360-Degree Evaluations

Multi Source Evaluation as a Performance Control – Ikhwan Maulana

MULTI SOURCE EVALUATION AS A PERFORMANCE CONTROL Ikhwan Maulana [email protected] Makassar State University, Makassar - Indonesia ABSTRACT: The purposes of this paper are to look up the particular performance feedback system, known as multi-source feedback (360-degree Feedback) in its importance on public or private organizations. Compared to the others performance control tool, 360-degree feedback is bringing some advantages in its application, such us various sources, consistent, and reliable feedback. On the other hand, the tool itself also has some disadvantages for example, time in training and costly in application. The tool is an unique method in controlling and evaluating performance, since the results is not only based on what the raters’ evaluations (Employer, Subordinate, and Peer), but also from the ratee’s evaluation on him/her self. Key words: 360-degree feedback, Performance control tool, Performance Appraisal ABSTRAK: Tujuan makalah ini adalah untuk mencari umpan balik sistem kinerja tertentu, yang dikenal sebagai umpan balik multi sumber umpan balik (umpan balik 3600) pada organisasi publik atau swasta. Dibandingkan dengan alat kinerja control orang lain, umpan balik 3600 membawa beberapa keuntungan dalam penerapannya, seperti berbagai sumber secara konsisten dapat diandalkan. Di sisi lain, alat itu sendiri juga memiliki beberapa kelemahan misalnya, waktu dalam pelatihan dan mahalnya aplikasi. Alat ini adalah metode unik dalam mengontrol dan mengevaluasi kinerja, karena hasil yang tidak hanya didasarkan pada evaluasi para penilai (pemberi kerja, bawahan, dan peer), tetapi juga dari evaluasi diri sendiri. Kata kunci: umpan balik 3600, alat pengontrol kinerjal, penilaian kinerja. organisations for providing feedback

INTRODUCTION Performance appraisals are an

on job performance. This paper looks

important function in contemporary –

at a particular performance feedback

whether

system,

public

or

private

–

known

as

multi-source

210


feedback. The term multi-source or

component as a means to compare

360-degree feedback, as the name

ones viewpoint against those of others

implies, involves the gathering of

(Dalton,

performance

from

Lombardo, 2003). The raters need to

multiple sources, typically two or

be those who have regular dealings

more

the

with the ratee and as a result familiar

workplace setting (Greguras, Ford and

enough with them to answer a

Brutus, 2003; Hurley, 1998; Stone,

questionnaire about their behaviour

2005; Wood, Allen, Pillinger and

and work performance (Dalton, 2005;

Kohn, 2000). This paper also provides

Hurley, 1998; Morgan, Cannan and

an overview of multi-source feedback

Cullinane 2005; Wood et al., 2000). It

and looks at the theory and application

is the increased amount of feedback

of

evaluation.

from different sources, including a

Furthermore, the paper considers the

self-evaluation, which differentiates

implications,

multi-source

feedback

people,

a

from

data within

multi-source both

positive

and

negative, for organisations wanting to

2005;

Eichinger

feedback

and

from

conventional appraisal methods.

implement the multi-source approach.

There are three main reasons why organisations would adopt the multi-source

DISCUSSION A multi-source evaluation is

approach

for

the

provision of feedback data. Firstly, as

quite different from the traditional

the

superior-subordinate type performance

gathered from a variety of sources, it

appraisal event as there are more

creates a more balanced view of the

participants that provide feedback.

individual as the feedback is coming

The sources of feedback data (raters)

from

typically include a combination of

perspectives (Huggett, 1998; Hurley,

supervisors, subordinates, managers,

1998; Stone, 2005). Secondly, the

colleagues,

suppliers

increased number of feedback sources

(Stone, 2005; Wood, et al., 2000). In

provides the ratee with an increased

addition, the person being evaluated

amount of information about their

(ratee) completes a self-evaluation

performance (Luthans and Peterson,

clients

and

performance

a

number

information

of

is

different

211


2003). Thirdly, the feedback provided

Fletcher (cited in Rees and Porter,

from these viewpoints when compared

2003, p281) in 1993, found that “80

to the ratees own assessment makes

percent

the ratee more “self-aware”, which is

dissatisfied

the realisation of the discrepancies

mainly due to the multiplicity of

between how the ratee sees his/her self

objectives”. It is therefore necessary

and how the raters see them and is

for organisations to limit and clearly

fundamental

multi-source

define their objectives in order to

approach (Greguras et al, 2003;

reduce dissatisfaction in the appraisal

Hurley, 1998; Maurer, Mitchell and

system as a whole.

to

the

of

respondents with

their

were

appraisals

Barbeite, 2002; Morgan et al., 2005;

