EFFECTIVENSS OF THE 360 DEGREE APPRAISAL

FEEDBACK SYSTEM

SUBMITTED BY:
PUNAM DWIVEDI
REGISTRATION NO.: 201211972
PROGRAMME NAME: PGDBA (HR)

SYMBIOSIS CENTRE FOR DISTANCE LEARNING

2012
0

DECLARATION BY THE LEARNER

This is to declare that I have carried out this project work myself in part fulfillment of the
PGDBA(HR) Programme of SCDL.
The work is original, has not been copied from anywhere else and ha snot been submitted
to any other University/Institute for an award of any degree/diploma.

Date:

Signature:

Place:

Name: Punam Dwivedi

CERTIFICATE OF SUPERVISOR (GUIDE)

Certified that the work incorporated in this Project Effectiveness of the 360 Degree
Appraisal Feedback System submitted by Punam Dwivedi is her original work and
completed under my supervision. Material obtained from other sources has been duly
acknowledged in the Project Report.

Date:

Signature:

Place:

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Compiling this project has been a long process. But, the most difficult part is to thank all
those people who have extended unstinted support to me in many ways. I find it very tough
to do so in these few words...Nevertheless. I express my gratitude from within my
heart.
No words can express how grateful I am to ________________. His guidance, attention to
detail, friendly demeanor & ability to motivate has helped me professionally, academically
& personally.
I also express my thanks to all my friends and family members who have helped me to
complete this study.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i) Declaration by the Learner..................................................................................................i
ii) Certificate by the Supervisor.............................................................................................ii
iii) Acknowledgment.............................................................................................................iii
Chapters

Page No.

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................1
2. Objective and Scope.........................................................................................................12
3. Limitations.......................................................................................................................13
4. Theoretical Perspective....................................................................................................14
5. Methodology and Procedure of Work..............................................................................35
6. Analysis of Data...............................................................................................................42
7. Findings, Inferences and Recommendations....................................................................53
8. Conclusion........................................................................................................................63
9. Summary of the Project Report........................................................................................65
ANNEXURES
I) Proposal..............................................................................................................................II
II) References........................................................................................................................V
III) List of Figures, Charts, Diagrams..................................................................................VI
IV) List of Tables................................................................................................................VII

iv

INTRODUCTION

"Oh! What a great gift we would have it. We could only see ourselves as others see us"
-

Robert Burns (Scottish Poet)

The emperor's new clothes: an updated leadership tale

Once upon a time, the Emperor asked members of his court how he looked in his new
clothes. Knowing the answer he wanted, his countries told him 'superb", in spite of the fact
that he had on not a stitch of clothing.
The Emperor had just read about how people often tell others so their face what they want
to hear rather than what they need to hear. The Emperor was anxious because he had
scheduled a large parade, and would be wearing is new clothes in it. At the last moment, he
asked those in his circle of influence - those he most trusted - to provide him anonymous
feedback about the look of his new suit. The anonymous feedback was unanimous: He was
wearing only his birthday suit.

The Emperor used what is today called 360 feedback to overcome false information.
Imagine how many kings, queens, presidents, generals, leaders, and individuals have been
influenced by information gathered in a manner that reinforced their false assumptions
rather than told the truth. The honest input from others can overcome false selfperceptions, blind spots, and just plain ignorance. Candid feedback from relevant others
may save careers when people can avoid making stupid mistakes (like parading naked in
public).
A new model for performance feedback and appraisal
Like the Emperor, leaders and employees at all levels of organisations are changing the
way they receive feedback in order to improve the quality of information. The new model
for performance feedback and appraisal turns the assessment process upside down. People
are asking for performance feedback from those in their own circle of influence, that is,
those with knowledge of their work behaviors, as well as from their supervisor. This
information that comes from many asking for and getting information from people rather
than just is more honest, reliable, and valid than traditional appraisals from the supervisor
only. Moreover, feedback from these multiple sources has a more powerful impact on
people than information from a single source, such as supervisor. In fact, no
organizational action has more power for motivating employee behavior change than
feedback from credible work associates.
The 360 feedback process, also called multisource assessment, taps the collective
wisdom

of those who work most closely with the employee: supervisor, colleagues

(peers), direct reports (subordinates), and possibly internal and often external customers.
The collective intelligence these people provide on critical competencies or specific
behaviors and skill gives the employee a clear understanding of personal strengths and
areas ripe for development. Employees also view this performance information from
multiple perspectives as fair, accurate, credible, and motivating. Employees are often more
strongly motivated to change their work behaviors to attain the esteem of their coworkers
than to win the respect of their supervisor alone.
As the 360 Feedback process better serves the needs of employees, it serves the changing
needs of their organisations too. Organisations are reducing hierarchy by removing layers
2

i .exe

of teamwork, continuous learning, individual development, and self-responsibility. The

360 Feedback Model aligns with these organizational goals to create opportunities for
personal and career development and for aligning individual performance expectations
with corporate values.
Well-designed 360 feedback systems serve the many needs of employees substantially
better than the traditional hierarchical, single-source assessments employees are so familiar
with, such as agents, line and staff managers, team members, and employees in all
disciplines are designing and implementing multiscore assessment systems that work for
people in nearly all kinds of jobs: nurses, lawyers, production workers, union members,
hospitality personnel, engineers, military units, school teachers, librarians, research and
development managers, and public safety officers, among many others. Any employee who
needs better performance information may ask for an even implement a 360- feedback
process.
Single-source assessments reinforce employee accountability and service to that single
source, typically the boss. In contrast, multisource assessment creates accountability and
service to all stakeholders: supervisor, external customers, and internal customers,
including coworkers and direct reports.

Figure 1 Core competencies

What is 360 Feedback and how does it work?

The 360 feedback model differs substantially from the traditional single-source
assessment completed by the supervisor. Supervisor-only appraisal typically occurs once a
year with the express purpose of providing employees with an assessment of their work
performance and management with information it needs for decisions on pay and
promotions. Unfortunately, the intent behind supervisory appraisals has not matched the
results.
Not a single-source performance assessment
Supervisory appraisals are generally time-consuming, and typically both those who give
them and those who receive them dislike them. Moreover, they usually don't work; they
neither differentiate levels of performance nor motivate employees to improve
performance.
Supervisors tend to dislike appraisals so much they often avoid doing them completely or
put them off as long as possible. A supervisor may report giving appraisals "on an ongoing
basis", but his or her employees often cannot remember receiving a performance review.
Some organisations have been reported employee's refusing promotions to supervisor
because they did not want to take on the responsibility of 'playing God' during the
appraisal process.
The supervisor-only performance assessment obviously relies on a single perspective: the
supervisor's judgment. These performance measures tend to provide flat, nonspecific
information about an employee's performance, and they have other problems as well:

They may reflect self-serving and other individual biases.

Politics, favoritism, and friendship may enter into the assessment.

The supervisor may have had an insufficient opportunity or motivation to observe

employee performance.

The supervisor may be unwilling to confront poor performance.

Different supervisors have degrees of rigor in making evaluation decisions.

Hence, an employee's supervisor-only performance appraisal may not truly reflect the
individual's actual job performance. High performing employees may receive poor
appraisals that limit their opportunity for rewards such as pay increases and promotions
due to the idiosyncrasies of the supervisor. Most people can relate example of employees
who have had their career lives shattered by a single, possibly biased, supervisor.
Improving performance picture
By increasing the number of evaluations to offer a more balanced and comprehensive view,
the 360 feedback process improves the quality of performance measures. Because the
feedback providers are those with whom the employee interacts regularly at work, their
assessments are reliable, valid, and credible. This knowledge network of coworkers, who
have firsthand experience with the employee offers, insight about work behaviors that a
supervisor may not be able to observe. The 360 feedback process and traditional singlesource, supervisor-only assessment are illustrated in figure 1.1.
What are the benefits of 360 feedback
Organisations that adopt 360 feedback want better performance information and seek to
motivate behavior change. They may have other purposes in mind too: to support a cultural
change, reinforce team behavior, or implement strategic initiatives, such as total quality
management.
Most commonly, 360 feedback serves as supplement to, not a replacement for,
supervisory review. It blends the multisource feedback on behaviors or competencies with
the supervisor's assessment of results. Individuals are evaluated both on how they do the
job - that is, their behaviors - and what they do - their results or outcomes.

Figure 2 Single source versus multisource feedback systems

Benefits of key stakeholders

The 360 feedback process offers extensive and diverse benefits to key stakeholders in the
organisations - and the organisation too:

Customers: The process gives customers a chance to strengthen the customer-supplier

relationship. The 360 feedback captures the relevant and motivating information from
internal and external customers while giving them a voice in the assessment process.

Employees: By participating in a process that has tremendous impact on their careers,

employees may help select what evaluation criteria will be used to judge their
performance and who will provide feedback. Participation plays a critical role for
employees as they determine the fairness of the process.

Team members: The only option for identifying team and individual members'
effectiveness is 360 feedback. Failing feedback from multiple sources, team members
lack the information necessary for effective individual development and teamwork.
With no team evaluation, accountability may evaporate, and performance may falter.
7

Supervisors: This process expands supervisor's insight regarding the performance of

each direct report by providing them more comprehensive and detailed performance
information than they usually have access to. Also, the process typically reduces by
half, or more, the supervisor's line spent on evaluating individual employees - a
necessity as spans of supervision increase and work loads become heavier.

Leaders and managers: The process provides leaders and managers an opportunity to
tap information from the organisation that may otherwise not be shared with them for
fear or reprisal. Employees may identify areas of concern and suggestions for
improvement, which leaders can use to guide the organisation more effectively.

Organisations: Organisations can gain access to credible, quantitative information to

understand organisational strengths and weaknesses, leadership gaps, and training
needs more fully. This information is much more useful than relying on intuitive
judgment or responding to those who are making the most noise.

