360-DEGREE FEEDBACK PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION - A STUDY 1. Dr.S.K.Padhi, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur 2. Dr.P.C.Sahu, Professor, Presidency College, Berhampur Abstract Under the present competitive era no Supervisors have time to think for him. Everybody is remaining busy with their own job. Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of reporting relationships lack the opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and motivating performance appraisals. To compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the survival for a longer period in the market to understand the capability of the employees become very indispensable. To solve this problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the educational institutions to study and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the standard of the institution to maintain good will s LondonM. (2004) 1. After industrial globalization, when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork, participative leadership, empowering employees, improving customer service and re-engineering, employers need to look at other alternatives that will support and enhance personnel development. For the purpose of the study the researcher has selected three management educational institutions to understand how for the 360-degree performance appraisal system is helpful for betterment of the appraise and appraiser that inter alia develops the standard. Key Words: Performance Appraisal, 360-Degree Performance system, personnel development Introduction 1 LondonM.&Beatty, R.W.(1993), 360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage, Human Resource Management,Vol.32,pp.352-373 24
Dissatisfaction is the real source of inspiration for future search work to provide rationale in the subject area. Almost every employee seems to be dissatisfied with their Performance Appraisal and always play the Blame Game. Why is it so? From the first ever Man to Man Rating System developed for the military personnel s during the First World War to the well-known 360 degree Performance Appraisal system, there seems to be always some gap between the expected and the actual. Winds of change are sweeping business organizations globally. Organizations jump on the band wagon assuming that survey feedback results are valuable. Companies suffer through the experience of initially implementing the performance appraisal system, often confronting resistance from Managers about being evaluated by their subordinates and peers. Long term reactions and effects are rarely determined systematically, so if the organization continues to use 360 degree feedback, the only evidence for its effectiveness may be an ecdotes from vocal participants.(london, Manuel and Richard W.Beatty) 2. After industrial globalization, when hierarchy is being replaced by teamwork, Participative leadership, empowering employees, improving customer service and re-engineering, employers need to look at other alternatives that will support and enhance personnel development. Organizations are asking personnel for more productivity with fewer resources. The traditional tops down supervisor only evaluation systems are no longer practical for the present globalization days. Supervisors with increased workloads and a large number of reporting relationships lack the opportunity to observe and provide fair, accurate, credible and motivating performance appraisals. To compensating with the situation and be able to compete for the survival for a longer period in the market and to understand the capability of the employees become very indispensable. To solve this problem the 360 degree performance system is to be accepted by the educational institutions to study and enhance the performance of the employees as well as the standard of the institution. According to David W. That multi rater feedback (360-degree) for decision making has worked in many 2 London, Manuel and Richard W.Beatty, "360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage"-Human Resource Management 32(2&3) 1993 25
organizations (Bracken, Dalton, Jako, McCauley, Pollman and Hollenbeck, 1997). 3 Before understanding the meaning of 360-degree performance appraisal we should first know what performance appraisal is. The basic root function of performance appraisal is gauging where the employee is in job, how doing in that job, and what can be done to improve job performance, if improvements are necessary. Performance appraisal is an exercise in observation and judgement, it is a feedback process, and it is an intensely emotional process (Cascio 1995,274). 