More than three-quarters of workers want out – and one academic agrees, calling them 'hard and callous'
A recent survey has found more than three in four employees want to opt out of 360-degree feedback evaluation systems.
Why? More than three-quarters (79%) think the process is used to settle personal grudges while nearly half believe this process can amplify office politics (48%) and be tainted by personal bias or grudges (48%). Another 29% believe they create workplace drama.
“Whilst the survey was done in the US, I can imagine it’s a similar sentiment here in Australia,” said Robyn Johns, Associate Dean at the University of Technology Syndey (UTS) Business School.
“I think a lot of the time people just don’t understand the process and it can create rumours and scandal because of that."
LiveCareer polled 1,000 employees across the United States and found that 71% of organisations are using 360-degree reviews regularly.
The system – designed to highlight an employee’s strengths and weaknesses by collecting data from different sources – has come under scrutiny by many workers with concerns over office politics and workplace drama.
“I know a lot of people who are concerned with satisfaction-type surveys – including 360-degree feedback – because even though you don’t put your name to the comments made, people are able to associate it with different personalities in their workspace even if it’s not right,” Johns told HRD.
Another criticism is that somebody is meant to be appraising someone’s performance but they have no idea who this person is or what they do, she said.
“They’re expected to give opinions on how they work. Delegating this to other people can be really harmful because people can feel cast off.”
360-degree feedback should work – but doesn’t focus on the human element of the feedback that’s given and, instead, gives a more “hard and callous” approach to someone’s performance, Johns concluded.
With approaches to performance management constantly changing and evolving, there is a well-documented history with issues surrounding their subjective nature and widely ranging ratings – so what’s the best way of giving feedback?
“I think the main thing is conversations needing to be had more than once a year,” Johns said. “More timely check-ins and the idea of an ongoing conversation is much more beneficial. I think a lot of companies are trying to move to that."
Feedback like a 360-degree system is a snapshot of someone’s performance, she said.
“Often people are being asked to cast their mind back 10, 12 months. Only certain things – both good and bad – stick in your head. It’s not necessarily an accurate representation of how someone’s doing.”
In a 2015 article, Johns said the ‘days of performance appraisals should be numbered’ because of the ambiguity and complexity that characterises many performance-rating processes.
“Other challenges with supervisor/line management involvement in performance evaluation are easy to identify and include efforts to juggle competing work priorities, and the absence of skills and knowledge. Supervisors often lack motivation and commitment to undertake people management activities, exacerbating an already fraught process,” she writes.
Johns told HRD the primary focus should be on ‘why’ feedback is being given in the way it is – to ensure it fits the need of both employee development and HR management.
“360-degree feedback becomes unstuck in focusing on the training that can be given after the feedback’s been given. The focus should be on the here and now and what can be done to progress each individual person in the company.”
“Businesses need to ask themselves about the feedback that’s being given, too. Let’s not focus on the bad or the uncomfortable – let’s look at that constructive feedback that means everyone can move forward on the right foot,” she added.
