Do People Change Behaviors Based on 360 Feedback? 

Send this Article to a Friend!

Having recently completed her dissertation on 360 feedback, MDA Senior Consultant Sarah Murphy, Ph.D., shares with us her findings about whether 360-survey feedback actually produces measurable behavior change with participants.
 
LO:  Why are 360s so popular today?
SM:  It’s hard for people to learn without feedback. 360-degree feedback provides good objective feedback because it comes from multiple directions and it seems people embrace this more fully than from just an individual like their boss. And, most 360 systems are relatively simple to implement.  Well designed 360 instruments are quick and inexpensive. It makes economic sense.
 
LO:  What are the ‘best practices’ regarding 360?
SM:  To make best use of 360 opportunities, they need to be anonymous.  As far as specific practices go:

• A minimum number of respondents—at least 3—in any respondent group is necessary (i.e., peers, subordinates, etc.)
  The instrument itself shouldn’t be too long, otherwise employees will spend too much time filling out questionnaires or avoid the task altogether; about 70 to 80 items is the right number.
• The content of the questionnaire needs to be directly related to the competencies required on the job—otherwise, the feedback is less useful.
• The way feedback is reported needs to be understandable, easy to interpret and actionable.  Typically an expert—an HR professional or consultant—should be involved in the feedback interpretation process.
• 360-degree feedback is not powerful if it is just a one-time event; it needs to be part of a broader and ongoing development action plan.
• Sharing results is critical.  Recipients of 360 feedback should share what they learn with the respondents.  This allows people to get greater clarity on what they heard and increases their commitment to change.  Being allowed to keep 360 feedback to oneself is not worthwhile.

 
LO:  Conversely, what are the pitfalls?
SM:  There are some key pitfalls that any company considering using 360 instruments should consider carefully:

• If 360-degree feedback is overused, it starts to lose its potency; so, if people are asked to complete too many questionnaires at once for their coworkers, they get tired, make inaccurate ratings and responses, and the results are affected.
• The votes are out about whether 360 should be a part of performance appraisal or not.  I think they should not be “hard-wired” to performance reviews; that is, if employees learn that they have to obtain certain kinds of ratings from each other in order to get a positive performance appraisal or raise, it could lead to inaccurate ratings and feedback: “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine.”
• If 360-degree feedback isn’t linked to people’s job requirements, it is not powerful.
• If it’s understood or seen as being punitive or used to justify any type of negative personnel decisions—demotion, depriving somebody of a promotion, etc.—it will lose impact. 
• If there is not follow-through—if there is no return on the feedback—people will see that they put a lot of time into completing questionnaires, but nothing has changed.  Feedback alone is not sufficient to change behavior.  Behavior change needs to be expected by the organization, supported by the boss, and recognized and rewarded.
• People’s natural curiosity makes them want to know who has rated them in what way, so if the process isn’t carefully constructed to assure anonymity, there is the chance a person will hear negative feedback and discount or become de-motivated by it—especially if there is not an “expert” available to help the person reframe and understand the feedback in a constructive way.
• If there are not mechanisms built into the process to guarantee breadth and objectivity of the respondents, the results can be skewed—it can become nothing more than a popularity contest.  It is critical than individuals include a range of respondents including those who may provide constructive criticism.  

LO:  You sound cautious about 360’s use in performance appraisal—how can it be linked to job performance?
SM:  I think 360 should be a tool for development.  But, it is most meaningful when it is “soft-wired” to performance management.  Here is what I mean: it makes sense for employees to seek feedback about their efforts and success in changing behaviors or developing skills they target as learning and growth objectives.  360 can be a great way to document, measure and track change, and show that people are making an effort.  But, when “earning” specific 360 ratings is necessary to obtain a specific amount of pay increase, a bonus, or a particular performance rating, organizations get in trouble.
 
LO: Say more about 360’s role in learning and development—you said people don’t change from feedback alone?
SM: That’s right.  A common misconception we see is the belief that personal insight or self-awareness will cause people to change.  If people simply see that something is “wrong,” they will fix it.  This is not true for many—maybe even most of us. 
 
What is critically important is that 360 feedback be translated into ongoing on-the-job development experiences.  People change by practicing new behaviors or by confronting new challenges that require the use of new skills.  The key—assuming people want to grow—is designing experiences, post 360 feedback, that will allow an individual to practice the new behaviors and skills they need for their continuing success.  I think this is a manager’s responsibility—it’s what good managerial coaching is all about.  Too often we see managers assuming their coaching is not very important, that 360 feedback to their subordinates is enough.
 
LO: . What did you find in your research?
SM: Most importantly, I found that people did change over time.  As one would hope, we found that people’s 360-degree feedback ratings were higher after a few years.  People changed in specific skill areas such as analytical and conceptual thinking, decision-making and judgment, and strategic orientation.  This is encouraging information for those who are eager to see development of stronger problem solving skills among employees.  Effort to change managerial behaviors specific to supervising people (i.e., staffing and assigning work, coaching and developing, empowering, communicating expectations, planning, and accountability) was a key factor.  So, people who said they tried hard to change their skills in leading people tended to have higher ratings over time.  My research underscored what may seem intuitive and obvious, that there is an important relationship between effort to change and later ratings of effectiveness on a range of important skill sets.  

First and foremost, that future ratings are strongly linked to effort highlights the need for participants in leadership development programs to be engaged, committed, and active in the process.  If an individual is not willing to make a sincere effort to alter their behavior, any amount of feedback will be useless in moving that person toward change.  Development planning activities should be limited to a finite number of skills that managers feel they can realistically focus on, make an effort to change, and monitor as time progresses.  360-degree feedback can be useful in identifying the skills in need of change.

That the effort to change core supervisory skills had the most weight in predicting future ratings suggests that leaders in organizations should make sure that “coaching and developing people” is a priority on the list of critical elements to include in management development programs.  Organizations should establish incentives and reward systems for their managerial employees to feel motivated and encouraged to work hard at coaching and developing their teams.  Holding managers accountable for their own and others’ development is critical for successful individual change to occur.