Introduction
The performance of employees is very critical in contemporary society. Organizations want to ensure that they get value from their employees. As a result, there have been different management tools used to gauge the performance of the workers. One of the tools is the 360-feedback assessment; an evaluation system in which employees are appraised by their supervisors, their peers, and subordinates through a feedback process. The application of the assessment tool ensures a comprehensive appraisal of an individual based on the perspectives of his or her fellow workers.
The process of administering 360-feedbacks can be via the use of questionnaires that have clearly stipulated parameters that are to be assessed. The use of a 360-feedback system entails self-evaluation and direct feedback from supervisors, subordinates, and colleagues. Stark, Korenstein, and Karani (2008) argued that the tool offers an important approach for assessing behaviors, attitudes, and professional competence of the employees. Therefore, the following paper discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of the 360 feedback assessment system.
Analysis
According to Donnon, Al Ansari, Al Alawi, and Violato (2014), the 360-feedback system has been popular, and it is commonly used as a tool for personnel management. The instruments used for assessments should be reliable and valid in order to provide objective information about the variables being measured (Massagli & Carline, 2007). The reliability of any assessment system is attained by repeated measurements of the item in order to find out whether the system produces consisted of results.
In the case of the 360-feedback system, the reliability stems from multiple observations of the subject being measured. Multiple observers are used in order to have diverse views and standpoints. The application of multiple observations assists in minimizing biases (Massagli & Carline, 2007). For instance, the assessment of a supervisor in an organization may result in different views, yet only one construct is being assessed. Some subordinates may be biased towards the supervisor based on the leadership style that he/she uses. On the other hand, other observers may favor the supervisor and may give him undue credit.
The tendencies of discrimination are common biases that are inherent in human beings and sometimes are influenced by self-interest. In order to overcome the biases, the assessment tool must set parameters that ensure that objectivity is realized. In addition, the tool must evaluate all the possible areas of competencies instead of focusing on one aspect. To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of the 360-feedback evaluation, various studies have been carried out.
The studies have also been used to provide insight into its applicability. For example, a study carried out by Massagli and Carline (2007) to assess the residents’ competence of rehabilitation found out that 360 feedback system could not test all the competencies. The study was in a clinical setting, and the aim was to obtain reliable ratings of resident behaviors from the perspective of the professionals carrying out rehabilitation. In spite of the failure to test all competencies, it was established that the use of multiple observers repeatedly increased the reliability of the test instrument.
The study showed that the tool is feasible and effective due to the concept of multiple observations. However, it is worth noting that the environment of the application was very different compared to that of business or leadership. For instance, in a business setting, there is a stable environment and parameters for gauging performance. Thus, the feasibility may not apply in the business setting. Tornow and London (n.d.) noted that the 360-feedback system applicability is influenced by the context in which it is being applied.
Donnon et al. (2014) pointed out that the system is mainly used in the development of leadership programs; also, human resource managers use the program to determine the performance of their employees. According to Donnon et al. (2014), the application of the tool to gauge the performance of the employees based on the multi-rater process is reliable as it ensures consistent ratings. As a result, Richmond, Canavan, Holtman, and Katsufrakis (2011) pointed out that it can be applied in the development of an action plan. Richmond et al. (2011) stated that the 360-feedback has the same basic elements as those found in other assessment systems. The fundamental elements as outlined by Richmond et al. (2011) include the application of information to meet standards, collecting information based on the stipulated standards.
Stark et al. (2008) pointed out that the use of multiple observers ensures that numerous perspectives are provided about an individual. The results are to have a broad perspective of the person being assessed.
For the feedback to be effective, there is a need for raters to have a good understanding of the construct being measured. For example, there must be communication to enlighten the participants about the importance of carrying out the process and the details required. Tornow and London (n.d.) argued that communication is critical because it minimizes bias and maximizes the accuracy f responses based on the context of the evaluation. If correctly administered, 360-feedback gives valid and reliable information. This is achieved by ensuring that there are safeguards to eliminate errors and obvious biases. For example, biases arising due to collusion, competition, and friendship. For reliability to be achieved there must be minimal errors in ratings. The common sources of error result when the raters are not sure of what is being assessed and when the parameters set for the rating are too vague. This may result in the raters interpreting a single parameter differently. The results of such errors are ambiguous and reduce the effectiveness of the tool. Hence the need for communication before administering the assessment process.
Conclusion
It is evident that the 360-feedback system provides a basis for the holistic assessment of an individual. However, there are tendencies of bias that may limit the feasibility and effectiveness of the tool. Despite the biases, 360-feedback is still very feasible and effective in gauging the performance of an individual. To enhance its applicability, it should be based on proper preparation and training the people to appraise the employee about the Importance of objectivity, Therefore, if the implementation process is done well at all levels, taking careful consideration of the applicability and the situation of the evaluation, a high degree of success can be obtained in the 360-feedback system.
References
Donnon, T., Al Ansari, A., Al Alawi, S., & Violato, C. (2014). The reliability, validity, and feasibility of multisource feedback physician assessment: a systematic review. Academic Medicine, 89(3), 511-516.
Massagli, T. L., & Carline, J. D. (2007). Reliability of a 360-degree evaluation to assess resident competence. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 86(10), 845-852.
Richmond, M., Canavan, C., Holtman, M. C., & Katsufrakis, P. J. (2011). Feasibility of implementing a standardized multisource feedback program in the graduate medical education environment. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(4), 511-516.
Stark, R., Korenstein, D., & Karani, R. (2008). Impact of a 360-degree professionalism assessment on faculty comfort and skills in feedback delivery. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), 969-972.
Tornow, W., & London, M. (n.d.). Maximizing the value of 360-degree feedback: a process for successful individual and organizational development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.