Table 1: 360 feedback benefits to key stakeholders

Customers

Supervisor

Input to service

A voice in the service process

personal supervisory skills

An opportunity to see a mirror of

Participation in product and service

High-quality information for selection

decisions

decisions

a presence in the quality control

A change in role from performance

judge to coach

process

an

opportunity

to

reward

and

Credible information to confront poor

performance

recognize quality

an opportunity to contribute new

Credible information about behavior

that may derail a career

ideas
Employees

Leaders

A voice in decision processes that

An opportunity to see how they are

most affect them (e.g., appraisal)

viewed by others

An opportunity to influence career

High-quality information for selection

development

decisions

More impact on decisions at all levels

judge to coach
A voice in leadership quality control

A change in role from performance

An

opportunity

to

reward

and

Credible information to confront poor

performance

recognize quality

Work group or unit training and

development needs


Teams

Organization

An opportunity to see how the team

Better

serves customers

information

High-quality

information

for

selecting team members

An

opportunity

to

assess

team

Credible information about team

development needs

human

resources

decision

Enhanced quality control and validity

for promotions

development needs

Quality assessment of direct reports

Increased employee motivation

An opportunity to link performance
and rewards

Credible information about team

An opportunity to align vision,

values, and competencies

member contribution

Relevant

information

on

team

performance

360 degree feedback is a process in which you are evaluated on a set of competencies by
your manager, peers and direct reports. You also evaluate yourself, which provides the
opportunity to identify differences between how you perceive yourself and how others
perceive you.
The individual first assesses their own performance by rating himself or herself against
specific behaviors. They then select a number of work colleagues who are peers, managers
and people they supervise, and each person selected uses a simple rating scale to assess the
individual for their current performance against the same set of behaviors.
The feedback collected from the 360 appraisal is collated and summarized for the
individual as a series of reports. Each report is designed to emphasize a different aspect of

10

the feedback, for example strengths, areas needing development, and differences of
opinion.
This project on 360 degree feedback in performance appraisal will be conducted with a
two-fold focus, the first to understand the concept of appraisal per se, and the second to
understand the extension of this upward feedback or 360 degree process.
Everyone is interested in performance feedback knowing how well he or she is performing
some task. When employees do not receive feedback from their job, they will seek it on
their own. Feedback is also seen as an important source of motivating potential on the job
and its presence has been proposed to lead to increases satisfaction and motivation. The
aim of the thesis study was to study the effectiveness of 360 degree feedback system in
performance appraisal in organizations and to analyses the usefulness of the system to the
company, employees, customers and public at large.

11

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

a) To understand the importance of 360 degree feedback.

b) To understand the benefits of 360 degree feedback by doing in depth study of 360
degree feedback
c) To find out the effectiveness of 360 degree feedback in performance appraisal from
Management / Individual (s) perspective.
d) To study the attitude, view (s), and opinion (s) of individual (s) towards 360 degree
feedback.
e) To examine how 360 degree feedback helps to improve employee performance and
ultimately how it leads to the effectiveness of the organizations.

12

LIMITATIONS

There are very few companies in India which are or which were using 360 feedback and
still rare were the companies who could successfully implement it in India. Many of the
people who were pioneers in using this system have left the companies, so data collection
became impossible from these organisations. I also faced difficulties in getting no response
as to the cost incurred by the company for this purpose. Also, many of the companies have
not even started their second phase of implementation so the correct effectiveness could
not be determined.

13

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
An overview of appraisal system
Performance feedback is an important part of many organizational interventions. Managers
typically assume that providing employees with feedback about their performance makes it
more likely that performance on the job will be improved. Despite the prevalence of
feedback mechanisms in management interventions, however, feedback is not always as
effective as is typically assumed.
Fig. 3: Multi-Source 3600 Feedback

Everyone is interested in performance feedback-knowing how well he or she is performing

some task. When employees do not receive feedback from their job, they will seek it on
their own. Feedback is also seen as an important source of motivating potential on the job
and its presence has been proposed to lead to increases satisfaction and motivation.
Furthermore, most decision-making models, and many motivational models, include a
feedback loop to indicate that individual learn from the outcomes of their decisions or
behaviour. Therefore, it would be safe to say that, for many scholars and practitioners in
14

the field of management, the effectiveness of feedback for improving performance is

essentially a given. We generally assume that outcomes such as job performance will
improve as a result of feedback, especially when compared with the performance of
employees who receive no such feedback. But actual data concerning the effectiveness of
feedback is fairly limited. Furthermore, the models available for explaining how feedback
works are rather narrow, and often cannot be reconciled with what we do know about
feedback's effects. Given this dearth of information, it is possible that a poorly
implemented feedback program could actually hurt, rather than help performance.
Therefore, it is critical that we study the effectiveness of feedback in order to better
understand how well it works, and develop some models to help predict when feedback
will have any effect on subsequent performance.
Does feedback work?
For many scholars and practitioners, the answer to this question is, "Of course, it works".
But I came to question the university of that answer. Notice that I do not suggest that
feedback doesn't work, or even that it doesn't often work. In fact, all available evidence
suggests that feedback interventions often have exactly the effect they are intended to have
- they help employees to improve their performance. Yet I became aware of findings that
were inconsistent with this general conclusion, and decided to conduct a more complete
analysis of the available data.
I began with a search of the published literature for all papers dealing with feedback
interventions. I decided to limit my study to performance information, provided by some
outside source, for the purpose of influencing behaviour and performance.
I found that some interventions that were termed feedback or knowledge of results really
involved communicating performance expectations. More importantly, I also found that
from the very beginning there were inconsistent results concerning the effectiveness of
feedback. Some early experiments found that feedback improved performance for some
performance indicators, but actually hurt performance for other indicators. Other
experiments actually found that it was ignorance of results that improved performance, or
that feedback increased the number of errors.

15

I therefore concluded that the answer to my original question about whether feedback
works, should be, "Usually but not always". Furthermore I concluded that, under some
conditions, feedback appeared to actually lower subsequent performance. This inconsistent
picture of feedback effectiveness then led me to pose a second rarely asked question.
How does feedback operate?
For this let us see a model made by Angelo & Kluger.
It is based on five basic assumptions:

Behaviour is regulated by a comparison of feedback with a goal or standard.

Goals or standards are arranged hierarchically.

Attention is limited, so only those feedback-standard gaps that receive attention will
regulate behaviour.

Attention is normally directed to a moderate level in the hierarchy.

Feedback interventions change the locus of attention and so affect behaviour.

The first assumption is relatively straightforward in suggesting that, when we notice a gap
between feedback and some goal, we usually act to reduce the gap. Let us take, for
example, a salesperson who has a goal of generating $ 1 million in new business for the
year. it is now the end of the third quarter, and the salesperson realizes that only $ 250,000
in new business has been generated. There would be a clear gap between the present level
of sales and the goal, and we would expect the salesperson to exert even more effort to
narrow that gap, and so try to reach the goal. But this is not the only response possible. The
salesperson could lower the goal, or even simply accept that the goal was not going to be
met and so not try any further. He or she could also decide that it was not really that
important to meet the sales goal and so exert effort in other areas. Nonetheless, in most
cases, this salesperson would be motivated to reduce the gap between the standard and
current performance.

16

Their second assumption - that goals are arranged hierarchically - has a strong basis in
cognitive psychology. To simplify the treatment of hierarchy. He abstracted it into threebasic levels of goals. The highest levels refers to the meta-task processes, or a self-level. At
this level, goals acted to our self-concept. Feedback interventions focus attention at this
level when success at the task at hand is equated with some higher order goal, or even
performance on that task is central to our self-concept.
Thus, a defense attorney who is having trouble intimidating witnesses on crossexamination, but has been told that intimidating cross-examinations are the mark of a true
defense attorney, might begin to question his or her basic decisions about life and selfidentity in the face of negative feedback about a cross-examination. Likewise, a student
who always thinks of him or herself as an A student may begin to question what kind of
student and person he or she really is on receiving a B on an exam; the salesperson, in the
example above would be focusing attention at this level if he or she viewed meeting the
sales goal as essential to his or her self-concept. When a feedback intervention focuses
attention at this level in the hierarchy, it is unlikely that the person will abandon the goal or
standard, but concern over reasserting or defending one's self-image could interfere with
the ability to focus on the task itself and improve performance.
The next level is the task motivation, or task level, and the goals at this level are related to
actual task performance. A person would focus only on the task itself, and work hard to
reduce the gap between actual and desired performance. For instance, the salesperson
would focus attention of allocating resources in order to increase sales, and not be worried
about what success or failure said about him or her as a person. Most feedback
interventions focus attention at this level and, although the person could ignore the
feedback or abandon the goal, interventions that focus attention at this level are the most
likely to subsequently, on performance.
The task learning level is the lowest level of attention, and includes goals related to the
details, or actual actions involved in performing the task at hand. If our sales person's
efforts to increase sales failed, attention might shift to this level, and the salesperson would
spend more time thinking about specific ways to approach a potential customer, or even
how to smile. This focus could distract the salesperson from the actual task at hand (i.e.

17

making the sale) or it could help the salesperson improve the proces of making a sale,
which would eventually lead to better sales.
How is 360 feedback being used?
Most organisations with 360 feedback use it primarily for employee development rather
than to support appraisal and pay decisions. In this use, the behaviour feedback goes only
to the subject. When the supervisor sees the behaviour feedback, it impacts the supervisor's
perception of the employee's performance. Knowledge of how a person is seen by others
may have significant positive or negative impact, especially when such information comes
from credible work associates hence, the 360 feedback becomes part of the performance
management process.
Why are organisations adopting these systems?
Structural and cultural factors and employee relations have motivated organisations to
begin experimenting with 360 feedback systems. For example, as organizations remove
layers of management, flatten their structure, and begin using self-directed teams, the only
practical option for performance feedback is from multiple sources. As organisations
change their culture to align with their vision and values, 360 feedback becomes an ideal
choice to communicate the new competencies required by the new values. For example, as
Intuit moves to work teams, feedback on competencies associated with teamwork support
the new teambuilding culture. In addition, employees ask for multisource assessment to get
a more balanced view of their performance from the various perspectives.
STRUCTURAL CHANGES
Organizational structures have changed substantially since the mid-1980s. The 360
feedback process offers support for these structural changes, such as growth in supervisors'
spans of control, the increased use of technical or knowledge workers, the introduction of
matrix and project management organization design, and the move to working in teams.

Increased spans of control

18

A typical manager used to supervise three to nine employees. Today, Intel, Bausch &
Lomb, Compaq Computers, American Express, Glaxo Inc. and many other production and
service companies have moved from traditional spans of control to one supervisor for as
many as seventy or more direct reports. Classic superior-only evaluation systems are not
longer practical because supervisors with a large number of reporting relationships lack the
opportunity to observe many individual performance actions.

Knowledge workers

A supervisor may not have enough technical or expert knowledge to provide credible
performance feedback on employees in positions requiring highly specialized knowledge,
like MIS managers or scientists. Many organisations, such as Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Untuit, Whirlpool, and Bellcore, have adopted a multisource system
to provide accurate assessments by coworkers with similar expertise.

