SOME FAULTY ASSUMPTIONS THAT SUPPORT USING MULTI-RATER FEEDBACK FOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Victoria A. Pollman

I believe in using 360-degree feedback strictly for development. It is supportive and promotes self-awareness. Using it for appraisal makes it punitive by its very nature. In fact, to do so is an artifact of an archaic, white-male-dominated management system that stresses command and control. It is antithetical to current leadership theory based on empowerment of employees. On its face it sounds very appealing to hold managers accountable and to give employees a say in their managers’ ratings, but this approach is really built on a foundation of quicksand.

If you use 360-degree feedback for appraisal, the underlying philosophy supports the belief that you can force change. For development, its purpose is to enable change. When we, as managers, receive feedback that’s used for (our) appraisal, (our) motivation the next time is to be rated as more effective, not necessarily to be more effective. If it’s to be used strictly for our development, there’s nothing in it for us other than to be a more effective manager.

And, finally, using 360-degree feedback for appraisal purposes is based on a “Theory X” philosophy that says we have to force our managers to change. Once again, it’s the old command-and-control philosophy about managers: They’re lazy and they’re not going to change unless we bring out the club and hit them over the head with it at performance-appraisal time. Using 360-degree feedback for development is more of a “Theory Y” approach that says that people do care about being effective, and they’re going to use data to be more effective.

Here are some assumptions for using 360-degree feedback for appraisal that haven’t been closely examined and which I don’t hold. Let’s start with this assumption: Raters are going to be honest. What makes us think that just because we give somebody a form to fill out that he or she is going to be honest? In fact, in one study that Manny London did (London, Wohlers, & Gallagher, 1990), about a third of the raters said that they would give different answers if they weren’t anonymous. So we know that we need anonymous raters if we’re going to have any hope of getting accurate data. One of the assumptions is that raters will be honest, and I don’t think that that’s true.

The next assumption is that you can force people to change. Change is difficult even if it’s something you recognize that you need to do. Even though you understand the need for change, and you accept it, it’s still hard to do. If it weren’t, I’d be exercising every day and weigh twenty-five pounds less. But can you force me to change? So far, no one’s been able to. I don’t think you can force people to change.

Another assumption that you have to make if you’re using 360-degree feedback in an appraisal context is that improvement in scores represents real improvement on the job. Those with experience with 360-degree feedback know of examples where a manager’s scores improved but the manager wasn’t acting in the best interest of the organization. Or the scores decreased, apparently not getting better, but the manager was doing exactly what the organization wanted him or her to do. For example, what if you have low-performing members in a group and the manager starts taking action to address them? Well, how do you think those individuals who are not performing very well think about this? Are they inclined to rate the manager higher and say, “Oh boy, this manager is a fair assessor of performance and listens to my point of view, and all the other kinds of things that we rate”? No. They give the manager lower scores, even though the manager is doing exactly what you want done.

Conversely, you could have a manager who received good scores and took actions completely contrary to what you want. Let’s say something along the lines of, “Next week, they’re going to be filling out the forms on me; I think we should cancel work. No work on Friday. Let’s have a big picnic over at my house, and we’ll put in a margarita machine.” Maybe this is an exaggeration, but managers engage in activities to curry favor with their employees so they’ll get higher ratings. And they may not be in the best interest of the organization at all. So just because scores go up doesn’t mean real improvement occurs. And managers, of course, are more motivated to do these sorts of things if feedback is tied to performance appraisal.

Here’s my favorite assumption that doesn’t hold: Current performance-appraisal systems work adequately and will be improved with additional ratings. How many of you work in an organization where you have some kind of formal performance-appraisal system? (Almost all.) How many of you think that your formal performance-appraisal system works adequately? (Very few.) I rest my case! We’ve got terrible performance-appraisal systems, and what do we want to do? Take something that works beautifully—360-degree feedback—and tie it to a broken system!

Another assumption: You can design a management-control system that raters and ratees will not be able to manipulate to their advantage. Do any of you here have employees in your organization who haven’t figured out how to manipulate any system you’ve come up with? I don’t think so. They all can.

The last assumption is that the use of anonymous raters is legally practical. Wait until you get that in court! One of the central tenets of our judicial system is that the accused can confront his or her accusers. If I receive anonymous feedback and it’s having a negative impact on my merit increase or chance of promotion, I’ll say, “Let me see those raters. They’re wrong. They didn’t know me. They filled it out wrong. I want to talk to them.” What happens when you respond, “I’m sorry we can’t do that; they’re anonymous.” We may have lots of legal trouble with that one.

Reference

London, M., Wohlers, A. J., & Gallagher, P. (1990). 360-degree feedback surveys: A source of feedback to guide management development. Journal of Management Development, 9, 17-31.

Victoria A. Pollman is general manager, human resources, at Texaco, where she manages the organization effectiveness function. She has also developed and implemented customized programs and integrated human resource systems, where she used the 360-degree-feedback process with individual leaders and intact management teams in the U.S. and overseas. In 1996, Pollman began a three-year loan assignment with Caltex, where she is responsible for designing human resource development systems and practices, including succession planning, high-potential identification and tracking, competency-model development, management/executive development, and employment and employee relations. A charter member of the Upward Feedback Forum, she holds a Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Houston.