Scribd
Upload
57 views

360 Anonymous Feedback - Is It Giving Your Organization The Blues?

This document discusses the problems with 360 anonymous feedback processes that are commonly used in organizations. [1] Research shows that companies using anonymous peer review have lower market values than those that don't. Anonymous feedback also does not typically result in large performance improvements. [2] There are issues with a lack of specificity in feedback, reliance on judgments rather than observable behaviors, and focus on first-order changes rather than cultural second-order changes. [3] The document recommends using live feedback processes where people who provide survey feedback also interpret and discuss the results, in order to build understanding and make improvements without relying on guesses or experts. Training is suggested to transition organizations to a culture of direct, specific feedback focused on solutions.

Uploaded by

Ashok Kumar Varadarajan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
57 views

360 Anonymous Feedback - Is It Giving Your Organization The Blues?

This document discusses the problems with 360 anonymous feedback processes that are commonly used in organizations. [1] Research shows that companies using anonymous peer review have lower market values than those that don't. Anonymous feedback also does not typically result in large performance improvements. [2] There are issues with a lack of specificity in feedback, reliance on judgments rather than observable behaviors, and focus on first-order changes rather than cultural second-order changes. [3] The document recommends using live feedback processes where people who provide survey feedback also interpret and discuss the results, in order to build understanding and make improvements without relying on guesses or experts. Training is suggested to transition organizations to a culture of direct, specific feedback focused on solutions.

Uploaded by

Ashok Kumar Varadarajan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

360 Anonymous Feedback – Is it giving your organization the blues?

Every organization I am familiar with in the US and abroad conducts 360 anonymous
feedback for people in leadership positions (90% of all companies according to an ETS 2012
study). This holds true despite data indicating lack of results and other problems. Here are
just two examples:

Watson Wyatt’s 2001 Human Capital Index, an ongoing study of the linkages between HR
practices and shareholder value at 750 publicly traded US companies found that companies
that use peer review have a market value that is 4.9 percent lower than similarly situated
companies that don't use peer review and companies that allow employees to evaluate their
managers are valued 5.7 percent lower than similar firms that don't.

A 2005 meta-analysis of 26 longitudinal studies indicated that it is unrealistic to expect


large performance improvement after people receive 360-degree feedback.

In other words, many individuals and organizations using 360s have been getting the blues.

Despite such feedback, the use of 360s continues to be widely accepted. All of the research
I’ve read comes to a similar conclusion: that the answer is not to scrap them, but rather to
improve on how the organization supports learning from the results. It should be noted,
however, that all of the research I could find came from companies that sell 360s. Despite
the problems indicated by their research, every source remained a proponent of the method.

None of the articles, however, addressed these three fundamental problems:

1. Anonymous data and feedback leaves recipients and experts alike guessing at the
true meaning.

The separation of those who provide the data from the task of understanding the data
violates a fundamental principle once held dearly by the social science founders of
survey feedback. As Ronald Lippitt, who was a close associate of Rensis Likert (the
creator of the Likert scale used in all surveys), put it in a conversation with our founder
(Robert P. Crosby), “They who put their pencil to the survey paper should also see and
work the data.” This principle has been lost in most survey processes, including 360s.

2. There is a widespread knowledge gap regarding specificity versus judgements in


behavioral feedback.
Behavioral specificity is a concept that many are unfamiliar with and/or is underused.
Specificity in feedback (our model is based heavily on Dr. John Wallen’s “Interpersonal
Gap”) sticks strictly with observable behaviors ("when you said or did ____").
Ownership in this case means taking personal responsibility for how one takes and
interprets what someone else did or said (for example, "when you said or did ____, I
was concerned that you might be losing faith in me"). Such interpretations (“losing
faith” in the last example) come out of our own personal history (I might worry that
people will lose faith in me, and project it on to others behavior, whereas you might not
carry that worry at all). Blame-laden generalizations ("you aren't a team player," "you're
a micro-manager") are generally delivered without ownership (i.e., as if they are just a
fact about the other) and almost certainly result in defensiveness on the part of the
receiver. There is a high likelihood the receiver will reject such feedback, and even
silently blame the giver (“the actual problem here is you”). The predictable result is
further erosion of the work relationship, adding to a spiral of even greater fear of giving
and receiving feedback. This in turn can become the work culture of the organization. In
contrast, a high standard of specificity and ownership is much more likely to build
strong work relationships and higher organizational performance. Anonymous feedback
rarely has a high standard of specificity and ownership. Instead it allows generalizations
and blame.