Matrix and Project Management

Many organisations, like Florida Power & Light, Salt River Project (a utility company),
and Monsanto, have adopted 360 feedback systems because their employees work in
matrix or project management situations, with employees often reporting to more than one
supervisor during a project. Matrix organisation structures occur as a result of the need to
deploy human assets at high velocity. People move quickly from project to project and may
only occassionally interact directly with their supervisor. Project management designs
require information from multiple sources because no one person has sufficient
information to provide a complete performance picture of the individual.

Teams

When the organizational structure has moved from classic supervisory designs to work
teams, with leadership dispersed throughout the team, team members offer highly credible
performance feedback. Among the organisations using 360 feedback systems for this
reason are Motorola, Glaxo, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Allied Signal,
Digital, and Kino Hospital.
CHANGES IN ORGANISATION CULTRUE
19

Revolutionary changes in organization cultures also have made traditional single-source

assessments illogical and impractical. Among these changes are increasing participative
leadership, empowering employees, improving customer service, integrating quality
initiatives into the mainstream of business activities, re-engineering, moving to
competency and team-based rewards, and ending entitlements.
Participative leadership
Current, Inc., BellSouth, Lotus Development, and AT&T have given employees a voice in
organizational decision processes and have adopted 360 feedback systems to drive culture
change and align individual behavior with organizational values and objectives. Leaders
who best empower employees are recognized and rewarded when those they lead provide
excellent performance feedback.

Empowerment

American Airlines, Coca-Cola, and General Electric have driven decision making down to
the lowest possible level. Bob Crandall, CEO of American Airlines, points out that
behavior feedback from multiple sources encourages every employee to take actions
aligned with the new organizational culture. He observes that 'what you measure is what
your get". The 360 feedback process communicates the appropriate actions needed from
employees to support this cultural change, and these actions are then recognized and
rewarded.

Customer Services

Federal Express, Chemetals, Maricopa Colleges, Monsanto and Mesa (Arizona) Schools
have used the 360 feedback process to gather and act on information from both internal
and external customers the improved communication that results can translate to better
customer service.

Quality Focus

The cultures at McDonnell-Douglas, Samaritan Health Systems, and SunQuest Computers

value data-based decisions as a result of their continuous quality improvement initiatives.
20

The 360 feedback systems provide the best measures for competencies. This logical
application for individual performance measurement meshes with the organization's quality
philosophy.

Reengineering

Reengineering, or the reinvention of work processes, often requires new methods to obtain
accurate performance measures. Reengineering actions focus on redesigning the way
employees work n order to improve individual, team and organizational productivity.
Since 360 feedback system improve the quality of information, these systems logically
support the reengineering effort at organisations like Tenneco, Whirlpool, Lands' End, and
Intuit.

Competency-based rewards

Monsanto, Hewlett-Packard have used 360 feedback systems to support new recognition
and reward systems that focus on critical success factors or competencies - the knowledge,
skills, abilities and motives that differentiate high, medium, and low performances.
Competencies have been called DNA of organisations because they create a differential
advantage for one organization compared with another. Organizational competencies,
sometimes called core competencies, are those qualities that distinguish an organizations
products or service from those of its competitors and establish value in the minds of its
customers may be thought of as the bundle of knowledge, skills, and abilities employees
bring to their work. Information from multiple sources offers the best method for
measuring competencies. Tradition, single-source measures are deficient at assessing
competencies because supervisors seldom have sufficient opportunity to observe each
employee's full range of work behaviors.

Team-based Rewards

Motorola, General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Gore Industries, and land's End
reengineered parts of their organisation into teams, none of them with a formal supervisor.
360 feedback systems are the most appropriate way to evaluate individual performance
and contribution. Team assessment provides these organisations with a credible
information source for recognition and rewards.
21

End of entitlement

Multisource performance measures more clearly distinguish among levels of performance

than do single-source measures. Many organisations find that single-source processes
provide inflated evaluations, giving nearly everyone high performance ratings, and in the
process creating an environment in which employees feel entitled to regular raises and
promotions. Multi-source assessments are substantially better at distinguishing high,
medium and low performers, enabling appropriate recognition and rewards and an end to
automatic entitlements.
EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
No other information has more impact on an employee's career than information on his or
her performance. Hence, the accuracy, fairness, and usefulness of performance measures
are critical factors to employees. The 360 feedback process, which employees often
design and introduce, improves employees relations by providing valid measures without
bias toward minorities and women.

Career Development

Employees want honest feedback for their career development, yet managers, often finding
it difficult to provide specific and critical feedback; tend to shy away from addressing
performance problems.
The 360 feedback process yields specific and quantitative information for each employee
to use in making intelligent career decisions. When work associates are assured that they
will remain anonymous, they are willing to provide insight they might not reveal in faceto-face meeting.
Fair Reward Decisions
Managers and employees want pay and promotion decisions to be fair. Research across
large sets of employee groups indicate that users perceive 360 feedback to be more fair
than single-rate processes. When these decisions occur in a culture where rewards are
based on performance or contribution rather than on seniority or politics, they will be fair.

22

Accurate performance measures

Common sense, supported by compelling research, shows that assessment by multiple

coworkers is more reliable and objective than information gained from a single person. The
360 feedback process collects information from those with the best knowledge of the
individual's performance because they have the best opportunity to observe work behavior.

Valid performance measures

An employee can discount a single-source assessment easily by invalidating the source.

Employees commonly complain "My supervisor is biased" or "What does my supervisor
know?" When the individuals provides the same information work associate the employee
perceives the results as having far more credibility.

Nonperformance

Supervisors must document, justify, and confront nonperformance and more often than not
avoid the entire subject. Surveys show consistently that supervisors do not deal effectively
with performance problems.
Consider the challenge of an employee whose job performance is plummeting because of
substance abuse. A supervisor has many reasons to avoid confronting the problem. For
example, he or she must document the problem and come up with some form or
redemption. Rather than take on what may be a massive effort, many supervisors elect to
look the other way. Indeed, a supervisor may be the last to know that a particular employee
has a problem because he or she may try to hide revealing behaviours.
Work associates who are part of 360 feedback systems are rarely reluctant to identify poor
performance or nonperformance. Moreover, team members are not reluctant to give a
coworker a nudge if he or she is not sufficiently contributing to the team's efforts or if he
or she needs help.

Diversity Management

Single-source performance measures often are biased against older workers, women, and
people of color. Preliminary research shows that multisource performance measure
23

moderate adverse discrimination against older employees, presumably recognizing the

greater experience level; are generally neutral to women; and are nearly impartial to
ethnicity.

Legal protection

When decisions are based on single-source evaluations, the organization may find itself in
the position of defending the judgment of a single person. One person, no matter how fair,
is subject to claims of bias or partiality. Multisource measures offer substantially stronger
legal protection because the model combines multiple perspectives, resembling the jury
system. The probability that multiple people rating independently all share the same bias is
very low. In addition, a formalized 360 feedback process may offer substantial safeguards
by demonstrating process fairness to individuals and to groups.
What are the approaches to 360 feedback?
Just as there many reasons that organisations implement 360 feedback, there are a wide
variety of ways to design the process, both formal and informal.
Organisations often begin the evolution to multiscore systems with informal models that
simply encourage managers and employees to receive feedback from internal customers.
Such informal sysetms move the organsiation closer to true 360 feedback systems. In this
process, employees typically recognize that the feedback that comes from a number of
people contains substantial error because there are no process safeguards such as
respondent anonymity and there may be unintentional or intentional respondent biases.
Experience shows that the 360 feedback process must be formalized to ensure fairness
and accuracy.
Informal systems
Low-structure or informal multiscore assessment models introduce people to the concept
of receiving feedback from a number of people. These models are easy and fast to
implement and offer a satisfactory initial exposure to multisource processes for the purpose
of employee development. however, these quickly developed systems generally fail to

24

provide sufficient safeguards to ensure fairness, and so they are likely to be insufficient for
performance appraisal.
Many organisations assume that increasing the assessment pool beyond one person will
improve the accuracy of measurement. It does not. In fact, simplistic, informal approaches
to multisource assessment are likely to multiply rather than reduce error. Errors enter from
respondents concerns about anonymity and factors such as friendship, competition, bias,
and collusion.
The dangers of informal multisource systems are that they may:

Report false information that appears credible)"How could all these people I trust be
wrong?")

Inappropriately impact an employee's self-perception (Employees may not recognize

multisource assessment information that is false).

Inappropriately impact an employee's career (employees may feel that false assessment
information that is "only" developmental indicates that they do not have a chance for
success as an organizational leaders).

Negatively influence employees' willingness to participate in a fair and formalized or

structured 360 feedback system (After seeing a process fail, users may be reluctant to
even try a formalized process with safeguards).

Organisations adopt multisource systems with the intent of improving information quality
and reducing measurement errors. Informal multisource systems, while useful for
individual employee development, may simply replace one set of assessment errors - from
the supervisor - with others.
Formal systems
A formalized 360 feedback system provides safeguards to ensure data integrity of the
performance measures. It follows policy guidelines that address predicable user concerns,
such as fairness in data collection, respondent anonymity, the method of scoring, and how
the information is used. Formal structures take more time to design and implement and are
25

more expensive because of the technology they use and the training they must provide.
Nonetheless,

sophisticated

or

formalized

multisource

assessment

systems

are

recommended when feedback can affect an employee's career, such as when it is used in a
performance review or to make a decision about a raise.

Does 360 degree feedback lead to change?

