Patterns in 360-Degree Feedback (Part 2)

Last time I reported on a survey that detailed the use of 360 for strategic purposes and how organizations use consultants and external vendors to set up their projects. This time, there’s more. 

The survey, produced by 360 Group, followed data gathered since 2002.It covered 100 organizations of all sizes, operating mainly in the continental US, although many had employees overseas. 

Here’s a chance to compare your procedures with those organizations. 

Questionnaires

Less than 20% of organizations use “off the shelf” questionnaires, the rest preferring custom-built assessments that reflect their organization’s unique mission, values, and procedures.  

As well as supporting the individual’s development, many recognize an important second role for 360 questionnaires; they send powerful messages about the skills required to align oneself with the organization’s business strategy. 

The number of questions per questionnaire is decreasing over time. Currently, 53% are using more than 40 questions. But there’s a growing recognition that overly long questionnaires can lead to responder fatigue, especially for those who have to assess several Subjects. 

By far the most popular numeric scale for questions is 1 to 5.  

Open-ended or narrative comments are collected by all organizations surveyed, and many of them provide more than one comment opportunity in their questionnaires. 

Just under half of the organizations use identical questionnaires for all Subjects. Another 40% use different questionnaires that reflect the Subject’s level in the organization. On the other hand, very few vary the questionnaire depending on the Subject’s job, probably because every job raises significantly different issues than every other one. 

Reports

The final reports for individuals increasingly include an analysis of areas where Subjects rated themselves higher than Responders did. Sixty-three per cent of the organizations surveyed use so-called “blind spot” analysis to help Subjects become more self-aware. 

Although 58% said they do not name the Responders to an individual’s report, that number is decreasing. There’s a growing awareness that knowing who assessed them, helps Subjects accept the credibility of their feedback. 

The majority of organizations said they require at least 3 responses in each responder category before reporting averages, since having only 1 or 2 would make it easy for Subjects to guess who said what. 

Three quarters of the organizations provide coaches (either external or in-house) to Subjects. Many involve the Subjects’ managers in action planning, recognizing that on their own, Subjects may be tempted to simply read, then shelve, their reports. 

Where does your organization stand in relationship to these practices?