3. There is also a knowledge gap regarding first order and second order change.

First order change is immediate and specific, such as a behavioral change following
effective feedback. Second order change is cultural, such as the impact of how the
feedback was gathered and delivered. Anonymous feedback inadvertently creates
negative second order change, by reinforcing the fear of and avoidance of open face to
face feedback. A typical belief in such a culture is “our people won’t be honest unless it is
anonymous” and a predictable consequence is that the organization becomes more
dependent on experts (whether internal or external) to manage feedback and/or conflict.
In contrast, sufficiently skillful direct feedback has the positive second order effect of
creating a culture where people are increasingly willing to have potentially difficult yet
much needed work related conversations. Although upfront training and facilitation is
likely needed, the organization becomes less dependent in the long run.

Additional negative effects of anonymous feedback based on the three factors above include:

 Because 0f the low standards of specificity and ownership, the odds of


anonymous feedback adding blame-laden generalizations to your permanent
employee file are high, thus adding to the fear of the process.

 Even when the 360 is mostly positive, and even when the receiver of the feedback is a
competent and mature adult, it is tempting to speculate on who may have offered any
"negative" comments, and to hold some resentment against them.
 Without dialogue, the receiver is left guessing at the real meaning of even the most
specific comments, hence decreasing the likelihood that the intended lesson will
actually get learned.

 By reinforcing anonymity and indirectness, anonymous feedback works against the


skillful feedback that is the foundation of high performance culture, and runs
counter to wise corporate values such as openness, trust and accountability.
What to do about it

Here are some tips corresponding to the three fundamental problems (above):
1. Use live feedback processes. When surveys are used, which we encourage, of course
they should be filled out anonymously. That is not the problem. The potential for
individual and organizational performance improvement lies, however, in allowing
the people who filled out the survey to interpret the data and engage in dialogue
about how to maintain strengths and address issues. Rather than an individual
guessing at what others meant, or an expert assisting in deriving implications, the
recipient gets live feedback from the people who filled it out. The data becomes a tool
for dialogue. The focus, rather than being stuck on the scores and comments, is on
the much more important and positive task of how to move forward from here.
Furthermore, effective survey feedback is reciprocal. That is, the scores are
understood to reflect a two way street. If the boss scored low on work load
prioritization, part of the puzzle is for subordinates that are confused about priorities
to mention it to the boss, and to let the boss know what they understand or wish the
priorities to be. This requires dialogue with both parties taking ownership of their
part in what is working and in what is not working so well. Such dialogue, on an
on-going basis, will take the organization to higher levels of performance with the
side benefit of decreasing the reliance on outside experts.
Likewise, your people can give each other direct timely individual feedback, and
begin a continuous process of learning from their experiences and improving their
skills. In high performing groups and organizations people talk directly to peers,
bosses, subordinates and other groups about what is working and what is not
working. Any work team can move in this direction, and a critical mass in your
organization of people who give and seek feedback grounded in specificity and
ownership can quickly change the culture. You and your people are capable of direct
and productive feedback.
2. Get the training, coaching, and facilitation necessary to make the transition to a
culture of live group and individual feedback. Such work culture has been created
time and again, and is directly related to high performance.
3. If you do the above you will be creating positive second order change. With each
moment of successful live feedback you and your people will be on a path of
decreased blame and avoidance, increased trust, increased skill at handling difficult
conversations, increased self-reliance (less need for facilitators, etc., as skills and
confidence are embedded in the daily culture), and a step-change in the willingness
and ability to solve touchy problems that interfere with productivity.
Feedback is necessary. Anonymous feedback can actually have the unintended effect of
decreasing the amount of live feedback flowing in the organization. Give yourself and your
people the gift of skillful live feedback and you will not only help them avoid the anonymous
feedback blues, you will get bottom-line results.

Call us. We can get you started on the path to high performance feedback culture today.

You might also like