So-called 360-degree feedback processes are used extensively by organization to improve
leadership effectiveness. It is unrealistic, however, to expect 360-degree feedback as a
stand-alone intervention to significantly change behavior and improve performance.
Individual and organizational readiness and accountability for change influence the
likelihood that change will occur. In addition, individuals are more likely to benefit from
feedback if they already suspect they have a problem, and if they receive coaching, support
and direction in the period immediately following the feedback. The technique of 360
feedback is more useful in the content of an urgent, compelling organization vision of
change accompanies by executive support over an extensive period of time.
When companies provide opportunities for employees to participate in a 360 process, they
hope this broad-based feedback will positively influence performance. The premise is that
feedback increases self-awareness, and that increased self-awareness leads to behavioral
change, which in turn leads to improved performance. However, the jury is still out on
whether or not change actually does occur as a result of 360 feedback.
The key questions that concern managers, human resource professionals, and consultants
are : Under what conditions is behavior change likely to occur; how can 360 processes be
designed to motivate change, and is it likely that some behaviors are more likely to change
than others based on an organisation's culture and readiness to change?
Readiness to change
In "In Search of How People Change" Prochaska, di Clemente, and Norcross (1992)
identified five stages - precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and
maintenance - through which individuals cycled (and often recycled) in order to change
26

behaviour successfully. Prochaska and his colleagues observed that certain change
techniques were helpful at some stages of change but not at all helpful at others. For
example, people at the precontemplation stage did not believe they had a problem;
therefore, feedback might be lost on them. people at the contemplation stage were aware a
problem existed, they were serious about wanting to overcome it, however, they had not
yet made a commitment to act. Their research showed that it was at the contemplation
stage when people were most helped by consciousness-raising activities such as 360
feedback. People at the action stage were taking serious steps to modify their behavior and
were helped to change through supportive relationships and processes that reinforced their
autonomy and willpower.
Individuals who profit most from 360 feedback are those who suspect they have a
problem. Feedback then acts as a clarification of their previous suspicions. These insights,
however, do not automatically lead to change.
There is a critical transition period between gaining insight and taking action. Prochaska et
al. (1992) refer to this rather fragile period as the preparation stage, which combines
intention and action. It is a critical stage in which individuals plan for change and begin
taking modest steps to try out new behavior. This is the juncture at which many 360
degree processes break down.
Often individual receive feedback and do not know how to interpret the result in light of
their everyday relationships with their co-workers. Further, if they receive no training or
support to reinforce new behaviors, the demands of change may be too great. They may
not have sufficient will to preserve with the change, particularly if they perceive they are
not being held accountable to change. When 360 degree feedback is not shared with an
individual's manager, lack of accountability can be a major deterrent to change.
Accountability for change
Typically, 360 feedback is used for either developmental or performance appraisal
purposes. If used for development, it is common practice that participation is voluntary and
feedback is confidential - not given to a participant's manager. Accountability rests with the
individual's desire to change. For instance, in "Enhancing 360 Feedback for Senior
27

Executives", published by the Centre for Creative Leadership, Kaplan and Palus (1994)f
report that when 360 feedback is used for development it is the policy of the Center that
"the executive owns the results, and the confidentiality of the results is a priority".
When feedback is used for performance appraisal purposes and is available to a
participant's manager, accountability for change is increased. In studies of the effectiveness
of multisource feedback, London, Smither, and Adsit (1997) found that feedback had little
impact on change when ratees were not accountable for using the feedback. However,
historically, organisations have been reluctant to ask individuals to reveal their scores to
their managers, fearing the individual would be too organizationally vulnerable. Some
critics of sharing 360 feedback results with a participant's manager contend that doing so
interferes with rater's willingness to be candid or objective in completing the feedback
inventories and, therefore, skews the results. Accountability does not rest solely with
individuals, however. London et al also found that feedback had little impact without
management being accountable for providing resources to support behavior change.
Clearly, the organizational context, culture, and systems in which the individual receives
feedback is important to the success of a 360 process. Therefore, for change within an
organisation, a model of change that only addresses individuals' readiness to change is
insufficient. Manager's motivation to change will be highly influenced by factors within
their organizations. If there is inadequate support and emphasis from senior management
expressing urgency for change, the perceived need for an individual to be accountable for
change based on 360 feedback will be seriously diluted. Both readiness and accountability
are needed for change to occur.
One way senior management can demonstrate accountability is through what John Kotter
(1996) describes as communicating a sense of urgency. Kotter considers it a serious error
to allow complacency (low accountability) from managers and employees when attempting
to make organizational change. Without unrelenting presser from the top accompanies by a
compelling vision to guide change, mangers often remain stuck in the status quo.
One way senior management can demonstrate accountability is through what John Kotter
(1996) describes as a communicating a sense of urgency. Kotter considers it a serious error
to allow complacency (low accountability) from managers and employees when
28

attempting to make organisational change. Without unrelenting pressure from the top
accompanied by a compelling vision to guide change, managers often remain stuck in the
status quo.
Culture and change
The values that underlie an organisation's culture may also make change difficult. Kotler
(1996) recommends that change become anchored in the culture as the final step in
instituting an organization's change process. If a leader's vision for change is at crosspurposes with long and deeply held organisational values, change may not "hold" once the
urgency for change is relaxed. For example, if an organization has historically embraced an
authorization

command an control leadership philosophy, attempts to gain improved

interpersonal skills might not receive encouragement and support long enough for
individual to cycle through the stages of change - particularly through action and
maintenance. The time required for individual and organisation change - usually years - is
often underestimated. And frequently in the rush to implement change, the vital link
between organisational values, cultrue and change is overlooked.
The planet - An experiment with 360
The following case demonstrates the problems in using feedback to stimulate change.
The presentation documents the first two years of an organisation's attempts to use 360
feedback to enhance leadership development.
In 1995, Sara Brown & Associates designed a 360 feedback process for 30 senior
manager from three different media companies connected by common ownership - to be
called here the Planet companies.
The centerpiece of the process was the Leadership Competency Inventory (LCI) created by
Sara Brown in the late 1980s for managers at the Miami Heralad. The LCI was based on
client focus groups as well as research conducted to determine the competencies possessed
by superior managers as documented by Richard Boyatzis (1982) in The Competent
Manager.

29

The Planet's 360 process was designed to take into account the consultant's experiences in
using the LCI in organisations as well as the then current literature, particularly literature
from the Center for Creative Leadership. For example, to increase trust in the process and
candor in the responses, the LCI feedback was used for developmental purposes only
(results were not used for performance review). Participants collaborated with their
managers to select their subordinate and peer respondents. Participants and respondents
were trained to understand the purposes of the 360 process and how to complete the
inventories. The LCI instruments were completed by the participants and their managers,
peers, and subordinates and were tabulated by an external data processing service.
After reviewing their confidential reports, participants had a private coaching session with
a consultant to help them assimilate their feedback and prepare for a developmental
meeting with their manager. Participants met with their managers to share the highlights of
their feedback, but not the actual feedback reports, and to prepare collaboratively a
developmental plan.
A report consolidating the feedback data of all the participants from each of the three
companies was also presented to the participants and their managers at group meetings.
This report included a list of the competencies most frequently identified by each
participant and his or her manager as being "critical" to the participant's job, the ten
competencies rated overall highest and lowest, and recommendations for management
training to develop skills where patterns of deficiency were apparent. During the
presentations the consultant's comments about the strengths an development needs of the
30 respondents were positioned in light of the companies' strategic goals and missions.
To increase accountability for change, participants were required to r-take LCI one year
after receiving their initial feedback. During the intervening year, 1995 to 1996 quarterly
reminders were sent to participants encouraging them to check in with their managers
about their progress on their development plans. In addition to ongoing supervisory
training routinely offered by the Planet companies, situational leadership workshops were
also offered.
In 1996, the 30 senior management participants completed the LCI again. The managers,
peers, and subordinates were similar, but due to some staff changes, not identical to those
30

who responded in 1995. For a few participants there were some fairly dramatic
improvements. But as a group, the overall pattern of responses was not significantly
different in 1996 than in 1995.
A pattern of competencies rated high and low in both 1995 and 1996 provides a snapshot
of the Planet's organisational culture. (IN fact, the patterns also held true for a group of 16
middle managers from the largest of the Planet companies that completed the LCI in
1995).

The themes among the ten most highly rated competencies may be indicators of what is
rewarded at the Planet and might be summed up by the phrase "good character". On a fivepoint Likert scale, the top ten competencies, averaged between 4.41 and 4.09. The themes
among the ten were: (1) positive customer

relations, e.g., "Represents the company

favourably in the community", (2) ethical behaviour e.g., "Demonstrates truthfulness and
integrity as a personal value", (3) task focus e.g., "Demonstrates the energy to work as long
as needed to achieve results"; (4) autonomous achievement, e.g., "Strives to do things
better compared to previous personal performance, or a standard of excellence".
Contested to the consistently highest rated competencies, the themes of those rated lowest
were the leadership attributes commonly called "people skills" and "big picture thinking".
For instance, "Motives, stimulates, or inspires people" was the lowest to overall rated
competency in both years. among the ten lowest competencies overall, and the lowest of
the 56 competency statements for participants alone, were "Notices how others appear to
be feeling", "Acknowledges others' feeling," and "Proves feedback on performance and
interprets its consequences" skill in explaining the companies' strategic thinking and
helping employees see how their jobs fit into the big picture were also among the
participants' ten lowest.
It is important to note that the response scores for the lowest ten list ranged from an
average of 3.32 to 3.59. On a Likert scale these scores were in the middle, which made it
easy for participants and their managers to say, "Well, it's not so bad". These scores did not
motivate an organizational sense of urgency to change these behaviours at the Planet
companies. Unfortunately, these interpersonal and strategic thinking skills are precisely the
31

leadership skills required to lead an organisation through change. Kotter (1996) identified
developing and communicating the change vision as a key step in an eight-stage process of
creating major change.
The culture
Perhaps most telling about the likelihood of change occurring at the Planet companies
based on this feedback is one particular competency that appeared among the lowest ten,
that is, "Identifies and seeks help or activities to remedy own weaknesses". This result
suggest little readiness to change and that participants will need to be held accountable by
the company for change, because otherwise they are not likely to do it voluntarily.
The Planet's organisational culture is one independent, ethical self-reliance - a "John
Wayne" culture. Self-reflection and personal change has not been a nurtured value.
Participants may have even seen it as risky to admit weakness. And based on the Prochaska
et al. (1992) model of individual change, participants need supportive relationships and
clear direction to help them move from the insights gained from 360 feedback in
contemplation stage through the preparation and action stages, in other words, the
competencies that tend to be less rewarded in the Planet's culture.
Another insight from the Planet's experience is that significant change can not take place in
a year. by the time participants received their feedback in 1995, prepared their
developmental plans, and met with their managers, at least two months had elapsed. A
number of the participants felt that they needed training, particularly in interpersonal skills.
By the time training was offered and participants started practicing new behaviours, it was
time for them to re-take the LCI. In many cases, their attempts at new behaviour had not
had a chance to be noticed by their raters.
Also, more than half of the participants failed to initiate the voluntary quarterly check-in
with their managers to discuss their progress toward achieving their developmental plans.
Failing to check in reduced participants accountability to change.
Perception of benefits
In spite of the factors working against Behavioural change at the Planet and a lack of
change in the overall ratings, when polled after receiving their feedback in 1996, the
32

participants were enthusiastic about the 360 feedback process. They believed there was no
other way they would have received feedback of this quality. And many of them were
ready to put the feedback to work quickly, demonstrated by arriving at their private
coaching sessions with fleshed-out action plans. All the participants felt the process had
been personally valuable and recommended that the managers reporting to them

be

offered the opportunity to be involved in the program.