4 The 360 - degree performance appraisal is an appraisal system that encompasses views of employee's superior and co-workers/peers. Through 360-degree performance appraisal the employee has the chance to review the supervisor an element that is not practiced with top down performance appraisals. The use of 360 degree instruments has exploded during the past ten to fifteen years. The 360 degree appraisal takes information from more than one source. This assessment collects information from peers, subordinates, and superiors so that the person can get a well-rounded, or 360 degree, view of their performance. Here the traditional source for performance appraisals - the individual's manager is supplemented by other sources who has significant perspectives to provide which the manager may not have" (Tornow 1993,212) 5. Ideally with multiple assessment sources, the manager will have little doubt that every part of the employee's performance is checked and double checked. The more feedback the manager is given the better the appraisal process should go. And better yet, the employee will not think that they are criticized solely by the manager " a cardinal rule is that the more information one collects and the greater depth of the information, the greater the commitment must be to the recipient on the part of the organization and on the part of those who conduct such an exercise"(kaplan 1994) 6. 3 Bracken,D.W.Dalton, M.A.Jake, R.A.McClauley, C.D.Pollman, V.A, and Hollenbeck, G.P.(1997) Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes? Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership. 4 Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources, New York: McGraw-Hill,1995.. 5 Tornow,W.W.(1993a), Editor snote:introductiontospecialissueon360- DegreeFeedback,Human ResourceManagement,Vol.32,pp.211-219. 6 Kaplan, R. E., and Palus, C. J.,(1994).Enhancing360-DegreeFeedbackforSenior 26
In simple 360-degree feedback system is a new model for performance feedback and appraisal. 360 turn the appraisal process upside down. It assesses employee performance and development from multi perspectives such as supervisors, peers, subordinates, customers and clients. It is aimed at improving performance by providing a better awareness of strengths and weaknesses. The employee receives feedback from multiple sources in anonymous form, compares them with self-ratings, and gets limited coaching and sets goals for improvement. It is a process of feeding back to a person how others see him or her from people who work most closely with them and know them best. 360 serve as a supplement to, not a replacement for, supervisory review. For the purpose of the study the researcher has selected three management educational institutions to understand how for the 360-degree performance appraisal system is working and be helpful for betterment of the appraise and appraiser that inter alia develops the standard as well as decision making capability. Scope and Objective of the study The primary purpose of this research is to investigate into the challenges before Educational Institutions while implementing the system. However, to have a more focused study, the objectives have been divided in two categories i.e. broad objectives and specific objectives. In fact, the accomplishments of specific objectives ultimately contribute to the achievement of broad objectives. More specially, the objectives of the research will be as under: To examine the comparative significance of the 360-degree appraisal and feedback system vis-a-vis the traditional system. To pinpoint the pitfall of the 360-degree appraisal and feedback system and highlight the impediments in its implementation. Executives.Greensboro,North Carolina:Center for Creative Leadership. 27
To know whether the employees of management education are in support of 360 appraisal back system or not. To make some viable recommendations on it. Methodology The study employed exploratory research in reaching the final results presented. About 150 in-depth interviews were conducted with Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Demonstrators, and Associate Officials of three educational institutions of repute through 5 point Likert scale questionnaire method, using a simple random sampling. Out of 150 there were only 80 (Professor - 10, Associate Professor - 15, Assistant Professor- 20, Demonstrators - 10, Associate officials 25) respondents opined on various factors in relation to the study. The field survey for primary data collection was conducted in three different phases. In the first phase, a pilot survey was conducted to prepare a prototype questionnaire. In second phase, the questionnaires were tested and finalized. In the third phase, the final field survey was conducted. The questionnaire was analysed and percentage values were calculated to find out the exact impact of 360-degree performance appraisal system in the educational institution. Review of existing literature Hegarty (1974) 7 examines that managers who received upward feedback about their supervisory behaviour significantly improved their behaviour and improves the subordinate ratings of managerial performance. Similarly, Mc Ivorand Buller(1987) 8 found that employees were favourably disposed toward peer evaluation. There action is positively associated with 7 Hegarty,W.H.(1974), UsingSubordinateRatingstoElicitBehaviouralChangesin Managers,Journalof AppliedPsychology.Vol.59,pp.764-766. 8 Mc.Evoy,G.M.&Buller,P.F.(1987), UserAcceptanceofPeerAppraisalsinanIndustrialSetting, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.40,pp.785-797 28
