Abstract: As businesses grow, employees are increasingly expected to perform well. Managers often use performance appraisals to evaluate job performance over a specific period of time. These appraisals aim to improve employee performance, internal communication, and quality.
Some experts argue that formal performance appraisal is seen as useless and can even be harmful to quality improvement and management perception (David Law, 2007). Despite the criticisms, I believe that the advantages of performance appraisal outweigh the drawbacks. For example, a 360-degree feedback is just one of many methods used for evaluating performance.
Performance appraisals are a valuable tool for assessing job performance. They involve obtaining feedback from subordinates, peers, and managers within the organization. The feedback helps individuals in the organization understand areas where they can improve. Furthermore, properly planned 360-degree feedbacks can positively impact job satisfaction and contribute to the company’s overall objectives.
The effects of performance appraisal have a range of short-term and long-term consequences. These include improved job performance, harmonious interpersonal relationships between superiors and subordinates, and advanced quality management within organizations. The concept of 360-degree feedback was first used by the U.S. Armed Forces in the 1940s to support staff development. Since 1973, it has been studied and utilized after Clark Wilson from the University of Bridgeport developed the first 360-degree feedback survey instruments for management development (www.performanceprograms.com). This feedback system offers various potential benefits, which have been applied to different countries and functions such as accounting, finance, manufacturing, and other primary departments. It provides individuals with a broader perspective on how they are perceived by others, leading to an increased awareness and relevance of competencies in workers’ minds over time.
It is crucial for the entire organization that management acknowledges their own development needs. By doing so, employees can provide reliable feedback to managers about their performance, benefiting both workers and management. Additionally, promoting more open feedback leads to new insights and helps senior management gain a clearer understanding of individuals’ true value in terms of reinforcing desired competencies within the business.
A 360-degree feedback provides a comprehensive evaluation of an employee’s performance, offering a more well-rounded perspective than before. This feedback helps identify key areas for development at the individual, department, and organizational level. Leveraging individuals’ strengths can greatly benefit the business. By assessing performance from multiple angles, both strengths and weaknesses in the business environment can be identified effectively.
Therefore, the self-awareness of managers will personally impact subordinates. Supporting a climate of continuous improvement is crucial. The improvement of morale and climate can be measured through a survey. Management should prioritize discussing development agendas based on the collected 360-degree feedback. The goals and objectives of 360-degree feedback involve involving both recipients and reviewers in confidential feedback. Transparent feedback can have negative effects due to emotions and peer conflicts.
This problem can result in decreased job performance and negative relationships among employees. According to Patricia Angelucci (2000), the primary goals of a 360-degree feedback system are to enhance professional accountability, motivate staff, and improve employee morale and satisfaction (Angelucci, 2000). A crucial point she makes is that providing employees with a 360-degree appraisal allows for constructive feedback and recognition through objective performance measurement, while also giving employees the responsibility to provide information (Patricia Angelucci, 2000).
Using 360-degree feedback can improve job performance if evaluations are delivered honestly, openly, and objectively to all targets including superiors and subordinates. Robert Garbett et al. (2007) recommend thorough preparation to optimize the usefulness of the process. It is crucial for all members involved to understand the purpose and criteria for identifying role set members.
Preparation is essential for achieving success in implementing 360-degree appraisal. The methods used to gather information should be suitable and convenient for the colleagues we work with. Anonymity and openness are valuable in this process as they provide detailed information for developing expertise and workforce effectiveness. Additionally, Garbett et al. (2007) suggest that self-assessment based on critical reflection using an evidence-based framework of field expertise is a useful characteristic for ensuring quality in 360-degree feedbacks (Garbett, 2007).
This method will prevent employees from mistakenly giving feedback to coworkers, and it should be based on observation of practice and experience in the past. The implementation of 360-degree feedback has been widely used across the globe since its benefits to every sector of management. Metcalfe (1998) and Swain et al (2004) state, “The concept of 360-degree feedback has been extensively used, examined, and adapted in business and increasingly in healthcare as a developmental tool” (As cited in Garbett et al., 2007, p. 343). Here are ten steps to conducting 360-degree feedback:
According to Chris Pearce (2007), there are ten steps that can help companies conduct a 360-degree appraisal. These steps include: preparing for appraisal interviews, planning appraisals, conducting appraisals, reviewing achievements, sharing views on progress, considering ratings, and making plans for improvement.