A multi-source feedback system

Rogers, Rogers and Metlay, 2002). It

is particularly suited to being used as a

is this self-awareness, along with a

development tool rather than being

commitment to change and improve

used

that is a key component in developing

activities. Organisations that gain the

individuals in organisations (Morgan

most benefit from the use of multi-

et al., 2005). However, research

source feedback are those who use it

conducted by Mabey (2001) found

as a development tool (Rogers, et al.,

that the self-awareness of many of the

2002). The problem with using multi-

participants was not increased by

source

multi-source appraisals but it did lead

remuneration, for example, is that a

to

person’s subordinates now have a

more

focused

development

activities.

for

other

human

feedback

to

resource

decide

major say in deciding pay levels

It is important that organisations

(Hurley, 1998; Rees and Porter, 2003).

clearly determine the objective of the

Research by Rogers et al. in 2002, also

multi-source

found

feedback

approach

that

when

multi-source

before it is adopted. Failure to do this

feedback was linked to salary and

can lead to the process trying to

promotion decisions, the ratings were

achieve numerous objectives which

“softened”, denying the ratee of

can often be conflicting (Rees and

accurate feedback information. In

Porter, 2003). A study conducted by

addition, Strauss (2005) indicated that 212


using

multi-source

decisions

such

as

feedback

for

assessment of the ratee (Hurley, 1998;

selection

and

Atkins and Wood, 2002; Becton and

promotion was not recommended due

Schraeder,

to its subjectivity. Similarly, studies

Conversely, if the selection process is

by Stewart (cited in van der Heijden

left solely up to the ratee’s manager it

and Nijhof, 2004) in 1998, also found

may cause the ratee to reject any

that due to the subjective nature of

unfavourable

multi-source feedback, fairness could

(Becton

not be guaranteed and using the data

Consequently, the best method of

as a basis for deciding salary or

selection would be a combination of

promotion

the two and would allow for ratee and

could

be

problematic.

Therefore, multi-source evaluations

2004;

and

Dalton,

feedback Schraeder,

2005).

received 2004).

manager input.

should be used for developmental

While there should be some

purposes to avoid complications that

scope for the ratee to contribute to

can arise when it is used for

selecting the raters, their identity on

remuneration, promotion or selection

the questionnaire itself should remain

purposes.

confidential. This can be achieved

The selection of raters is an

through the use of an independent

important aspect of the multi-source

third party to convert the completed

appraisal as it is necessary to obtain

questionnaires

the right mix of people to take part in

feedback report (Stone, 2005; Wood et

the process. Ideally, the ratee should

al., 2000). Confidentiality is important

select his/her own raters as this will

as there is a direct relationship

ensure that, not only the feedback, but

between ratee anonymity and the

the multi-source appraisal process is

provision of more truthful feedback

more accepted by employees (Becton

(van der Heijden and Nijhof, 2004). In

and Schraeder, 2004). However, the

addition, when the raters identity is

downside of this is that the ratee may

known to the ratee, more favourable

only select raters that will ensure they

feedback is given (Rogers et al.,

are provided with a more positive

2002). This is especially true when the

appraisal, thus creating a better overall

ratees are subordinates or peers who

into

the

ratee’s

213


inflate their ratings out of fear of

raters to learn the skills in giving

negative consequences (Morgan et al.,

feedback that will benefit the ratee and

2005). Alternatively, raters can use

will also make them aware of potential

their anonymity to unfairly target the

errors that can occur as part of the

ratee and affect the overall result,

process such as over or underrating

which can then create conflict among

(Pfau, Kay, Nowack and Ghorpade,

employees (Wimmer, 2002). Whilst

2002; Rogers et al., 2003; Wimmer,

rater

in

2002). Training can also be used to

obtaining more accurate feedback

make the raters aware of their own

data, there is a possibility of raters

biases and not to allow their own

abusing their position resulting in

personal views of the ratee to effect

inconsistent feedback and workplace

their ratings (van der Heijden and

friction.

Nijhof, 2004; Strauss, 2005). In

anonymity

is

beneficial

Regardless of the rater selection

addition, it has been found that gender

method used, the introduction of a

differences do not affect a person’s

multi-source

program

rating

requires the organisation to provide

2004).

training for all participants involved in

training and education, organisations

the process. The training should cover

will find the introduction of a multi-

three main areas; firstly, the use of

source feedback much more widely

multi-source

accepted and more accurate feedback

appraisal

feedback

should

be

introduced to all members of the organisation

in

acceptance

and

order

to

(Eichinger Therefore,

and

Lombardo,

by

providing

data will be obtained.