29 July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7 satisfaction with prior peer ratings and negatively associated with perceived friendship bias and years of company experience. Atwater, Roush and Fischthal (1995) 9 opined that subordinates ratings of leadership were significantly higher following feedback from subordinates under which a highly structured session is there where leaders discussed the feedback results with subordinates. Smither, Vasilopulos, Reilly, Millsap & Solvemini (1995) 10 found that low and medium level performers improved and high performers declined overtime. It is due to managers who received feedback were no more likely to improve performance than managers who did not receive feedback; people who gave themselves higher self-rating than the ratings their subordinates gave them tended to improve overtime (Johnsonand Ferstl(1999). 11 Walker and Smither (1999) 12 clarified that the improvements in subordinate ratings was greater for managers who discussed the previous year s feedback with subordinates than for managers who had not discussed ratings. However, Manab Bose (2003) 13 explains that the system helps to plan senior leadership break class from the decadent past, there by developing competencies to attract and retain world-class talent so desperately needed for business and organisations to grow to world class standards. Similarly, Anu Wakhlu (2003) 14 clarifiesthat 360-degree appraisal and feedback system is totally developmental, and it can be linked to the overall performance of the business plans of the company and the individuals. Generally, a performance appraisal occurs during a meeting between manager and employee where the employee job performance is discussed. The tone of the meeting usually depends on how the manager conducts it. The review should have a 9 Atwater,L.Roush,P.,&Fischtal,A.(1995), TheInfluenceofUpwardFeedbackonSelfandFollower RatingsofLeadership,PersonalPsychology,Vol.48,pp.35-59. 10 Smither,J.W., London,M., Vasilopoulos,N.L.,Reilly,R.R.,Millsap,R. E.,& Salvemini,N. (1995), An ExaminationoftheEffectsofanUpwardFeedbackProgramOvertime,PersonnelPsychology,Vol.48, pp.1-34 11 Johnson,J.F.,&Ferstl,K.L. TheEffectsofInter-RaterandSelf-OtherAgreementonPerformance Improvement Following Upward Feedback, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.52,pp.271-303. 12 WalkerA.G.&Smither,J.W.(1999), A Five Year Study of Upward Feedback: What Managers do with their Results Matter, Personnel Psychology,Vol.52,pp.393-423. 13 Bose,Manab(2003) 360-Degree feedback as an Intervention, in T.V.Rao and Raju Rao(Eds.),360- DegreeFeedback&PerformanceManagementSystem,NewDelhi:ExcelBooks.PP65-75. 14 Wakhlu, Anu (2003), Leadership Development using 360-Degree Feedback Process - The Pragati Approach, in T.V.Raoand RajuRao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback and Performance Management System, NewDelhi:ExcelBooks,pp.58-64.
fair, honest, and thorough hearing as he presents his evaluations and plans for development and he should leave the review session feeling that his superiors take his idea seriously and are vitally interested in his progress (Rowland 1970, 303) 15. There are certain things to be done when an appraisal meeting takes place. The boss should avoid any thing of threatening attitude in his conduct of the appraisal interview. If he does not do this, his appraisal group will become nervous as appraisal time approaches and the work will suffer (Rowland, 1970, 210). Nobody wants to be called into the managers office to be yelled at or talked down to. This technique can be seen as a motivational tool but all it doesis destroy productivity because the entire employee thinks about is the appraisal meeting and what will be said during it. Rowland maintains that while conducting the meeting, the manager should avoid telling the employee that their performance needs improvement, Specific cases should be called to the attention of the appraise for they will help to make clear exactly what the appraisers meant by the statement they made but should not take the form of a harsh reprimand (Rowland,1970,273). The employment of performance appraisal for development purposes helps strengthen the employee-supervisor relationship where the supervisor is cast in the role of coach and adviser rather that of lord high executioner encourages teamwork and facilitates the development of good work behaviours (Daley,1992,48). 