (i.e. self, supervisor, peers, subordinates), there is not much evidence of how well the feedback links back to actual performance.
A recent study took steps to address this gap, using the output from a 360 degree feedback process and performance data from an assessment centre. By comparing the competency and overall ratings of both processes, the authors were able to determine which source (i.e. self, supervisor, peer, subordinate) provided the most valid predictor of an objective measure of performance (the assessment centre). They found that:
-
Self ratings were the weakest predictors of performance
-
Supervisor ratings were the strongest predictors of performance
-
Aggregated scores strongly (combination of all 'other' ratings) predicted assessment centre performance
-
Some competencies were better predicted by certain sources than others (e.g. subordinates were best predictors of assessment centre competency at coaching and developing people)
Implications for implementation of a 360-degree feedback process
Design
The 360-feedback report is generally designed to compare 'self' ratings against 'other' ratings, in the form of graphs etc. If the 'self' ratings are not representative of actual performance, this could lead to erroneous feedback and development action which is targeting the wrong areas. It is important that the report is designed not to rely solely on comparing 'self' with 'other' ratings. The report should also clearly identify to the recipient which areas their managers, peers, and subordinates rated them as being a particularly high and particularly low performer.
Communication
Candidates in the study may have overrated their performance, as they may have believed that the results of the survey would be considered in promotion decisions. It is crucial that the objective of the process is clearly communicated to participants as being purely developmental. If 360 feedback is being used for other purposes (e.g. appraisal) the validity of the 'self' ratings must be carefully questioned.
Reference
Atkins, P.W.B. and Wood, R.E. (2002). Self-versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings: validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychology, 55, 871-904.
Newsletter: 2003