gain

The downside for organisations

to

wanting to implement a multi-source

participate by all employees (Dalton,

feedback system is that it does become

2005). Secondly, the training should

quite costly. While the education and

educate the raters on how to complete

training of employees is an important

the questionnaire accurately which

aspect contributing to the success of

will reduce the number of errors

the program, the financial cost to the

(Rogers et al., 2003). Thirdly, the

organisation in terms of dollars spent

provision of training will also allow

can be quite high (Pfau et al., 2002;

willingness

214


Rees and Porter, 2003; Rogers et al.,

positive light than others would

2002). Similarly, a monetary cost

(Eichinger

remains if organisations use a third

Strauss 2005; van der Heijden and

party

Nijhof, 2004). As the ratee’s self-

to

manage

some

or

all

and

Lombardo,

2003;

components of a multi-source event.

evaluation

is

compared

The other cost to the organisation is

viewpoint

of

the

the time lost by using the multi-source

discrepancy can be quite large, and as

approach. This includes time spent

a

educating and training raters and

dismissed and/or the ratee may react

ratees, as well as allowances for the

negatively towards others (Steelman

preparation and completion of the

and Rutkowski, 2004). To reduce

questionnaire,

and

these damaging effects, the report

delivery of the feedback data to the

generated from the feedback data

ratee

2004).

should be given to the ratee first which

However, organisations can reduce

will allow them an opportunity to

these costs and increase the efficiency

respond to the results (Huggett, 1998;

of multi-source evaluations through

Rees and Porter, 2003). In addition,

the use of electronic means to

feedback is generally more accepted if

administer the system as opposed to

the person giving the feedback is seen

paper questionnaires (Rogers et al.,

to be credible, such as a manager or

2002). It is therefore important that

supervisor (Steelman and Rutkowski,

organisations weigh these costs up

2004).

with the potential benefits that such a

Kluger (2000, cited in van der Heijden

program can deliver.

and Nijhof, 2004), recommend that the

(Rees

and and

collection Porter,

result,

the

to

rater’s,

feedback

Furthermore,

the this

may

DeNisi

be

and

The proper delivery of the

feedback targets the behaviour and not

feedback data to the ratee is the most

the ratee personally. Failure to adhere

important consideration in the multi-

to this can cause serious repercussions

source process as it can be a

in the workplace such as self doubt in

confronting experience for the ratee.

the ratee and decreased morale among

Research

team

indicates

that

people

generally rate themselves in a more

members

Therefore,

while

(Wimmer,

2002).

presenting

the 215


feedback data to the ratee is important,

ratee receives his/her results. Research

organisations need to manage the way

indicates

the information is given to the ratee in

provide support and coaching after a

order

negative

multi-source event, find that they have

consequences to the ratee and the

much greater success in the program

organisation.

(Dalton, 2005; Luthans and Peterson,

to

minimise

any

that

organisations

that

While the increased number of

2003). The use of a coach assists in

rating sources provides the ratee with

identifying areas of improvement and

more

of

the formulation of a plan to rectify

the

these problems (Maurer et al., 2002;

feedback can determine how the

van der Heijden and Nijhof, 2004).

feedback data is used. A study

Where coaching is not used, ratees see

conducted by Greguras et al. in 2003,

the

found that ratees responded to rater

isolated event and not part of their

sources

example,

overall development (Morgan et al.,

feedback from supervisors was acted

2005). Therefore, organisations need

upon more so than feedback from

to follow-up after the feedback has

subordinates or peers. While, this

been distributed to gain the full benefit

stems from a need to impress, the

from the process.

information

improvement,

the

differently,

danger is

on

areas

source

for

of

multi-source

program

as

an

process then becomes

While there are many theoretical

similar to the traditional approach.

benefits of multi-source appraisals,

However, the study also found that

there

feedback on leadership skills provided

substantiate improved performance in

by raters who are subordinates was

practice.

acted upon more so than from

Rogers et al. in 2002, found that 78.5

supervisors.

the

percent of organisations surveyed

advantage that providing feedback

indicated moderate to high benefits to

from multiple sources has over the

the organisation as a result of using

more established appraisal methods.

multi-source feedback. In addition, a

This

highlights

is

limited Research

evidence conducted

to by

It is important that the multi-

study conducted by Atwater et al. in

source program does not end after the

2002, (cited in Morgan et al., 2005) 216


found that half of the managers in

ratees

to

be

their sample were able to identify

themselves and raters on how to

improvements in their performance

provide constructive and meaningful

after the multi-source evaluation had

feedback. In addition, organisations

been conducted. However, in contrast,

need to deliver the feedback in a

studies conducted by DeNisi and

positive

Kluger in 2000 (cited in Morgan et al.,

purpose, follow-up after the event and

2005, p665) found that “38 percent of

prepare a development plan for the

the effects of 360˚ feedback on

individual. By undertaking these steps,

performance were actually negative”.