16 According to Cascio(1995,277) 17 the appraiser should be carefull and be unbiased while appraising on the performabce of others. The criterion used in the appraisal process is a big determinant of the validity of the appraisal process. If a manager is able to insert his/her bias into the appraisal then the validity decreases. "The more subjective the rating criteria the easier it is for the raters biases to enter into his/her evaluation"(fleenor Scontrino,1982, 70) 18. The appraisal system needs be as objective as possible to eliminate bias on the part of the supervisor. The courts have ruled on what exactly constitutes an objective performance appraisal. "Case law outlines six criteria for 15 Rowland, Virgil K. Evaluating and Improving Managerial Performance New York McGraw-Hill Publishers,1970 16 Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:39-51 17 Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources New York McGraw Hill, Inc 1995 18 Fleenor,C.P. and M.P.Scontrino. Performance Appraisal: A Manager Guide, Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company 1982 30
constructing objective performance appraisal system: job analysis, work behaviours, communications, training, documentation, and monitoring combine to guide the development of systems capable of appraising performance" (Daley,1992,49) 19. If an organization constructs an appraisal system that has at least these six objective criteria, the courts and the majority, if not all, the employees should consider the system a valid appraisal of productivity and performance. Analysis and discussion On the basis of the Best(1977) 20 measurement scale the following tables are being analysed. Table No. 1 Respondents awareness of performance appraisal system Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean SD Total agree Professor 07 03 00 00 00 4.7 3.08 10 Associate Prof 05 08 02 00 00 4.2 3.46 15 Asst Prof 02 04 08 04 02 3.0 2.44 20 Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.0 4.47 10 Office Staff 00 00 05 03 17 1.5 7.03 25 Total 14 15 25 17 09 3.1 5.83 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data 19 Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:49 20 Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.. 31
The table No.1 depicts that 100% (Mean 4.7) professors have agreed that they have the idea about the performance appraisal system of their institution. That 87% Associate Professors opined positively whereas 13% did not comment on the subject. The mean in case of associate professors are 4.2. In respect of Assistant Professors 30% expressed that they are having knowledge about performance appraisal system, whereas 40% did not comment and 30% have no knowledge about the existing of performance appraisal system. The mean in this respect is 3.0. With regard to the demonstrator, that all the demonstrators did not expressed whether they have the knowledge on the existing performance appraisal system of their institution or not. 80% Office staffs of the institutions opined negatively that they are not having any knowledge about the performance appraisal system of their institution and mean is 1.5 only. From the above it can be interpreted that the professors and associate professors are having very good information about the existing of the performance appraisal system. In case of Assistant Professors and Demonstrators it exhibits that they are having average awareness on the system. But Official staffs are not aware of the performance appraisal system. Table No.2 Respondents Satisfaction with Current Evaluation System Category Fully satisfied Satisfied Moderate Dissatisfied Fully dissatisfied Mean Total Professor 00 07 03 00 00 3.7 10 Associate 00 04 04 07 00 2.13 15 Prof Asst Prof 00 00 20 00 00 3.00 20 Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.00 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.00 25 Total 00 11 37 02 00 2.84 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data 32
Table No.2 exhibits that 70% professors, 26% associate professors have expressed their views positively whereas Assistant Professors, Demonstrators and office staffs they did not comment on the question. The mean in respect of Professor is 3.7 which seem to be good; in total the mean 2.84 indicates low degree of satisfaction. From the above it is clear that the present evaluation system is not beneficial to the respondents of the sample institutions. Table No.3Respondents Willing to Evaluate Superiors, Peers, and Subordinates Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 02 03 01 00 04 2.9 10 Associate Prof 03 02 00 00 10 1.9 15 Asst Prof 11 03 00 06 00 3.96 20 Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.00 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.00 25 Total 16 08 36 06 14 2.95 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data That the table No.3 shows only 50% (Mean 2.9), 33%(Mean 1.9) and 70%(Mean 3.96) Professors, Associate Professors and Assistant Professors in that order have agreed to evaluate superiors, peers and subordinates performance. The Demonstrator and Associate Officials did not opine on the matter. The mean in total is 2.95 reflects the average degree of acceptance. 33
