360 assessments have generated a lot of buzz in the leader assessment space, but what exactly is a 360 assessment? In short, 360 assessments differentiate from a more typical performance review by collecting ratings about the same person from multiple sources, with the ratings typically focusing on the performance of a single leader. One of the main reasons for their usage is mitigating our self-serving biases by including external raters. In the process, we can gain valuable information about how we are seen by our colleagues at different levels of the organization. For instance, does your manager see you differently than a direct report? Does a peer see you the same as an external stakeholder? Are these different raters seeing the same behaviors?
This raises a topic that has received a fair bit of attention in research. For a long time, it was assumed that all the different raters in a 360 assessment were assessing the exact same behaviors and, as such, all the different ratings should match. Therefore, discrepancies between the different raters were thought to be measurement errors and often disregarded as simple biases. However, as research has since argued, those discrepancies – or rater source effects – reflect distinct perspectives unique to each source. In other words, each rater brings a unique and valuable perspective to the table.
Receiving feedback from multiple sources can be a boon to performance with the benefits being even more pronounced if they are used for both administrative AND developmental purposes (i.e., not just used for annual performance reviews and then never touched again). Using multisource feedback, such as a 360 assessment, can promote greater knowledge and information sharing which, in turn, can improve a company’s financial performance.
Here are three key takeaways you can take into your next discussion on 360 assessments:
- 360 assessments offer a holistic perspective on leader performance…if done well. By incorporating multiple perspectives looking at performance from different angles, a good 360 assessment can deliver a fuller and richer picture of performance. The “good” qualifier is critical, as doing feedback poorly can have significant consequences. The key is to keep the focus on the job – feedback is most effective at improving performance when it is candid and focused on task behaviors. It’s okay if some of this feedback is negative as long as it is focused on task behavior. If raters are overly compliant and positive, their feedback is focused on the person (i.e., not job-related qualities), or a leader receives too much negative feedback (which is more of a risk with more raters) then you may see a performance decrease
- Different perspectives are still valid. To revisit an earlier point, one of the greatest benefits of a 360 assessment is the opportunity to get feedback that highlights different aspects of a leaders on-job performance. For instance, although you can ask both a manager and direct report about a leader’s strategic and tactical decision making, the manager may be more attuned to their strategic decision making while the direct report is more acutely aware of their tactical, day-to-day leadership. Again – both are valid perspectives that offer unique and valuable insights into different aspects of a leader’s job.
- 360 assessments help reveal your blind spots. In a typical performance review, a manager will give their direct report ratings on various performance tasks and that’s the end of it. The problem with this approach is that a leader’s manager is often removed from the day-to-day tasks, with this becoming increasingly true at higher levels of an organization. By incorporating both a bird’s eye view and a report from the trenches, so to speak, you receive a more grounded, all-encompassing view of that leader’s performance. In doing so, you will be better equipped to identify the best developmental opportunities to help that leader grow.
Are you looking to implement 360 assessments in your company? OE Strategies can help!