individuals and organisations will gain

Consequently, organisations need to

more from a multi-source evaluation

be aware that not all employees will

than from the supervisor-subordinate

necessarily improve after a multi-

only appraisal process.

way

able

that

to

evaluate

supports

the

source evaluation. Multi-source evaluations differ quite

substantially

more

Atkins, P.W.B. and Wood, R. (2002)

traditional appraisal methods. While

Self-versus others’ ratings as

they offer numerous advantages, such

predictors of assessment centre

as a greater amount of performance

ratings: validation evidence for

feedback which can be used to address

360-degree feedback programs,

weaknesses, multi-source evaluations

Personnel Psychology, 55, 4,

provide

pp.871-885.

challenges

from

REFERENCE

for

the

organisation in terms of resources

Becton, J.B. and Schraeder, M. (2004)

needed. Organisations that will gain

Participant

the

multi-source

selection: potential effects on the

evaluations are those that use it for

quality and acceptance of ratings

employee development purposes. In

in the context of 360-degree

order to implement a multi-source

feedback,

system

Management, 33, 1, pp.23-32.

most

from

successfully,

organisations

need to educate all employees in the use and benefits of the system, train

input

Public

into

rater

Personnel

Dalton, F. (2005) Using 360 degree feedback

mechanisms, 217


Occupational Health and Safety, 74, 7, pp.28-30.

Mabey, C. (2001) Closing the circle: participant views of a 360-

Eichinger, R.W. and Lombardo, M.M.

degree

feedback

programme,

(2003) 360-degree assessment,

Human Resource Management

H.R. Human Resource Planning,

Journal, 11, 1, pp.41-53.

26, 4, pp.34-44.

Morgan, A., Cannan, K., Cullinane, J.

Eichinger, R.W. and Lombardo, M.M. (2004)

Gender,

360-degree

(2005) 360-degree feedback: a critical

Personnel

enquiry,

assessment, and performance,

Review, 34, 6, pp.663-680.

H.R. Human Resource Planning,

Maurer, T.J., Mitchell, D.R.D. and

27, 2, pp.23-24.

Barbeite, F.G. (2002) Predictors

Greguras, G.J., Ford, J.M. and Brutus,

of attitudes toward a 360-degree

S. (2003) Manager attention to

feedback

multisource feedback, Journal of

involvement in post-feedback

Management Development, 22,

management

4, pp.345-361.

activity,

Huggett,

M.

(1998)

360-degree

system

and

development Journal

Occupational

of and

feedback – great expectations?,

Organisational Psychology, 75,

Industrial

part 1, pp.87-107.

and

Commercial

Training, 30, 4, pp.128-130.

Pfau, B., Kay, I., Nowack, K.M. and

Hurley, S. (1998) Application of teambased

360-degree

systems,

Team

feedback

Performance

Management, 4, 5, pp.202-210. Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2003) 360-degree

feedback

with

Ghorpade, J. (2002) Does 360degree

feedback

negatively

affect company performance? HR Magazine, 47, 6, pp.54-57. Rees, W.D. and Porter C. (2003) Appraisal

pitfalls

and

the

systematic coaching: empirical

training implications – part 1,

analysis suggests a winning

Industrial

combination, Human Resource

Training, 35, 7, pp.280-284.

Management, 42, 3, pp.243-256.

Rees, W.D. and Porter C. (2004) Appraisal

and

pitfalls

Commercial

and

the 218


training implications – part 2,

and Development, 56, 9, pp.37-

Industrial

42.

and

Commercial

Training, 36, 1, pp.29-34.

Wood, R., Allen, J., Pillinger, T and

Rogers, E., Rogers, C.W. and Metlay,

Kohn, N. (2000) 360 degree

W. (2002) Improving the payoff

feedback: theory, research and

from 360-degree feedback, H.R.

practice,

Human Resource Planning, 25,

Strategies:

3, pp.44-55.

Approach,

Steelman, L.A. and Rutkowski, K.A.

Human

Resource

An

Applied

McGraw-Hill,

Sydney.

(2004) Moderators of employee reactions to negative feedback, Journal

of

Managerial

Psychology, 19, 1, pp.6-18. Stone, R.J. (2005) Human Resource Management, 5th ed., Wiley and Sons, Milton. Strauss,

J.P.

(2005)

perspectives

of

Multi-source self-esteem,

performance ratings and source Journal

agreement,

of

Managerial Psychology, 20, 6, pp.464-482. Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. and Nijhof, A.H.J. (2004) The value of subjectivity: prospects

problems for

and

360-degree

appraisal systems, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 3, pp.493-511. Wimer, S. (2002) The dark side of 360-degree feedback, Training 219