One of the participants whose scores did reflect a significant positive improvement
explained the change in his response by saying, "I was ripe for it. I knew I was having
problems, and I wanted to change". His response would seem to support the contention by
Prochaska et al (1992) that individuals in the contemplation stage of change are most
helped by consciousness-raising activities.
It is also possible that for other participants, re-taking the LCI moved them from the per
contemplation stage, where they did not perceive they had problems to remedy, to the
contemplation stage, where they were then willing to consider seriously how they might
plan for change. In fact, some participants commented that seeing the same pattern of
responses a second time had been a sobering experience that caused them to take the
feedback far more seriously than they had taken it the first time. This would suggest that a
second re-take of the LCI might be a better indicator of a trend toward change than the first
re-take.
The Planet companies reported two additional benefits from the 360 process. The
consolidated report of all participants responses acted as a leadership training needs
analysis and has provided a benchmark for improvement.
In many organisations, as was the case for the Planet companies, managers are attempting
to develop the leadership skills Kotler and others believe are required for organisational
change. Often these skills are interpersonal - empathy, trust, inspiration, etc. - and
organisations frequently downplay the importance of these skills compared to those more
easily translated into results. There is little organisational readiness or urgency to improve
leadership/ interpersonal skills. This deficiency is compounded by voluntary and
confidential 360 processes where participants are not held accountable for using the

33

feedback, and participants' managers are not held accountable for providing coaching or
other resources to support behavioral change.
In order to stimulate behavioral change, particularly of those behaviors the organization
may undervalue e.g., interpersonal skills, it may be necessary to hold participants and their
organizations accountable for change by eliminating the voluntary and confidential aspects
of 360 feedback processes. For example, the results of a third re-take of a feedback
inventory might be available to the participant's managers and be used as a part of
performance decisions.
However, it is unrealistic to expect a 360 feedback process as a stand-alone intervention
to change behavior significantly and improve performance. Individuals are most likely to
benefit from 360 feedback if they are ready to change and already suspect they have a
problem. They are more likely to attempt changes in their behavior if they receive if they
receive coaching, support, and direction in the period immediately following the feedback.
Further, it is essential that an organizations reinforce reflection and personal growth,
preferably in the context of an urgently stated, compelling organization vision of change.

34

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE OF WORK

Problem Definition
The survey was conducted to understand the effectiveness of 360-degree appraisal system
of the organization and to come out with some concrete results regarding the benefits the
employees derive from it. The impact of such a feedback on their performance and their
working relations with co-employees.
So, the research problem was formulated by keeping in mind the problem definition that:

Qualitative aspect of the study

Quantitative aspect of the study

Research Objective

To study the asses how different is the system.

To evaluate the reasons given.

To analyze how effective is the system.

To provide conclusion and recommendations.

Research Design
Research Design is a framework of blue print for conducting the research project. It
specifies the details of the procedures necessary for obtaining the information needed to
structure and achieve the objective for which research is being done. Research design is of
two type i.e. exploratory research and conclusive research.
The main objective of my project is to analyze the situation and to understand its
effectiveness. Therefore, with the help of the conclusive research design process; I was
able to arrive at a definite conclusion with the help of both primary data as well as the
secondary data. In addition, data analysis is possible in conclusive research design process.

35

Therefore, data collected by means of survey can be put to a good use.

Thus, exploratory research helped in getting qualitative & Conclusive research helped in
getting quantitative aspect of the information & thereby helping in analyzing the same.
TARGET SAMPLE
A survey on middle level managers of the organization was taken .
Presently working where 10 is taken as an apt sample size
Collection of Primary data:Data was collected from the CREs in an Questionnaire designed by me under the
guidance of my guide so as to ask them directly that what is their understanding and
impact of the system on their performance and their working relations with people around,
with the Assurance that there names wont be reviled to the authorities, this enabled me to
decipher the actual cause, the reasons .
Further data was collected from various other employees and records maintained by the
HR department.
A detailed study of the gathered information was done & analyzed & then conclusions &
recommendations drawn from are listed out.
Note- A Structured Questionnaire designed for the purpose was coupled with timely
probing and ensuring that the respondent were understanding the question as required and
the responses were ensured to be on the right track and giving the information which is
expected as and when required

36

CASE I - SUCCESS OF 360 FEEDBACK

VOLTAS
The 360 feedback process might have drawn mixed results at many companies - but
Voltas Ltd. was learnt to take the internal feedback on the process, and modify the tool to
suit its needs better. In phase two of the implementation, Voltas now plans to extend the
modified 360 feedback mechanism to its 200-plus mid-management cadre.
That it is important for Voltas to stay with 360-degree feedback is clear. for a company on
the recovery path, the future of the Tata Group company might well depend on its ability in
create a young crop of leaders. Which is why, this time, the tool is being seen as more than
just a methodology for assessing peers and colleagues at the work place.
In the first phase, the feedback mechanism covered the top 72 executives at Voltas.
According to Voltas chief manager, human resources, Niharika Davar : "The 360-degree
feedback tool has been implemented by various organisations in the country with varying
results. We have modified the tool to make it efficient and productive for Voltas". Consider
the key components of the modified tool to be

The 360-degree feedback is now being seen specifically as a tool for self-development.
Working on the principle of no hopes, no disappointment, the goals of the feedback
process have been kept limited and realistic. Thus the primary objective of the 360degree feedback in phase two is going to be self-development.

To avoid the malaise of internal dissension that 360-feedback can often result in, the
results of the process have not been linked to employee appraisals, rewards and
recognition. This is also designed to aid unbiased feedback from the employees. "In
case of companies which have linked the tool to employee appraisals, the feedback is
often distorted", explains Voltas Limited's vice-president operations and human
resoruces, KS Oberoi.

37

The raters-people who will provide the feedback - have been chosen by the assessees
themselves. "If somebody else like the HR department of the organisation determines
the rater profile, the assessed might not take the feedback seriously," says Davar.

Finally, the entire process is being kept confidential. Voltas has hired the services of
Pune based Pragati Learning Systems to help with the implementation. The Voltas HR
department merely keeps track of the movement of the feedback forms and has no
access to the feedback. "The results of the feedback are confidential and the concerned
leader is encouraged to share the same with his or her superior. This however is not
essential to the process", says Oberoi.

A phased approach
The six month long phase one covered close to 72 leaders from among the ranks of vicepresident and general manager and select positions in the company's senior management
like heads of divisions, departments functions.
As part of the process, the leaders seeking feedback developed their own list of thirty raters
from their subordinates, associates, peers, customers and seniors. The assessees were
evaluated on close to thirty parameters each, like : sense of direction sensitivity to ideas,
responsibility, ethics, relationship building capabilities, et al.
The completed forms were evaluated by he consultants at Pragati Learning Systems (PLS)
who, in turn, submitted their reports to the concerned leaders. Based on the initial set of
reports PLS has now identified training and development needs for each of the 72
individuals.
"As a follow-up measure we have gone through a series of one-one-one counseling
sessions with all leaders evaluated in the first phase" says Anu Wakhlu, director PLS. In
these sessions, each individual develops a personal gameplan for strengthening weak areas
- like team building skills or communicaiton skills - identified through the 360-degree
feedback.
"The one-on-one counseling sessions also offered an opportunity for us to learn of the
varies issues leaders had with the organisation", says Wakhlu. Recently, the company
embarked on a series of workshop based on the results of the initial feedback and
38

counseling sessions. The workshops have also been used as a means of discussing issues
raised by the leaders. Leaders along with cross-functional teams formed with raters, get
together to decide the expectations of the internal customers.
Subsequently, the company has zeroed in on two sets of goals that need to be worked on:
individual goals and organization goals. To monitor the results

of the counseling

programme and the two sets of goals, the company will implement another 360-degree
feedback for the 72 executives in November this year.
The learning curve
Implementing the tool at Voltas has been a daunting task. Says Wakhlu: "With the average
age of the leader being rated, in the 50 to 55 bracket, we had to deal with a very
experienced lot of people". Resistance to change and a defensive attitude were therefore
quite common place.
In addition, owing to the mammoth size of the organisation, there were inadvertent delays
in implementing the mechanism in the first phase.
To start with, the number of raters per individual proved to be far too large. Moreover,
cretin obvious areas have emerged where delays can be avoided in implementation.
Drawing lessons from the experience. The company now plans to executive Phase II of the
process very soon. This will also be learnt by: (1) reducing the number of raters to 15 from
30 in the Phase I. (2) Following a title programme with increased communication. (3) PSL
sends its feedback report within 15 days as opposed to the two months taken during phase
one.
The company has also developed a Leadership Excellence Achievement Plan (LEAP)
based on the first set of feedback, with the objective of increasing the effectiveness of
leaders in the organisation.
However, it is a long road ahead for the Rs. 1369 crore air-conditioning major. As Eicher
Consultancy Services Limited' chief consultant S V Sukumar warns, "The process has been
reduced to a mere fad in case of most companies owing to a lack of openness in the give
and take of feedback. Further, the objective of the process has to be clear and translated to
the specific in the case of each individual".
39

The message is loud and clear for Voltas.