Table No.4 Respondents willing to accept evaluation from Peers and Subordinates Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 00 06 00 00 04 2.8 10 Associate 05 02 00 00 08 2.73 15 Prof Asst Prof 08 05 00 07 00 3.7 20 Demonstrator 00 00 03 00 07 1.9 10 Office Staff 00 00 00 00 25 1.0 25 Total 13 11 03 07 44 1.88 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data The above table No.4 exposes that 60% (Mean 2.8), 46%(Mean 2.73), 70% (Mean 3.7) Professors, associate professors and assistant professors respectively opined their acceptance on the performance evaluation by their peers and subordinates. The demonstrators and Associate Officials opined reversely. In total the mean is 1.88 that reflects low degree of willingness in the matter. The above analysis shows that the non executives (Demonstrator and Associates) are not willing to accept the review of their performance by their peers and subordinates, whereas the executives they were accepting the system. The mean in respect of the executives is 3.07 which represent average degree of willingness. Table 5 360-Degree Evaluations Associated with performance Category Strongly agree Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total Professor 05 02 03 00 00 3.9 10 Associate 00 10 05 00 00 3.33 15 Prof Asst Prof 05 11 04 00 00 4.05 20 Demonstrator 00 00 08 02 00 2.8 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25 Total 10 23 45 02 00 3.41 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data Table No.5 indicates that 70 %( Mean 3.9) Professors are accepted the affect of performance on the evaluation of performance of superior, peer, and subordinates. 66% (Mean 3.33) Associate Professors 34
are opined in the same manner as professors. 80 %( Mean 4.05) Assistant Professors have accepted the impact of performance of the employees on the performance evaluation. Only 20% demonstrators are d the subject question. 100% associate officials did not opine on the matter. The total mean is 3.41 that indicate the good degree of acceptance by the respondents of sample institution regarding the impact of performance on evaluation. Table No.6 360-Degree Evaluations Associated With attitude/approach Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 06 00 00 04 00 3.8 10 Associate Prof 00 10 00 00 05 3.0 15 Asst Prof 00 00 12 06 02 2.5 20 Demonstrator 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25 Total 06 10 37 20 07 2.8 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data That 60% Respondent Professors agreed that attitude and approach is important to secured high degree. 75% Associate Professors accepted the views of respondent professors whereas 60% respondent assistant professors did not opined and 40% opined negatively. 100% respondent demonstrator opined negatively. From the above it seems that Respondents of Professors and Associate Professors accepting the impact of attitude and approach on employee feedback system whereas other just reverses their views. The total mean is 2.8 which are indicating average degree of acceptance in to. 35
Table No.7 360-Degree Evaluations Associated with guidance July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7 Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 10 00 00 00 00 5.0 10 Associate 08 05 02 00 00 4.4 15 Prof Asst Prof 00 10 10 00 00 3.0 20 Demonstrator 00 00 10 00 00 3.0 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25 Total 18 15 47 00 00 3.68 80 Sources: Compiled Primary data The perceptual views from the respondents regarding the influence of guidance on the performance of individuals are shown in table No.7. Out of 10 professors all have strongly agreed that accurate and timely guidance affects the feedback system of the employees. Whereas, 53% and 33% associate professors strongly agreed and agreed the views of the professors. 50% assistant professors supported the views of professor and associate professors. In respect of demonstrator and associate officials did not opine on the matter. The overall mean score in the matter is 3.68 which seem to be good degree of acceptance that proper and timely guidance to the needy have much important while measuring the performance by adopting 360-degree performance appraisal system. Table No. 8 360-Degree Evaluation associated with decision making Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 05 03 02 00 00 4.1 10 Associate 15 00 00 00 00 5.0 15 Prof Asst Prof 12 05 03 00 00 4.45 20 Demonstrator 00 07 03 00 00 3.7 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25 Total 32 15 33 00 00 4.05 80 Sources: Compiled Primary data 36
