Transcription

1 3D Group Research Thank you for your interest in the research conducted by 3D Group consultants. This is a partial report. If you would like a complimentary copy of the full report, please call us at (510)

2 360 Program Characteristics 1 Running Head: CHARACTERISTICS OF 360 PROGRAMS A Benchmarking Study of North American 360-Degree Feedback Practices Mark C. Healy, Amanda B. Walsh, and Dale S. Rose 3D Group Berkeley, California Healy, M. C., Walsh, A. B., & Rose, D. S. (2003, April). A benchmarking study of North American 360-degree feedback practices. Poster session presented at the 18 th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Florida.

3 360 Program Characteristics 2 Abstract This study investigates current practices in the implementation and use of 360-degree feedback programs in 53 North American organizations. Specific practices were found to be quite diverse. Specifically, results revealed substantial variation in survey development methods, survey format and content, selection of raters, and development support. Implications for research and best practices are discussed.

4 360 Program Characteristics 3 A Benchmarking Study of North American 360-Degree Feedback Practices There is no shortage of information concerning how to properly implement a 360-degree feedback program. Numerous books (e.g., Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001; Tornow, London, & Associates, 1998) provide well-articulated advice on developing and implementing 360-degree feedback programs. Performance appraisals and feedback of all varieties have been researched throughout the history of management science and industrial/organizational psychology. Nevertheless, there are several characteristics of 360-degree feedback that are not well understood. In particular, several very common aspects of real-world implementation have received surprisingly little rigorous research attention. Byham (2002) commented that 360- degree feedback research at the beginning of the millennium is as advanced as research on the selection interview was in the early 1960 s; the individual components are only now beginning to be teased apart and evaluated. A lack of substantial research does not appear to limit the proffering of helpful advice. Contained within thorough books and academic reports regarding 360-degree feedback (e.g., Van Velsor, Leslie, and Fleenor, 1997) as well as in popular, non-academic articles are recommendations on how various aspects of 360-degree feedback should be implemented (often referred to as best practices). Specifically, most treatises on 360-degree feedback, especially those available via the popular press, contain a great deal of advice and courses of action designed to lead to a widely-accepted program, positive behavioral change, and improved organizational performance. Even if many practices in 360-degree feedback are discussed as the right way or as best practices, or how I did it when I was at Bloated Enterprises, Inc., 360-degree feedback

5 360 Program Characteristics 4 programs are implemented in a wide variety of organizations by a wide variety of individuals. Little is known about the extent to which best practices and recommended approaches to program design are embraced by organizations and implemented as recommended. A primary question, then, is what is really going on in 360-degree feedback programs in organizations? And how do these practices compare with the most common advice given? Recent studies have lent some insight into the activities organizations undertake in the implementation of 360-degree feedback. For example, Rogers, Barriere, Kaplan, and Metley (2002) attempted to link specific practices with perceptions of positive outcomes in 42 sample organizations. They found that those practitioners who perceived their 360 program to have high benefit to their organization were more likely than low benefit organizations to utilize coaching, approval of raters, evaluation of the program, development planning, and careful selection of coaches. This represents a solid attempt at linking specific practices with positive outcomes. London and Smither (1995) interviewed 20 providers of 360-degree feedback and detailed practices including frequency of administration, links to development programs, format of the report, and use of feedback. Other surveys of 360 practices included those detailed by Timmreck and Bracken (1997) and Linkage (1999). This paper utilizes data from a survey-based benchmark study of 360-degree feedback programs to describe common practices by North American organizations and compare them, where possible, to the typical advice given in current articles and books. As described above, surveys of 360 practices have been conducted; however, the authors felt that certain practices had not been covered in enough depth by previous studies (e.g., rater selection and approval, narrative comments, feedback from users, evaluation). We seek to evaluate current practices in two related ways: 1) Compare relevant findings to consistently mentioned recommendations and

6 360 Program Characteristics 5 best practices; and 2) where no or less-specific best practices are known, consider differences across implementations of 360-degree feedback programs and document where knowledge of best practices may be helpful. For example, narrative comments have received very little research attention and yet, they are utilized almost universally in 360. Consequently, the goal with this practice and other less-researched areas would be to document variations in use and therefore drive future study designs and comparisons. The specific focus of this paper is on item content, survey and report design, and the delivery and interpretation of feedback. Specifically, we narrow our focus of interest to investigate topics of primary interest to industrial/organizational psychologists and those receiving little in-depth focus in popular business articles. 1 These topics are generally within the purview of researchers in industrial/organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational development. The nature of the study is iterative, and no hypotheses are offered regarding the variation or extent of specific 360 practices 2. However, it was the expectation of the authors that a diverse array of practices were in use and specific procedures and program designs would vary quite a bit from organization to organization. Method Participants and Procedure Participants were identified and contacted using information found in the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology Membership Directory and through the authors industry contacts. Of the 315 organizations contacted, fifty-three organizations were currently administering a 360-degree feedback program and volunteered to participate in the study. Participants had all either administered, managed or been deeply involved in a 360-degree

7 360 Program Characteristics 6 feedback project within their organization in the past year. Occasionally, the initial contact was not the individual most involved with the process; in this case, the authors were referred to this contact for participation in the interview. Data was gathered using an interview protocol that took an average of twenty-five minutes to complete and was conducted via telephone. In one case, a participant filled out the survey on paper and ed it to the authors. As an incentive to take part in the study, a complimentary copy of the completed report was offered to all participants. Measures The survey contained forty-two open-ended items. The items were designed to explore the educational background and role of the participant in their organizations 360 program, the development process of the organizations 360-degree feedback tool, characteristics of the surveys-in-use, the process for administering 360 feedback, the specifics of the feedback reports, and the use of 360 and types of development support offered to the participants of 360-degree feedback. Additional questions were asked to assess the participants opinion of the success of 360-degree feedback in their organization as well as suggestions for improvements to their program. The first three items on the survey assessed the participants educational and experience level in conducting 360-degree feedback. Four items then assess the history of the organization s use of 360 and reasons for undertaking this type of program. The next eleven items focused on the specifics of the process for developing the 360 instrument(s). Next, seven questions were asked to explore the different ways in which organizations administer the 360 feedback process. The next six questions assessed the method for the scoring, design and content of the feedback reports. Development support methods and uses of 360 were measured using six