On one of our assignments, we received feedback from the internal HR coordinator that an executive’s response, when handed their feedback report, was to quickly open the envelope and read their report on the spot. In less than two minutes, they had formed a view that there was nothing different and openly stated that they already knew this (it was in fact 'old' news).

What insights might we draw?

A couple of things actually:

1. Organisations can easily fall in the trap of handing out reports to feedback recipients (participants) without a supporting process such as a 'debrief' with a qualified feedback facilitator and/or their manager. A discussion with an appropriate person facilitates at the very least reflection and review of important information received and, at best, commitment to act on areas that may potentially stall their career and/or affect their role effectiveness.
2. If this executive already knew this (they were aware), why had they not acted on this known feedback/information. The follow through on the feedback is one of the most common reasons why individuals do not realise the ultimate benefit from comprehensive 360-degree feedback. That is, using information for their benefit smartly by turning development needs into strengths!

A common issue that comes up in our discussions with clients and other professionals, is "Who should select the feedback givers?" That is, the participant or someone else (on their behalf).

There is a range of approaches that can be adopted:

• The individual (participant) selects
• The individual selects and discusses with their manager
• The individual selects and their manager has the right of veto
• The manager selects
• The organisation does this 'randomly'

This range essentially depicts the trust spectrum - from high to low. That is, will we allow the individual to select feedback givers that in their eyes are credible and are in a position to provide both honest and accurate information.

In talking through this issue with clients, we do not advocate a carte blanch approach to the participant selecting their feedback givers.

A professionally managed 360-degree feedback process provides participants with guidelines for selection (eg. familiarity and interaction).

The key issue is not so much about whom but how (well) the feedback giver knows the person they are rating and, therefore, is in a position to provide honest and accurate information!

In the next snippet we look at the issue of "Best Friendship Bias"…

Related to who is the best person to select feedback givers, an often-raised issue is "Can good friends be credible feedback givers in the 360-degree feedback process?"

A genuine friend who believes that the purpose of the 360-degree feedback is developmental benefit (and will not 'harm' the person in terms of promotional opportunities or remuneration) will provide honest and accurate feedback. Of course the caveat is that the feedback is provided under anonymous conditions.

A few years ago Disney did the two-team test with two evaluation groups to test the issue of best friendship bias.

Participants selected two groups being friends "Snow Whites" and non-friends "Grumpies". The results were nearly identical: of twenty-two participants who selected dual evaluation teams in this project, only two participants received profiles that differed more than 7% of the composite score.

When provided with the opportunity to provide anonymous feedback, people are candid regardless of friendships, especially, if they also understand the purpose of the feedback!

Source acknowledgement: "360° Feedback The Powerful New Model For Employee Assessment & Performance Improvement", M.R. Edwards & A.J. Ewen, 1996.

In our travels of managing employee & organisational surveys be they climate, cultural etc, we commonly hear from staff that they:

• Get little/if any information on survey results or
• There hasn’t been any follow through in terms of specific initiatives to address survey themes

It is ironic that this occurs when the original reason for undertaking such an initiative is for that very purpose – to identify opportunities for improvement and to do something about them.

We also know of large multi-national companies who undertake annual surveys with extensive report output only for it to sit on the shelf and gather dust.

Consequently, when there is lack of follow through, this can make it 'harder' to do repeat surveys where response rates can drop by 20-30%.

A survey initiative provides a great opportunity to gather key data as a baseline and for subsequent snapshots as to how we are progressing.  Furthermore, once we survey our staff, we create (rightly so) an expectation that we will take the information seriously, consider it and act upon it somehow.

The opportunity is there for us to take!

Learning and Development Plans (or Training & Development Plans as they were called in their 'heyday') get a lot of air space.

Typically, a Learning & Development Plan is meant to be constructed either at the end of an annual performance review with a forward looking focus or as a complementary/stand alone process be it as a part of a 360-degree feedback initiative, follow up to a training needs analysis etc.

With the best of intentions, managers talk about these as "happening" for their staff, but somehow they do not make it to implementation - be it (the Plan) captured in a succinct document and reviewed regularly for progress.

A formalised system (as distinct from non-existent or ad hoc) with follow up/reminders for both managers and staff would greatly increase the chances of success for identified development to be realised, and the subsequent desired performance benefits to be achieved.

Formalised performance management systems are now on the increase, yet their success rate greatly varies.

Some common pitfalls:

• The process is seen by managers and staff alike as 'paper-warfare' and takes too long
• The process is designed by the "HR Department" in Rolls Royce like fashion and with little input from users (managers and staff)
• There is insufficient training of managers and staff regarding the purpose, understanding and use of the system and how to rate performance
• The process is treated as a one of event (annual) with limited regular feedback and coaching support
• Linkages to remuneration can be complex in some cases or not transparent (the reward outcome is perceived not to match the performance output)

A formalised performance management system can serve as a road map for individual performance achievements including a direct contribution to business success and performance. In the absence of a documented plan, individuals can be unclear about key performance expectations and, as a consequence, not achieve what they were expected to do in the first place!

There is an imperative for organisations to review and implement user friendly performance management systems, including cost effective online solutions, and empower staff to manage their own performance.  Equally, managers need to be held accountable for managing the "system" and ensuring that all staff have their individual performance plan, and reviews are done regularly and on time.

The opportunity is there for organisations to accept this challenge, and take it out of the (too) hard basket once and for all.