The company will have to do its best to tackle the barriers to communication and fight the
resistance to change as it embark on phase two of the processes.
CASE II: USHA INTERNATIONAL
The boss may not always be the key person appraisal system. For several companies are
gradually realizing the significance of other employees contributing this exercise. Usha
International, a leading consumer durable marketing company, has out in place a 360degree feedback system in order to improve performance on the job.
M R Singh, general manager, organization and personnel, Usha International, explains
what 36-degree feedback is all about. "it's worldwide concept, where you're a person in
the centre and people around you - your boss, peers, subordinates - know what your
performance has been" he says.
At Usha, the process has taken off with divisional managers rating general managers of
other departments. Although there have been some disagreements over the assessment,
GMs feel the rating is valid to a large extent. More so because the biases were weeded out.
Singh elaborates: "In a 1-5 scale, extreme ratings by a few people are considered biases".
That is, if a general manager is retardate 4 by 20 subordinates and is given 1 by two
people, the latter view is likely to be biased and, therefore, removed from the scheme of
things.
The second stage of the assessment, which is yet to begin, will set in motion the rating of
GMs by subordinates of the same department. As it could be quite a scary venture for the
subordinates, the feedback questionnaire promises "complete confidentiality". Also, there's
no need to write names. Adds Singh: "some people even write with their left hands to hide
their identity".
According to the evaluation guidelines, the evaluator writes 5 if he strongly and positively
feels that the inputs/guidance/competence level provided completely fulfills his
expectations; 4 if his expectations are being generally fulfilled; 3 if he's somewhat satisfied
regarding the inputs/guidance/competence level being provided; 2 if he is not generally
satisfied regarding the inputs/guidance/competence level, and 1 if he is totally dissatisfied
regarding the inputs/guidance and competence level being provided by the person he is
evaluating.
40

The evaluation/feedback parameters include sound marketing policies; solutions provided

to local problems/market situation; usefulness of HO product heads' visit to divisions in
terms of sales management help, training of personnel; motivating personnel; spot
solutions and overall guidance; usefulness of divisional monitor; departmental heads' level
of knowledge, skills, attitude, behaviour and competence for the job; rating of
departmental heads on matters relating to helpfulness to division responsiveness for action
and speed of communication, etc. because the system has to be validated as been reliable
say Singh as a test same set of people will be evaluated again after a few months. That
will give the company a fair idea as to whether the evaluation is useful or not. If the
performance of the people assessed goes up, the process is useful; otherwise there are still
loopholes in it, says Singh.
The idea is to keep repeating the exercise every six months in order to see if GMs and
product heads take the rating seriously or not. Soon, dealers' feedback will also include in
the 360-degree assessment, adds Singh.
However, Usha is not the first company to use the 360-degree evaluation concept. In fact, a
chance encounter with an Internet site of a company using this concept is what made it
happen in Usha. General Electric (GE), Reebok, HP, and Nestle are among the companies
using the concept worldwide. In India, Eicher and Xerox are two prominent companies
practicing 360-degree evaluation.
While Singh agrees that many modern-day management techniques are a fad, he points out
that the 360-degree evaluation does make a lot of sense. While using the concept, however,
one has to be careful about two factors: confidentiality and biases, says Singh.
Confidentiality is the foremost requirement for a fair assessment for a person's capabilities.
Similarly, there has to be an attempt to keep clear of biases, by removing any extreme
assessments. An unconventional evaluation practice such as this one fits quite well with the
other organizational norms at Usha. Take, for example, its recruitment policy. Singh says,
"Its the attitude of a person that is more important than his/her academic brilliance." The
key word here is "fit. The new person should fit the job and the work environment. Of
course, academic attainments and extra-curricular activities have an important role to play
at the time of recruitment, but a "fit" to a corporate culture of Usha is a must. The company
has started using psychometric testing techniques such as MBT1, AH-5 (general
intelligence tests) and other tests to provide additional inputs for selling skills.

41

In addition, Usha is planning regular training programmes for senior managers to upgrade
their skills, the teaching faculty for which will be soured from outside the organization.
And now with the 360-degree evaluation

having taken off, Usha International

is

grooming itself to jump onto the happening wagon.

ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purpose of the survey was to judge the impact of the system on the performance of the
employees. Performance appraisals are an annual practice and it begins in the month of
December and ends in February /March. This shows that a lot of valuable time is invested
in this practice.
The survey was undertaken to analyze the impact of the appraisal system on the
employees. According to the HR. department of the organization, the following is the
understanding of the process In human resources, 360-degree feedback is employee
development feedback that comes from all around the employee. The feedback would
come from subordinates, peers, and managers in the organizational hierarchy, as well as a
self-assessment, and in some cases external sources such as customers and suppliers or
other interested stakeholders. ("360" refers to the 360 degrees in a circle.) 360 Degree
Feedback is also known as multi-rater feedback, multi-source feedback, multi-source
assessment, or 360 Degree Appraisal. The information targeted is so important that the
questions in the 360-Degree Feedback survey target real observable behavior and skills
rather than subjective points of view. The questions should be relevant to the subject's job
or situation and address all the main items in the Competency Framework for that role.
It includes the following various participants in a 360 Degree Appraisal who form a
part of the process

The Subject or Appraise is the person who the feedback is about

The Respondents or Raters are the people who are giving feedback (e.g
colleagues, peers, team members, customers, associates)

42

The Subject will generally also complete a Self Perception questionnaire which is
put alongside the feedback from the Raters

The Feedback is collated into a Report - generally by a trusted third party

The process may be overseen by a Manager, Coach, Trainer or Mentor

Under the process the Competencies have headings like 'analytical thinking', 'customer
focus', 'commercial awareness', 'communication skills'. Each competency can be described
in terms of a variety of observable behaviours which contribute to the overall competency.
The competency framework for a particular role describes the qualities of the ideal person
for that role. By inspecting a competency framework you should be able to tell quite easily
if it is suitable for the jobs and situations you are interested in. Different roles require
different levels of expertise even though the area of competency may be the same. For
example, requirements of a Managing Director's behavior in terms of Commercial
Awareness would be different from an office worker's. In 360 Degree Feedback, this would
be reflected in the different questions that would be asked. Competency Frameworks
used in 360 Degree Feedback because it is important that feedback is well rounded and
covers all the types of behavior that are required in a particular job role rather than
focusing on one or two issues. Competency Frameworks provide that structure and ensure
the feedback is balanced across the range of competencies. Confidentiality is maintained
during the whole process .
At middle level management, the following are the Characters, Interpersonal Skills,
Building Talent, Leadership/Motivation. The evaluation forms for employees at different
levels will have a lot of overlap in some areas, but differ significantly in other areas.
Character

Eagerly pursues new knowledge, skills, and methods

Knows own strengths and limitations

Personally committed to the strategy

Makes decisions based on business needs rather than personal agenda

43

Self confident

Open to feedback and criticism

Avoids negative politicking and hidden agendas

Willing to take a courageous stand

Trusts others appropriately

Respected by others

Sincere and straightforward

Serves others; avoids selfishness

Accepts responsibility for own mistakes

Can be trusted with sensitive information

Patient when necessary

Avoids bias in attitude or treatment of people

Interpersonal Skills

Resolves conflicts among team members

Brings conflicts into the open for resolution

Listens effectively

Encourages open dialog

Gives personal attention; is accessible

Adjusts to changes without frustration

Preserves others self esteem

Earns respect without being overbearing

44

Recognizes the value of people with different talents and skills

Building Talent

Gives me enough feedback

Gives feedback accurately and fairly

Makes performance review a meaningful experience

Develops a talented team

Judges the capabilities of people accurately

Keeps talented people challenged

Develops bench strength for the future

Develops career paths for talented employees

Knows employee needs for development

Provides cross-training and job rotations

Leadership/Motivation

Makes a compelling case for his/her point of view

Effectively persuades others in order to build commitment for ideas

Communicates an inspiring vision

Helps people develop passion for their work

Recognizes employee contributions and ideas

Sensitive to satisfaction and morale in the group

Generates urgency in others

Recognizes and rewards high performers

45

Provides a positive example; "walks the talk"

Creates an atmosphere that inspires others to achieve at a higher level

Helps staff define clear objectives

Regularly reviews objectives with staff

Involves employees in decisions

Delegates enough work

Delegates authority; encourages independence

Sets clear deadlines

Facilitates rather than dominates

Manages costs without alienating work force

Communicates reasons for changes and decisions

Conducts effective meetings

Manages people according to their unique needs

Tolerates honest mistakes as learning experiences

Articulates the strategy in plain language

The Critical Factors for Success which must be kept in mind

In order for the 360 degree feedback system to be successful there must be employee
acceptance of the system. Both perceived accuracy and justice are considered critical
factors for system acceptance. If the system is unjust or has errors, it will be dismissed
for obvious reasons. Fortunately, reputable providers of 360 degree feedback have
often delivered hundreds of thousands of ratings, and are experienced in maximizing
the likelihood of system acceptance. There are three key steps to using the 360 degree
feedback system successfully:
46

1. make it fit into the organization;

2. make it psychometrically sound;
3. use with care.
Make it Fit
The system has been developed so as to make the 360 feedback fit into the culture of
the organization. In doing so it will appear less threatening and more fair.

Increase Employee Participation

To increase the perception of justice, employees are encouraged to be active

participants in the evaluation. A multiple source feedback works best in an
environment that is team-oriented and cooperative. Giving individuals the opportunity
to voice their opinions about the system's construction, process, and results will
increase employee buy-in, acceptance, and will yield useful suggestions.

Train Feedback Providers

It is also important to train the feedback providers to be sensitive, respectful and polite.
Treating employees in a friendly and respectful manner, and offering constructive
advice will make them more open to accepting the performance appraisal system.
Hence proper trainings is given to the employees

Communication is Key

People tend to be suspicious of things they do not understand. Thus, it is important to

communicate to the employees the precise way in which ratings are to be combined, as
well as the purpose, benefits and procedures of the 360 degree feedback system. It is
particularly important to communicate the intended uses of the information.

47

Make it psychometrically Sound

Ensure that the Instrument is Applicable

A good assessment should be reliable and valid. It must measure what it proposes to
measure, consistently and accurately. The 360 degree feedback system only works
effectively if it measures the relevant job performance, knowledge, skills, abilities and
personality characteristics necessary for high levels of job performance. Thus, the first
step is to identify, define, and incorporate these job performance behaviors,
knowledge, and skills into the appraisal system. Hence the design of the system is such
that it takes into account all the skills required at that particular level.

Increase Rater Familiarity

Raters must be familiar with each other so that the results achieved from such a
practice is useful for the employee and the organisation. Rater familiarity is linked to
accuracy and fairness in performance ratings. To evaluate rater familiarity, some 360
degree feedback systems include a rating for familiarity and provide the option of
indicating "inadequate opportunity to observe" for performance characteristics. To
increase reliability and decrease the impact of individual biases a large sample of raters
should be selected. Reliability continues to increase when up to twenty raters are
included, but adequate reliability can be obtained using 6 or more raters. Both 'self' and
'other' appraisal accuracy should be promoted and rewarded. The nature of the 360
degree feedback system should reduce the problem of rater accuracy, as the use of
multiple raters will average out individual biases. Furthermore, there is an apparent
tradeoff when using either 'self' or 'other' ratings. Other-ratings are perceived to be
more accurate, however, they may also be perceived by the employee to be less fair.
The inverse is true for self-ratings. Clearly, both rating methods have advantages and
disadvantages; thus, a performance appraisal system that combines both 'self' and
'other' ratings will be the most beneficial.
Use with Care
At most care was taken in implementing the 360 degree feedback system it is
important to be consistent across employees (all of the employees should have an
48

equal opportunity to participate in the system), and administered frequently. A

consistent system will be perceived as more accurate and fair. A one-time 360
feedback exercise is not recommended they are best when at least a three to five
term is planned. Furthermore, evaluating performance over time provides employees
with benchmarks for development.