To address shortcomings and drive progress, it is essential to promote conformity and facilitate dialogue. This entails addressing development plans while prioritizing honesty and accuracy, taking into consideration the objectives and career aspirations of those being evaluated. Setting new goals should adhere to the SMART criteria, considering appraisees’ aims and time allocation. The final step involves soliciting feedback, which includes questioning appraisees’ responses, summarizing key evaluation points, and concluding the process. Additionally, the Japanese industry has long captivated nations globally, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s when Japan stood out as a highly competitive nation. Nowadays, both small and large companies strive to incorporate elements of the Japanese management system into their own systems.
The ability of Japan to attract its target market is not hindered by the high level of competition among sellers. This success can be attributed to the unique approach to Japanese management, which has significantly influenced practices like total quality and continuous improvement (Porter, Takeuchi, & Sakakibara, 2000). Initiatives for improvement, such as performance appraisal, are regarded as strategic quality management tools that employ continuous improvement as a strategic weapon (http://www.12manage.com) Pryor, White, and Toombs (1998).
According to Bracken and Timmreck (1999), performance evaluations are crucial for developing managerial behaviors at all levels. They state, “As results of 360-degree feedback are used in conjunction with HR systems, such as staffing, succession planning, compensation, performance management and even, in some cases, downsizing” (As cited in Treena L. Gillespie, 2005, p. 363). When it comes to implementing 360-degree feedback, there is another factor that influences people’s decision to provide feedback to their coworkers.
Coaching and feedback are vital for fostering interpersonal relationships. According to Wright (2000), successful coaching in management relies on open communication. Hence, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of two-way interaction between subordinates and superiors, as it not only impacts feedback but also enhances relationships.
This component addresses the issue of poor communication within an organization, which can result in negative feedback for employees. Currently, major companies like British Airways, AT&T, Alberto Culver North America, and General Electric are increasingly implementing 360-degree feedback (Huet-Cox, Nielsen, & Sundstrom, 1999). Evans (2001) suggests that utilizing 360-degree feedback has the potential to offer a more comprehensive and realistic assessment of an employee’s overall performance as it incorporates feedback from supervisors, subordinates, peers and coworkers, as well as self-ratings (Evans, 2001).
Effective appraisals typically result in improved performance from individuals being appraised. In order for feedback to be productive, appraisees must collaboratively address and solve problems, with a focus on the future rather than dwelling on the past. Implementing 360-degree feedback in companies can offer significant advantages for Total Quality Management (TQM) initiatives. According to a survey, over 20% of firms directly link 360-degree appraisal to their TQM efforts (Laabs, 1994, p. 17). Utilizing 360-degree feedback aligns well with the implementation of TQM.
TQM is beneficial for businesses due to its efficient communication system and customer-centric approach. According to Glover (1993), implementing TQM can follow a five-stage framework: awareness, education, structural change, necessary activities, and expected improvements (as cited in Yusof & Aspinwall, 2000, p. 281). Proper design of the 360-degree feedback is essential for successfully implementing TQM.
ISO 9000, a systematic procedure, is the most effective solution for quality problems in various businesses. For example, the effectiveness of Just In Time (JIT) inventory system in the plant department of a company can be measured using the 360-degree feedback. As a result, the 360-degree system generates an integrated JIT inventory model which reduces the sum of ordering/setup cost, holding cost, quality improvement, and crashing costs (Yang & Pan, 2004).
Once the necessary procedures have been set up, the subsequent phase involves developing a plan for enhancement. If there is a significant need for change, Asher (1992) proposes several methods to facilitate the implementation renovation process: studying the cost of quality, administering customer perception surveys, gathering data on employees’ perceptions, and establishing system and procedure (as cited in Yusof & Aspinwall, 2000, p. 289). This particular management approach will contribute to an escalation in job performance and ultimately lead to improved productivity among workers.