The above table exhibits the perpetual views of the respondents how the decision making capability of employees associate with, for measuring the performance through 360-degree appraisal system. 80% (Mean 4.1) professors accepted the importance decision making ability of an employee. 100% (Mean 5.0) Associate Professors strongly agreed and in respect of Assistant Professors 60% strongly supported and 25% supported the views of professors. 70% (Mean 3.7) demonstrator accepted the reality of decision making ability. The overall mean (4.05) on the perpetual views indicates the good degree of acceptance of respondents the employees performance measurement which inter alia mostly linked with the decision making ability at the needy moment. Table No.9. 360-Degree Evaluation associated with Cooperation Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 02 06 02 00 00 4.0 10 Associate 05 03 07 00 00 3.4 15 Prof Asst Prof 00 00 20 00 00 3.0 20 Demonstrator 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25 Total 07 09 54 10 00 3.8 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data The table No.9 exposes the importance of cooperation with each other inside and outside the workplace. That 80% (Mean 4.0), 53% (Mean 3.4) Professor and Associate Professors respectively accepted that 360-degree evaluation is associated with cooperation among the employees. Whereas Assistant Professors and Associate Officials did not opine on the subject, but 100% demonstrators presented their views negatively. The overall mean score is 3.8 i.e. degree of acceptance is good with regard to the cooperation is concerned in and out of the institution. 37
Table No.10 360-Degree Evaluation associated with sociability July 2013, Volume: 1 Issue: 7 Category Strongly Agree Moderate Disagree Strongly Mean Total agree Professor 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10 Associate Prof 06 00 00 09 00 3.06 15 Asst Prof 00 08 10 02 00 3.3 20 Demonstrator 00 00 00 10 00 2.0 10 Office Staff 00 00 25 00 00 3.0 25 Total 06 08 35 31 00 2.67 80 Sources : Compiled Primary data With regard to the sociability and its association with 360 degree evaluation in an institution the perpetual views of the respondents are shown in the table No. 10. 100% professors opined reversely on the matter. Whereas, out of 15 only 40% Associate Professors have opined positively and 60% did not accept the formals view. 100% demonstrator viewed negatively and associate officials did not comment on the matter. The overall mean score is 2.67 i.e. average degree of acceptance. From the above it can be perpetuate that in all the times scalability is not considered as the major factor for measuring the performance of an employee. Findings Senior Officials are having full knowledge about the performance appraisal system. The traditional evaluation is not so beneficial to the employees. Senior Officials are expressed their willingness to evaluate Superiors, Peers, and Subordinates as well as from peers and subordinates All have agreed that 360-degree performance measurement is well associated with the performance, decision making, guidance and cooperation. Junior Officials did not agree that the approach and attitude of the employees associated with the Performance appraisal. 38
Limitation of the study Despite the maximum efforts, that has been made by the researcher to make the study a perfect one, in overcoming difficulties, which were experienced during investigation. The respondents who were busy in their official matters were neither easily available nor even prepared to spare time for answering the questionnaires. It became too much time consuming and the research was delayed. Some executives were also hesitant to give their frank opinion on different aspects with an apprehension of difficulties like victimization in future. However, most of them were cooperative and encouraging for whom the study was completed. A sincere attempt was made to put forth the facts relating to the topic in detail. But this is not the end by itself. Being a vast subject and due to its changing perspectives no study can be considered as complete by itself. The researcher expects further researches on the topic to reveal more facts and to help developing new ideas on 360-degree performance appraisal system with more practical and feasible direction. Conclusion The 360- degree feedback system can be very sensitive in nature. A person not well prepared for it could be thrown out of balance. It can also create some new issues in an organisation. If not designed and conducted well, it possess the potential danger of a candidate developing wrong perceptions or notions about one or more of his assessors and developing new attitudes towards them. It is therefore, necessary and important to manage the process well and make it fool proof. The first important step is to determine whether the organisation is ready for it or not. The second important step is to determine if the candidate is ready for it. Even if, it is the opinion that for growth and development of personnel and the department will be more probable with the adoption of 360-degree feedback performance appraisal system. More so, the implementation of 360-degree performance appraisal systems in the educational institution is very much essential. It will help the students as well as the employees for their internal and external development and growth by knowing their lacuna. It can help the management to arrange need 39