There is a lot of similarity in the process so explained in the organisation compared to

what actually is followed It has only slight deviations .

There is elementary misunderstanding of the concept as it is presumed as a tool

only for performance management.

The employees have baises against other workers and hence are not dont give
out on the actual details and progress of the employee over the year.

The employees are well aware of the system. But only theoretically .They are
still apprehensive about it and prefer the old traditional system.

The new and young managers prefer the 360 appraisal format but the old ones
still want the traditional method.

There are cases of biases reported because of groupies( group dynamics which
takes place).

The appraisal system has also been able to bring about a positive change in the
employees performance as:
They take initiatives in setting up of their targets
As apart of the system the employee has to first appraises himself which allows
him to know his achievements himself and helps him in analyzing his skills and
understanding where all improvement is required.
Also the employees are taken active part in decision making in the organisation

49

 the employees take up more and more targets to be achieved

It has improved the levels of understanding among the co-workers as they know
that their healthy relations are for their betterment

For better understanding all the above points are put in the following diagram
Fig. 4: Cause And Effect Analysis (Fishbone)

50

Unwillingness
on the part of
old employees

Method
s

Lack of
understanding

Lack of
training
L

Ineffectiveness
of the system
Biases,
Biases,
prejudice
prejudice

MINI
MINI GROUPS
GROUPS

Unaware of all
the customers

-NON
-NON
-COPERATIVE
-COPERATIVE

lack of trust

Group
dynamics

People

This diagram shows the reasons because of which the 360 appraisal system is not showing
effective results. In Fishbone diagram the root cause of the problem the ineffectiveness is
shown as the main fishbone the other arrows show the reasons which lead to this cause.
Now that we understand, the above are the causes for the ineffectiveness: Further
PARETO CHART is used to find which of the problems is more disturbing i.e. in other
words to detect the cause, which requires immediate attention. This is based on real time

51

data collected through a sample survey conducted wherein employees were asked for their
written individual feedback on a questionnaire

Table 2: PARETO Chart

CAUSES

FREQUENCY

CUMALATIVE
FREQUENCY

1) Lack of training,

lack of

3) Group dynamics

11

4) Biases and prejudice against

18

understanding
2) unwillingness on the part of
old employees

each other

52

Fig: 5: Pareto Diagram

20

16

12

Lack
Lack of
of

Unwillingness
Unwillingness

training

Group
Group
dynamics
dynamics

Biases,
etc.

X-axis shows the causes and the Y-axis shows the cumulative Frequency.
53

54

FINDINGS, INFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

For every good point I just made about 360 degree feedback systems, detractors and people
who have had bad experiences with such systems, can offer the down side. The down side
is important because it gives you a roadmap of the things to avoid when a 360-degree
feedback process is implemented.
Thus, the following are some recommendations offered to bridge the gap in betweeni.

Rater Inexperience and Ineffectiveness: In addition to the insufficient training

organizations provide both people receiving feedback and people providing feedback,
there are numerous ways raters go wrong. They may inflate ratings to make an
employee look good. They may deflate ratings to make an individual look bad. They
may informally band together to make the system artificially inflate everyones
performance. Checks and balances must prevent these pitfalls and for this training
must be given to the employees. Proper training sessions must be conducted to
make them understand the functioning of the system

55

ii.

Insufficient Information: Since 360 degree feedback processes are currently usually
anonymous, people receiving feedback have no recourse if they want to further
understand the feedback. They have no one to ask for clarification of unclear comments
or more information about particular ratings and their basis.
Efforts must be made by the management to familiarize the people involved in the
process through formal and informal meetings so that better judgment can be given
about a particular employee for his performance.

iii.

Feedback should be tied with merits/promotions/pay/etc.

iv.

Feedback should be linked with organizational goals and values

v.

Use of the feedback tool along with continuous follow up

vi.

Poor implementation of 360-degree tool is negatively affecting the motivation

levels of the employees, therefore the management must look forward in improving the
implementation steps and reward the employees suitably.

vii.

The older employees should convinced that this system is better than the traditional
one as this will improve their performance manifolds as compared to one step up
improvement of the traditional system.
Dr. John Sullivan, of San Francisco State University, states his concerns about 360-degree
feedback:
"There is no data it actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases
grievances or that it is superior to forced ranking and standard Performance Appraisal
systems. It sounds good but there is no proof it works other than a lot of companies have
tried it."
Reviewing comments from practitioners and corporate use of this method will provide
further understanding of the pros and cons of 360-degree feedback. Alan Hoffmanner
(personal communication, February 1, 2004) of AGILEdge, has facilitated the use of 360degree feedback programs with dozens of companies. He lists many positive results to
using the 360-degree method:

56

"I received frequent feedback that it had an overall positive effect on the organization
since as employees broadly evaluated their managers on people, personal effectiveness
and attitudes; it raised the consciousness on these issues such that they observed
hanges/improvements in their culture/relationships..."
Hoffmanner's comments are supported in the literature (Tornow, 1998, Heathfield, S.,
2001) that highlight the human benefits of "connectivity" where workers feel more linked
with each other as a result of focusing on common goals for the benefit of the organization.
A. Randel (personal communication, January 26, 2003), formerly of Hewlett-Packard and
Agilent Technologies, distributed 360-degree surveys frequently and rarely had any
surprise information revealed. Typical comments received showed respect and appreciation
of co-workers but seldom any negative remarks. This perplexing result can be explained by
the open methodology of the survey (they were not confidential), and the fact that the
workers usually made their complaints verbally to her. Organizational climate indeed plays
a large role in the effective use of this assessment tool (Tornow).
IBM provides an interesting example highlighting a shift in use of assessments. Until
recently, IBM used 360-degree feedback as part of their annual performance review. This
practice was halted as the reviews had become politically charged and were no longer
reliable. Since IBM appreciated the value of multiple perspectives, a new employee
satisfaction survey was implemented to regain the benefits found in using the survey
without the pitfalls (Carruthers, and Hoffmanner).
The Feedback Cycle
Each feedback process should start with the identification / development of a project cycle,
which can be divided to purpose, planning, and implementation review.

57

Fig. 6 Feedback Cycle

Purpose

Planning

Implementation

Review

Of the four stages in the project cycle shown above, the more time and quality thinking
which go into the purpose and planning stages the more likely the project is to deliver
results.
Planning your 360 project
It must first be realized that a complete 360 exercise will take longer than you think;
secondly, the feedback process will be somewhat more involved than your imagine.

58

Fig. 7 The feedback process

1
Observation

Changed
behavior

Briefing

Action plan

Questionnaire
completion

Reflection

Report
processing

5
feedback

Here are the key questions you need to answer when setting up a 360 project:
1. Who will be involved?
Who will be the participants? Is it the whole organization or a special part of it?
What raters (appraisers) will you use? boss? Direct reports? Indirect reports? Peers? Team
members? Internal customers? External customers? How many of each will be
approached? What are the rules for selecting them.

59

Who will be involved in the feedback process and who will it be handled? The Boss? An
internal facilitator? An external facilitator? How are the reports to be delivered individually or in a group?
2. Who will be the project manager?
Most 360 exercises of reasonable size need a Project Manager. This person will need to
be able to devote time to the project (not necessarily full time), and also be very committed
to the process. They will need planning and problem-solving abilities but above all they
will need communication, influencing and mediation skills. I have noticed the anxiety that
360 can create at all levels in the organization. Perhaps this is not surprising in the junior
and middle ranks considering today's employment situation. However, for many senior
managers the only feedback that they have had in many years has been top down from the
Boss, and focused on results or achievements. This is not for behavior change. 360
feedback therefore can pose something of a threat for these people because it achieved it.
The feedback comes not only from the usual source but from those on the receiving end of
the management style, service, or whatever is being measured. It makes managers more
introspective and sensitive to their own shortcomings. I believe the root of this nervousness
is not always the prospect of other people in the organization seeing the feedback data. It
even occurs in people who know in advance that they will be the only one to see their
report. I think it is basically fear of the unknown or unexpected.
3. What specifically are we going to measure?
360 lends itself very much to the measurement of performance, usually expressed in
detailed behavioral terms. In other words, it is very useful for measuring how well people
do their job, as perceived by others. However, this is rarely the starting point. It is usually
advisable to re-visit the strategic purpose for guidance. Thus if this is to reinforce the
organizations values or change the culture, then a detailed description of the values or
culture change required should be the

starting point for the questionnaire. These

statements are then converted into detailed behavioral items which show what a person
will be doing to demonstrate them.

60

Another starting point is a list of competencies for a particular job or role. Again these can
expressed as more specific behaviors for measurement.
Alternatively, standard competency-based tools are also available.
4. What type of questionnaire shall we use?
Once the coverage of the questionnaire has been decided, then the actual design can be
considered. Small to medium-sized projects do not necessarily justify the expense and
trouble of producing or commissioning a tailor-made questionnaire.
You need to ask the following questions

What should be its length? In most cases 60 questions are quite enough to assess the
key aspects of a person's performance. For specialist uses it can be more or less than
this. Many organisations overestimate the ability or willingness of raters to complete a
questionnaire, particularly if they have to complete several on different people. A
document of daunting length will not help.

Are the questions written in the appropriate style? In other words will the intended
population understand and find them relevant?

What scales should it use? there are three choices here: between the scale "anchor" e.g.
frequency ("never" to "often", effectiveness ("poor" to "outstanding") and agreement
("strongly disagree" to "strongly agree"); between lengths of scale (usually 5,6 or 10);
and the number of scales, for example using two scales enables actual behavior to be
compared with the importance of a behavior.

What are the appropriate validation measures? In the case of both generic and
customized instruments you will need evidence that steps have been taken to:
-

Ensure that the questionnaire measures what it purports to measure;

Check with users that the items make sense;

Examine items in terms of ambiguity, verbosity, and relevance;

61

Pilot the instrument and its associated administration procedures before

implementation;

Gather feedback from the pilot (group(s) and revise it based on their comments

Document the validation process

Further work can be done to:

-

collect data from users to establish norms

calculate the Standard Error of Measurement

perform a factor analysis to determine how each item loads on the factors or
competencies.

