• How do you avoid the danger of 360 degree assessments being perceived as a "popularity contest?"
• Why should the focus be on "development only?" If it is legitimate feedback on performance, why wouldn't it be used in a performance review?
• You recommend that the specific results of a 360 survey are shared with the participating manager only. How do we hold those participants accountable for results if the data is "owned" by the participant?

How do you avoid the danger of 360 degree assessments being perceived as a "popularity contest?"

This perception of a contest is certainly a possibility given that organizational life is characterized by, among other things, power and authority dynamics and competition. There are two key steps in the implementation of the process where action can be taken to mitigate this danger:

• Positioning and communicating the process to the participants and the organization;
• Setting expectations among those being rated as to their behavior relative to the assessment process.

The first step is to create and communicate a framework for the assessment that limits the potential for competition. For example, there is no reason for individuals to see the results of their peers, except perhaps in aggregate form (for company norm comparisons). Still, if their boss will see all their results, a competitive feel will likely be present. One solution is to have the 360 report go only to the person being rated. That person would then present a summary in the form of development goals to their boss - no specific ratings would be shown. We've seen such strategies be quite effective. If that is not possible, then the tone set by the participant's manager is key. The manager should reinforce that the focus is on development, not performance, career progression or comparisons with others.

Second, participants in the process should be held to high expectations regarding their behavior during the assessment. It should be made clear that the focus of the assessment is developmental and that accurate data is critical. They play a role in ensuring the integrity of the process by what they communicate to their staff and peers and by avoiding even a hint of pressure on them for positive ratings.

Finally, this notion of contest recedes to the background when the organizational culture is characterized by trust, openness, continuous improvement and learning. This is a broader and more difficult thing to achieve, but certainly a worthy goal.

First, we should challenge the premise of the second question - that 360s provide "legitimate performance on feedback." In our experience, 360s are almost always structured to measure behaviors and competencies. While these certainly reflect aspects of how a person goes about doing their job, they miss entirely the performance and outcomes relative to job responsibilities and goals. The risk, then, is an unbalanced view of performance.

Perhaps more compelling is research that indicates that the ratings tend to be higher when it is known that the feedback is used in a performance review. Here's how that happens: If I am asked to rate my boss or peer and understand that the report will only be used to identify development needs, I am likely to be more comfortable being candid. However, if I know that it is part of a performance review that will impact pay, promotions, etc., then I am less comfortable with being the cause of such actions. In other words, I'm happy to give you feedback for improvement, but I don't think you should suffer particular consequences based on my viewpoint. Further, when using this tool to measure performance, it raises questions about the potential mixed motives of peer ratings.

There are varying perspectives on this in the field. A Harvard Management Update (January 2004) cited several recent articles suggesting that we may be seeing a trend toward increased use of 360s in performance review. We suggest caution in moving in this direction. At a minimum, the items on the 360 will need to be crafted to capture real, specific performance criteria, such as the extent to which the individual met an internal service agreement. It would require a high degree of customization to provide such a picture of performance.

In summary, there is much to gain from development-focused feedback. There is risk associated with using such data as a performance measure. Therefore, it is worth giving careful consideration to what might be lost in terms of accurate data and developmental feedback when a performance dimension is added.

It's important to set expectations for participating managers and communicate those clearly at the beginning of the process and at key points along the way. Generally, expectations for the participating manager are as follows:

• Read through your feedback report, making note of strengths, areas for improvement, differences in perception between respondent groups and questions you have.
• Develop preliminary action plans. Click here for a sample action plan document.
• Have a conversation with your boss. Share the highlights of what you've learned through the survey results, discuss action plans, ask questions, and get additional input as appropriate. Enlist his/her support in carrying out your action plans. Determine how action plans will be incorporated into existing performance goals.
• Thank direct reports and peers for their participation. Share highlights of your results and action plans. Ask questions as appropriate.
• Finalize and follow through on action plans!

The organization is investing in the process in order to give managers feedback on their leadership behaviors with the assumption that they will act upon that feedback in positive ways. Therefore, it is expected that resulting action plans will be shared and incorporated into ongoing performance development plans or goals.