Sources of 360 Feedback
The typical 360-Degree feedback process involves construction or purchase of a formal rating scale, though at least two of the prominent authors in the field, Lepsinger and Lucia, have advocated the use of individual interviews to compliment quantitative assessments:
Not only can interviewees describe the skills and behaviors they see the manager using, they can also clarify when and why those behaviors are more or less effective and identify themes and patterns of behavior. In addition, they can offer insight into how the manager might change or improve those behaviors to achieve better alignment with business objectives or the organization’s culture.
While I agree with Lepsinger and Lucia that interviews offer substantial benefits, most multi-source assessments currently rely exclusively on rating scales. Furthermore, the items on this scale are usually normative in character. Lepsinger and Lucia offer a minority perspective in noting that normative items might be interspersed with items that describe the employee’s style or pattern of behavior. I again concur with Lepsinger and Luca. When only normative items are used, the multi-source feedback system is likely to be highly threatening for many employees—especially if it is mandatory and deficit-based.
A 360-Degree feedback Process usually involves two tiers. The first tier is self-assessment. The employee usually rates his own performance using the scale that is being distributed to the other people involved in the 360-Degree assessment. Sometimes the employee is asked to predict how he thinks the other people completing the scale will rate him. The second tier is assessment by others. In most cases, the employee helps to select the people who will rate him, though the final list remains confidential to preserve anonymity. Typically, seven or eight colleagues are asked to complete the rating scale, though this number may be as great as twenty-five or as little as four or five.