5. In what way shall we present the feedback data?

Methods of processing and types of report format are many and various. Hand calculation
of data can be very slow and laborious for even the shortest of questionnaires, therefore
some degree of computerization is almost inevitable. Systems are now available to process
and present data quickly and clearly. Some of this is available for organisations who wish
to do their own processing (for example some Windows-based applications are very easy
to use) whereas some suppliers offer a bureau service to their clients.
6. What timescales should I allow for various parts of the project?
We have already looked at overall timing. Here are some factors which can cause delay?

Getting everyone signed up in advance

This can be a long process but is necessary.

Briefing appraisees and raters Many organizations have found that the best way of
briefing appraisees is face-to-face at a series of group meetings. However, these can
take time to set up.

Data collection
62

Some organizations have difficulty in persuading raters to complete questionnaires on

time. This can be lessened by careful communicaiton, ensuring that the project enjoys high
level interest and support, simple questionnaires, clear instructions, and serious deadlines.
It is also possible to make the participant responsible for chasing up their own raters by
devising a simple tracking system to keep up to date on returns.
7. What could go wrong?
It is not always easy to identify pitfalls in advance, but experience tells us that some
"hiccups" can be avoided through good plannign and communication. Here are some
which are more likely to occur during a project:

People get cold feet

This will almost inevitably happen at some stage in the project, usually just before the
results are distributed. Those running the project (and their sponsors) need to be ready for
this, and prepared to reassure and give assurances on confidentiality and the overall value
of the feedback.

People react poorly to the results

360 feedback is very powerful. Inevitably, appraisees do get surprises from the differences
between how they see themselves and how others see them. if not properly handled this
can lead to rejection of the information, emotional reactions and conceivably a lowering of
morale, and a worsening of performance rather than an improvement. Such issues cannot
be left to chance. To avoid them you need to provide careful initial consultation and
briefing, a well-designed questionnaire, and first-class, professional debriefing and
facilitation. Facilitation on a one-to-one basis is an important but "resource hungry" aspect
of a 360 exercise. Some companies prefer the use of outside experts on a comprehensive
or select basis, whereas others prefer the economies of using their own people. Whosoever
is used, however, must possess the right qualifications.

63

Raters "hold back" from providing frank feedback

This can happen where the prevailing mood in an organisation is complacency or cosines.
Two ways to solve this are to encourage the use of raters from outside the appraisee's
immediate circle (always assuming that they are in a position to give accurate feedback).
Another is to ask the participants internal or external customers to rate them. Such
feedback is often very useful.
Another reason for holding back can be the extreme opposite of a complacency culture blame or fear culture. Thus, raters might not trust the protestations that they will not be
identified and play safe by giving better-than-true feedback.

64

CONCLUSIONS
For companies in India and abroad this 360-degree fever has caught up. Many tried it and
succeed it while others failed. We have seen how and why. The success and failure all
depends upon the right measures adopted. Two other companies in India which
successfully implemented 360 feedback is HSS & Escotel. Rallis India also successfully
implemented 360-degree feedback exercise for its 1,2,3 levels. At both places they did not
link it to appraisal. But a French Multinational working in India failed miserably when
they introduced this system in as part of their appraisal system. in the words of the Director
HRD, "I was given a filled up form by one of my peers and asked to sign it by my name.
The failure could be tracked to the lessons I have given in my findings and analysis.
Whatever be the case, a lot of research has to be put into the analysis but whenever
organisations go for any such systems, they should remember an old Chinese proverb:
"If you want one year of prosperity, grow grain.
If you want ten years of prosperity, grow trees.
If you want one hundred years of prosperity, grow people."
The popularity of 360-degree feedback is undeniable. Yet, the perceived benefits will help
the personal development of workers only in the right organizational climate. When this
method is utilized in the wrong environment, the results can be detrimental. With close
consideration and evaluation of the environment, the decision to employ this tool, or
another, should be made carefully.
In addition, if the aims of the project are not communicated clearly and up-front, then
people will invent their own resulting in damaging rumors and misconceptions. If you have
both short term and long term aims, for example to start with 360 on a voluntary selfdevelopment basis but eventually to consider whether it should become part of formal,
mandatory performance appraisal - then both the long and short term aims need to be
communicated.

65

These messages can be put over by means of presentations, individual meetings, written
briefings etc. The main theme though is that the communication needs to be as early and as
open as possible.
Is there a senior (preferably line management) sponsor? To have a top-level manager
visibly committed is a powerful way of communicating the importance of the project.
Controls must be observed
"Rolling out" a 360 exercise can be a traumatic experience if certain key principles
are not observed:
1. 360 appraisal is demanding not only of the participant but also of those who are
rating him or her. To avoid questionnaire fatigue, therefore it is useful to plan the roll
out over a period of time, either moving down the organisation or across it. This is also
spreads the load for those who are dispatching and processing questionnaires.
2. A large roll out involves large numbers of people; therefore it is possible for the project
to lose its way or get out of control. To avoid problems, careful scheduling, together
with a good tracking system are essential, as is letting everyone now what their
responsibilities are.
The final step of our project cycle is "Review". This means:

finding out if the exercise has achieved all it set out to.

Distilling the lessons which have been learned along the way.

Aggregated data can be useful to the organsiation for strategic purposes. Thus, if
demographic information has been collected in the first place it is possible to see and
compared how specific groups (departments, levels, age bands etc.) have performed. It is
also possible to review data to determine the main HR priorities in terms of performance
development or behavior change. This can lead to closely targeted actions, and the
economical, focused deployment of HR initiatives.

66

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT

The main aim of the study is to analyze the effectiveness of 360-degree performance
appraisal feedback system in organizations.
Performance evaluation technologies are often driven by a desire to minimize
disagreement across evaluations. Historically, the typical goal of maximizing interrupter
agreement is based on the epistemological assumption that there exists an objective reality
that will be similarly perceived and reported, despite differences in rater perspective. Thus
disagreement--a failure of inter subjective verification--is typically considered rater error.
Recently, much more attention has been brought to the idea of evaluating performance
from more than one source. A primary objective of this multi-source performance
evaluation has been to improve the ratees' awareness of their strengths and weaknesses,
and thus to enhance performance. One example is the current trend toward 360-degree
performance evaluations, which implicitly acknowledge the diagnostic value of multiple
rater perspectives, even when yielding seemingly discrepant data.
360-degree appraisal provides performance data from multiple points reference, not just
one. Like compass, it is a navigational tool that more accurately let's us know when we are
on or off course.
Furthermore, the models available for explaining how feedback works are rather narrow,
and often cannot be reconciled with what we do know about feedback's effects. Given this
dearth of information, it is poorly implemented feedback program could actually hurt,
rather than help performance. Therefore, it is critical that we study the effectiveness of
feedback in order to understand how well it works, and develop some models to help
predict when feedback will have any effect on subsequent performance.

67

ANNEXURES

PROPOSAL
Name of the Learner: Punam Dwivedi
Registration No. 201211972
Program Name: PGDBA (HR)
Address: New Shiv Hanuman Temple, Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110016
TITLE OF THE PROJECT:
Effectiveness of the 360 Degree Appraisal Feedback System
OBJECTIVE:
a) To understand the importance of 360 degree feedback.
b) To understand the benefits of 360 degree feedback by doing in depth study of 360
degree feedback
c) To find out the effectiveness of 360 degree feedback in performance appraisal from
Management / Individual (s) perspective.
d) To study the attitude, view (s), and opinion (s) of individual (s) towards 360 degree
feedback.
e) To examine how 360 degree feedback helps to improve employee performance and
ultimately how it leads to the effectiveness of the organizations.
NEED FOR THE TOPIC:
The main aim of the study is to analyze the effectiveness of 360-degree performance
appraisal feedback system in organizations.
This project scope at studying the effectiveness of 360-degree performance appraisal
feedback system in organizations. Performance appraisal is the most significant and
indispensable tool for the management as it provide useful information for decision
making in area of promotion and compensation reviews.
II

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE OF WORK:

The following is the research methodology followed for data collection, analysis and
understanding of the thesis study
Stage 1: Literature research
Data was collected through primary and secondary sources:
The secondary data was collected through various journals, magazines, newspapers &
websites .
Stage 2: Exploratory Interview
This stage includes the collection of primary data including personnel interview through
the structured questionnaire designed for the purpose.
Stage 3: Case studies
This section includes the two case studies of Voltas & Usha International.
Stage 4: Evaluation
This stage will bring together and review the information collected in the previous stages.
Stage 5: Writing up the project matter
All the information gathered has to been compiled and the project prepared according to
the guidelines.
CHAPTERIZATION:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Objective and Scope
III

Chapter 3. Limitations
Chapter 4. Theoretical Perspective
Chapter 5. Methodology and Procedure of Work
Chapter 6. Analysis of Data
Chapter 7. Findings, Inferences and Recommendations
Chapter 8. Conclusion
Chapter 9. Summary of the Project Report
Chapter 10. Annexures
DETAILED INFORMATION OF GUIDE:
Name: Bhimsen Dwivedi
Address: D-59, Gali No. 26, Das Garden, Baprola Vihar, Nazafgarh, New Delhi
Qualification: MBA
Designation: Sr. Manager (HR)
Special Field work: Training & Development and Appraisal of Employees
Experience: 8 years

IV

REFERENCES

1. Kluger, A.N. & De Nisi, A.S., 1996 - The Effects Feedback Interventions on
Performance Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback
Invention Theory- Psychological Bulletin.
2. Ashferd, S.J. & Cammings, L.L. 1983, Feedback as an Individual Resource: Personal
Strategies

of

Creating

Information.

Organisational

Behaviour

and

Human

Performance.
3. Getting 360 Feedback Right - HBR Jan, 2005.
4. Human resource Management Dconzo Robbins.
5. Heathfield, S. (2001, April 25). 360 degree feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly
defines

and

examines

multirater

feedback.

Retrieved

from

http://humanresources.about.com/library/weekly/aa042501b.htm on January 26, 2004.

6. Tornow, W., London, M. (1998). Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

LIST OF FIGURES, CHARTS, DIAGRAMS

Figure No.

Topic

Page No.

Core competencies.........................................................................................4

Single source versus multisource feedback systems......................................7

Multi-Source 3600 Feedback........................................................................14

Cause And Effect Analysis (Fishbone)........................................................50

Pareto Diagram............................................................................................52

Feedback Cycle............................................................................................56

The feedback process...................................................................................57

VI

LIST OF TABLES
Table No.

Topic

Page No.

1.

360 feedback benefits to key stakeholders...................................................9

2.

PARETO Chart...........................................................................................51

VII