Talk:360-degree feedback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hi

I'm a novince in the field of management. The 360 degree method of appraisal is of interest to me..Id like to know more, as in the evolution and history, success and failure reports etc...If someone has all these details, do contact me at linutaura@epatra.com.

regards lindsie

Okay: it sucks. Take it from a long-time IBMer. It started in about the mid-1980s and began to die about 2000 because of its ineffectiveness and morale-lowering difficulty. It creates a lot of paperwork and doesn’t yield much insight that the employee can’t get from his manager. Peers rate each other too generously and subordinates are afraid to criticize their superiors. Plus, how many people do you need to tell you that you should be more proactive in managing risk and look for ways to expand your skill set? However, in a modified form (such as infrequent subordinate evaluations of their managers), it may remain useful. --Tysto 04:33, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

>>> Perhaps you should channel your energy into mastering the English language.

360 Feedback for managers is alive and well as a developmental tool. It is used very infrequently by most progressive organizations as an "evaluation" method. Entering my 30th year as a leadership consultant I can testify to its value in coaching and developing folks whose perceptions of their own behavior is not borne out by survey feedback from their peers or work teams. Questions should be based upon core capabilities / competencies determined critical to a climate of leadership in your organization. Les Wallace, SignatureResources.com

360 degree feedback and 360 degree review are usually different processes. Most legitimate providers of 360 degree feedback only use their tools for feedback and coaching purposes. Once a 360 degree tool is used for a performance review, you tend to get skewed results. Reports and Peers give the leader higher scores because they know their performance bonus is on the line. When it is truly anonymous feedback, that is only used for constructive feedback and coaching, you tend to get more honest results. --Tkuhne 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC) boothco.com

360 degree feedback refers to the process of gathering 360 degree feedback. 360 degree review refers to the use of 360 degree feedback... for review. As a process, they are identical, and their articles should be merged and relationship clarified within that one article to explain that difference. The common advice against the use of 360 degree feedback for review should be highlighted as well. Also, please do not advertise your company on the main page of this article. This is an encyclopedia, not free ad space. richdiesal 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As a practitioner in this field for over 20 years and editor/author of The Handbook of MultiSource Feedback, I strongly disagree with the statement that 360 cannot succeed as a tool for decision making. Many organizations have and continue to use 360 for decision making, including not only appraisal but also succession planning, high potential selection/development, staffing, and leadership development. The fact is that 360 data, generated under the right conditions (including things like rater training), provides information that is more valid and fair than that created by traditional sources (i.e., supervisor evaluations). Yes, it can be misused and abused, which is true for any tool/process. And it is difficult to do well and to sustain it. But it is overly dogmatic to dismiss it as useful only for development. In fact, purely "development only" systems are quite rare and are, in my experience, not worth the investment. David W. Bracken, Ph.D. Iopsychguy 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

This article seems unbalanced. In places it reads like promotional material for 360 degree feedback. Where is the criticism? --203.97.202.236 (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read it again, this whole article feels like an advertisement put together by people selling online 360 degree feedback tools.

An example of criticism can be found in the 1999 Watson Wyatt Human Capital Index: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/featured/hci.asp - "potentially draining shareholder value by as much as 14.5 to 33.9% for practices such as developmental training for career advancement, 360-degree feedback programs and using HR technology for softer goals such as improved culture and/or communication." --203.97.202.236 (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now twice removed an external link in the body to a Google search about online 360-degree services. My first reason is that Wikipedia forbids external links in the body of articles (they can only appear in an External Links section at the end). Secondly, a Google search link is a totally inappropriate thing to link to from Wikipedia because the information returned varies depending on when you search. Besides, most users are entirely capable of doing a Google search themselves. So this link wouldn't even be suitable in External Links. Finally, it's clear that the main reason for such a link is advertising (by someone who considers their product well-ranked in Google) - please note that Wikipedia does not allow advertising (see WP:ADS). Please do not add this again, as it clearly violates several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I've also removed the superlative phrase "Then came the Internet!" which reads like over-excited advertising copy, not like an encyclopedia. We can discuss these edits here if you wish, but please don't start an edit-war over something so clear-cut. --203.97.202.236 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How many of those references are actually mentioned or used as source material for the article, and how many are just listed to advertise them? For instance, a reference was just added but the article was not changed. See WP:REF, general references are for listing "books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article", not for providing a general reading list. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)