According to Wright (2000), 360-degree feedback is result-oriented and focuses on goals rather than the process. Wright (2000) also emphasizes the importance of this evaluation leading employees to collaborate in achieving the company’s goals. He states, “A good manager should be more concerned with the results and less with the process of how those are achieved” (Robert F. Wright, 2000, p. 363). This means that as long as the process is well executed, managers should prioritize results over specific techniques.
When it comes to the skills of employees, management should motivate workers to provide feedback on necessary changes and where those changes should happen. According to Loup and Koller, “Listening and speaking honestly about people’s thoughts, emotions, and beliefs regarding the change will help progress the change process” (Loup & Koller, 2005, p. 77). In summary, it is the responsibility of management to effectively implement and consistently uphold the use of well-planned 360-degree feedback as a performance appraisal.
Some companies believe that 360-degree feedback and other performance appraisals are detrimental to quality. Strangely, the process of implementing these techniques is time-consuming and can give management a negative impression. However, management needs to understand that the company’s goals cannot be achieved if employees are unaware of their job performance. According to Senge (1990), the most significant threats to our survival are not sudden events but gradual processes, which we are mostly unaware of (Peter M.).
According to Senge (1990), it is essential for companies to prioritize quality improvements by implementing 360-degree feedback. The use of 360-degree assessment allows management to track and evaluate employee performance and leadership, ultimately contributing to the overall success of the organization (Levine, 2003). Failure to adopt timely 360-degree appraisal could result in future problems for companies. References: Angelucci, Patricia. (2000). Cultural diversity: health belief systems. Nursing Management Journal, 7-8. Brutus, Stephane et al. (2006). Internationalization of multi-source feedback systems: a six-country exploratory analysis of 360-degree feedback. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1888-1906. Evans, A. (2001). From every angle. Training, 38(9), 22.Garbett, Robert.(2007). Developing a qualitative approach to 360-degree feedback to aid understanding and development of clinical expertise.Journal of Nursing Management ,342-347.Gillespie,Treena L.(2005).
The text includes references to various sources on the topic of 360-degree feedback and performance appraisals. These sources include the following:
– “Internationalizing 360-degree feedback: are subordinate ratings comparable?” from the Journal of Business and Psychology (pages 361-382)
– “Get the most from 360-degree feedback: put it on the internet” by Huet-Cox, G. D., Nielsen T. M., and Sundstrom, E. in HR Magazine (pages 92-103)
– “TQM Efforts to Rewards” by Laabs, J. J. in Personnel Journal
– “Appraising performance appraisals: a critical look at an external control management technique” by Law, David R. in the International Journal of Reality Therapy (pages 35-47)
Levine, Marcie. (2003). 3600 assessments-where do I start? Survey Connect Inc, 1-4.
Loup, R., & Koller, R. (2005). The road to commitment: Capturing the head, hearts and Pearce, Chris. (2007). Ten steps to conducting appraisals. Nursing Management Journal, 21.
Porter, Michael E., Takeuchi, Hirotaka & Sakakibara, Mariko. (2000). Can Japan compete? Cambridge: Perseus Publishing.
Pryor, Mildred G., White, J. Chris & Toombs, Leslie A. (1998). Strategic Quality Management. Thomson Learning.
Senge, Peter M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (1st ed.. New York: Doubleday.
Wright, Robert F. (2000). Strategies for avoiding the micro management trap. Journal of Management Decision, 362-364.
Yang, Jin-Shan, & Pan, Jason Chao-Hsien. (2004). Just-in-time purchasing: an integrated inventory model involving deterministic variable lead time and quality improvement investment. International Journal of Production Research, 853-863.
Yusof, Sha’ri Mohd & Aspinwall, Elaine. (2000). Total quality management implementation frameworks: comparison and review. Journal of Total Quality Management, 281-294.
www.12manage.com
www.performanceprograms.com