based development training programmes for their employees at the emergency changing environmental situation. It will enhance the skill of individuals in all aspects. 360-degree is the newest alternative for performance appraisals measurement system. Feedback is almost always a sensitive subject. People are often cautious, sometimes fearful, and occasionally emotional about it. A good facilitator or administrator recognizes and appreciates the sensitive nature surrounding 360 degree feedback and takes serious steps to insure the integrity of the process and support of the individual. Once the process has been breached by any of the above actions, it will be difficult to recover. Spend the time upfront doing the home work necessary to make the process successful. The results will be more than worth it. Whatever it may be while writing something as an appraiser, the person concern should take into consideration the following five components that must be present in any performance appraisal system are: (a) Relevance (b) Sensitivity (c) Reliability (d) Acceptability and (e) Practicality. Rele va nc e refers to a correspondence between the elements identified as critical to job performance and performance standards. Sensitivity refers to the extent to which the appraisal instrument can distinguish between good performance and poor performance. Reliable instruments result in similar scores. Acceptability is the under similar conditions extent to which the process is accepted by supervisors and employees. Finally, practicality means that the instrument can be used and understood by both management and employees. Suggestions If 360-degree feedback is implemented, the following is very essential for its success. 1. The appraisee and appraisers should have comprehensive knowledge of 360-degree feedbacks or organization has to make understandable by providing specific trainings. 2. All raters are assured anonymity. 3. The ratings to be kept confidential. 4. The evaluation should be fairly short. 40
5. Should be able to be completed within an hour 6. There should be a minimum of three evaluators. 7. The evaluation program to be evaluated periodically. 8. Modifications are essential according to the requirement. Reference 1. London M.& Beatty, R.W.(1993), 360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage, Human Resource Management,Vol.32,pp.352-373 2. London, Manuel and Richard W.Beatty, "360-Degree Feedback as a Competitive Advantage"-Human Resource Management 32(2&3) 1993 3. Bracken,D.W.Dalton, M.A.Jake, R.A.McClauley, C.D.Pollman, V.A, and Hollenbeck, G.P.(1997) Should 360-degree feedback be used only for developmental purposes? Greensboro, North Carolina: Center For Creative Leadership 4. Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources, New York: McGraw-Hill,1995.. 5. Tornow,W.W.(1993a), Editor snote:introductiontospecialissueon360- DegreeFeedback,Human ResourceManagement,Vol.32,pp.211-219. 6. Kaplan, R. E., and Palus, C. J.,(1994).Enhancing360-DegreeFeedbackforSenior Executives. Greensboro, North Carolina: Center for Creative Leadership. 7. Hegarty,W.H.(1974), UsingSubordinateRatingstoElicitBehaviouralChangesin Managers,Journal of AppliedPsychology.Vol.59,pp.764-766. 8. Mc.Evoy,G.M.&Buller,P.F.(1987), UserAcceptanceofPeerAppraisalsinanIndustrialSetti ng, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.40,pp.785-797 9. Atwater,L.Roush,P.,&Fischtal,A.(1995), TheInfluenceofUpwardFeedbackonSelfandFoll ower RatingsofLeadership,PersonalPsychology,Vol.48,pp.35-59. 41
10. Smither,J.W., London,M., Vasilopoulos,N.L.,Reilly,R.R.,Millsap,R. E.,& Salvemini,N. (1995), AnExaminationoftheEffectsofanUpwardFeedbackProgramOvertime,Personnel Psychology,Vol.48, pp.1-34 11. Johnson,J.F.,&Ferstl,K.L. TheEffectsofInter-RaterandSelf- OtherAgreementonPerformance Improvement Following Upward Feedback, PersonnelPsychology,Vol.52,pp.271-303. 12. WalkerA.G.&Smither,J.W.(1999), A Five Year Study of Upward Feedback: What Managers do with their Results Matter, Personnel Psychology,Vol.52,pp.393-423. 13. Bose,Manab(2003) 360-Degree feedback as an Intervention, in T.V.Rao and Raju Rao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback & Performance Management System, NewDelhi: ExcelBooks.PP65-75. 14. Wakhlu, Anu (2003), Leadership Development using 360-Degree Feedback Process - The Pragati Approach, in T.V.Raoand RajuRao(Eds.),360-Degree Feedback and Performance Management System, NewDelhi:ExcelBooks,pp.58-64. 15. Rowland, Virgil K. Evaluating and Improving Managerial Performance New York McGraw-Hill Publishers,1970 16. Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:39-51 17. Cascio, Wayne F. Managing Human Resources New York McGraw Hill, Inc 1995 18. Fleenor,C.P. and M.P.Scontrino. Performance Appraisal: A Manager Guide, Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company 1982 19. Daley, Dennis M "Pay for Performance, Performance Appraisal, and Total Quality Management" Public Productivity and Management Review 18(I) 1992:49 20. Best, J. W. (1977). Research in Education. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. 42